Unfortunately yes. Because of certain controversies and actual scams done by, "renewable energy" companies they've slowed support by loads. Even though the data is still very much solid.
Plus, the fossil fuel companies are doing their own part to tip the scales in their favor. There's a lot of people who can be swayed with enough "donations"
@reju this is not a Republican vs Democrat thing. That is a lie pushed by the leftists. There are plenty of Republicans who buy it, and plenty of Democrats who don't. They don't get much publicity though.
Probably because they endorse a goal which isn't part of their party's platform. At the moment, the Republican platform supports coal as a clean energy source.
People still use cars and trucks because they have no choice. They don't have the money for something cleaner, because there is no public transport, and because they are too integrated. Besides, what use is changing one person when there are millions more who won't? Clean energy is more important and more attainable than cleaner cars at the moment.
Interesting that a bear on a floating piece of ice somehow proves that there's less ice, or that it's caused by man, and it's not just a loose piece of ice.
Ice is at record levels at both poles, ice chunks are always breaking off of perfectly healthy icebergs/glaciers/sheets, and polar bears frequently climb aboard these small blocks to take a break from swimming.
Yes and no. Ice because of melting layers has spread farther but also thinner. Besides for that, the past two years have been some of the hottest on record and ever since the 1890's the average global temperature has raised steadily. As for the polar bears, I have no idea.
There has been no actual warming recorded for more than 15 years.
And as for the ice; doesn't water freeze from the top down? So let's accept the premise of warning, just for the purpose of this conversation. If the world has been warming since the eighties (remember, before the early eighties we were told the world was cooling and we would all freeze) and the ice has been melting, then record "new" ice is a good thing and a sign everything's turning around. If we were still getting hotter and the thick, old ice were melting, there could certainly not be new, thin, easily melted ice.
As to the polar bears, the famous picture of the poor polar bear floating on the itty bitty chunk of ice that was used for so long by algore and others as evidence there is no ice left was proven a hoax long ago. There were hundreds of miles of perfectly fine ice behind the cameraman, and the bear was just chillin.
Are you serious? The global temperature is going up! small spikes in data are expected, if you knew anything about global climate, and that's why it hasnt gotten warmer in 15 years. It's hard to explain in words, but look up a graph of global temperature. It is going up, although the last 15 years have been a slight flatline. 15 years is NOTHING compared to the warming data we have.
I know at least as much as you do, since I'll bet both my nuts you are no scientist and are simply regurgitating the bullshit you've been fed.
There. Is. No. Evidence. Of. Warming. All this hype is based solely on computer models of what they THINK happened before records were kept, and what they THINK might happen in the next hundred years. If you pay attention it has been reported several times that several climatologists have been caught manipulating data; the worst of which was at the University of East Anglia where emails were discovered detailing the plans to "doctor" the evidence. Furthermore, not one single computer model has included the effects of the sun and it's cycles.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/amp/
Regardless of the warming, we also have to acknowledge that the ocean is also becoming acidic. The ocean is one of our most important carbon sinks. It's where most of it is taken from the atmosphere. But in doing so, it creates carbonic acid, making the water slightly more acidic. Even small changes in acidity can have vast effects on ecosystems, such as the mass bleaching of important coral. Unlike the global temperature, this acidification hasn't seemed to have flatlined.
Yes there is no denying pollution by anyone on either side of the climate issue, and the pollution is quantifiable, visible, and an immediate concern without models and forecasts. Much of our world is really quite toxic, and that is where we need to be focusing our energies.
Of course, there isn't much money to be made on cleanup, so scaring the pants off of people about the future will continue.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. Stopping ocean acidification also means lowering CO2 levels. And imagine the loss of money from not cleaning it up. We're essentially creating a debt that we'll have to pay back eventually.
My point was solar cycles. There are a small few climatologists who try to account for the sun. The "major players" in climategate discount solar activity, and as far as I've been able to find not one of the handful of computer models that they base their apocalyptic predictions upon factors the sun.
I should think that the simple fact that not a single prediction has come true in the past 40 years of climate doom and gloom would be enough to make people ask questions, but...
Another point is the nomenclature. First (after they claimed we were going to experience global COOLING) they claimed we were going to all either roast to death or drown from global warming. Now, since the fact that the earth's average temperature gas remained steady for more than a decade, they have started using the term "climate change". Have you not even wondered? Or perhaps you are too young to remember a time before they called it climate change.
The fact is that climate change is quite real, and quite verifiable. It's why most of Europe finally warmed enough for habitation, and why many of the megafauna died out. The earth's climate does change; nothing in nature is static. However, humans had nothing to do with any of the previous changes, and nothing we can do will stop any future changes.
Science is not an unchanging thing. We change the name of things when we believe something will suit it better. There's too many variables to really be certain about anything. Sure, ice caps melt, but what happens to the meltwater after? How will the freshwater affect global currents? How will these currents affect our climate? What about increased evaporation? The fact is that I wouldn't be so secure in thinking that we don't have a hand in this mess of a butterfly effect.
So you're not even the least bit curious about all the conflicting research or the scandals? Or the fact that all this has happened over and over in the past however many millions of years, without human intervention? No doubt or curiosity at all?
There's curiosity, but I also know that there's always conflicting research. When it comes to a broad topic such as this, there tends to be much debate. That is how science works. They debate and produce new findings in order to come up with a cohesive statement. But there are still questions to be raised, and I would hesitate to call our current situation something that has happened before.
1 pollution.
2 the sea levels are not rising.
Isolated incidents on remote islands are due more to land sinking. There is no measurable rise at any mainland point. This is a case of falsifying data (ie outright lying by researchers) or, at best, confirmation bias.
The Arctic and Antarctic still have ice - record ice in fact. It is not melting away and flooding our coastal cities.
In fact just a couple years ago a bunch of tree huggers went to Antarctica to film the "disappearing ice" and got stuck in all the ice that wasn't supposed to be there.
Really? I thought you folks were all about the world being polluted.
And exactly HOW does heat do it? I've boiled water before and never had a pH issue.
It's not the heat, or at least not the heat alone. It's the same CO2 emissions that are said to cause climate change. If you had read my initial post, you'd know.
There's just too much that doesn't add up. I don't take anything at face value, and I don't buy what anyone says on either side, especially in politics, without checking.
And this issue is nothing but politics, and there are too many questions that the scare mongers refuse to answer. If it rains it's global warming. If it's dry it's global warming. If it's not it's global warming. If it's hot it's global warming. If it's cold it's global warming. According to the liberals EVERY weather phenomenon is due to global warming. Impossible. Who caused the ice ages in the past? Who caused the warming tgat ended the ice ages in the past?
What? What are you even saying? We're talking about the science. Not any taxes or whatever. Most climate deniers get their studies from... You guessed it! OIL COMPANIES! Now is it just me, or does that seem a little fishy? Maybe... Just maybe... The oil companies are using flawed data to sell more oil? Just maybe? Also, you said that there's too much that doesnt add up? Like what?
Also, are you denying that carbon traps heat? That's a universally accepted fact. Therefore, increased levels of carbon causes more heat. Btw, we know this is true, because historically, when carbon levels have risen, the heat has also risen.
There is no proof of "the greenhouse effect". It was a hypothesis back in the 70s and has never been fully proven. At best there may be an effect, but it has been exaggerated.
And yes we are talking about taxes and money money money. Are you freakin kidding me? Have you really never heard of carbon taxes or "cap and trade"? The so-called scientists get grants thrown at them and live pretty comfortably, and the politicians get tax increases. Just how poor do you think Al Gore is from going this myth?
This is about nothing but money and power.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
Yeah it is about money. The studies supposedly "debunking" climate change are usually either funded by oil companies or just not reliable sources in general.
All evidence currently found suggests there is a global warming pattern. LOOK UP A GRAPH OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE... Seriously are you kidding me? One quick google search proves that the Earth is warming at a consistant rate. If you want to doubt science, fine. Go ahead, but dont try to prove you're right. You will also notice that Carbon causes this, because the temperature starts to increase rapidly after 1850
Ignorance is bliss right?
"I" have never said "I" was anything. "I" have done no studies, and "I" have run no computer models. "Scientists", however have, and there is no agreement across the scientific community regardless what the politicians may say.
Tell me something, honestly. Just why do you want to believe the worst? Why do you buy the doom and gloom but refuse to even consider that things may not be as bad as you were told? U really can't understand why you WANT the world to be circling the drain, and why you get pissed when someone says things aren't so bad. By "you", I mean your mindset; your generation; the people who believe like you.
Before you get pissy, I'm honestly asking just why is it so easy for you to believe the bad, but you can't believe the good?
It's because believing the good like a bunch of little sheep never gets us anywhere. If we stay optimistic, the world will be ripped right from our smiling faces. It's not about what's good and easy. It's about what's right. There's not quite an agreement, but we're fairly sure we're doing something to fuck ourselves over. It's just not entirely certain how fucked we are.
You said it yourself. Ignorance is bliss. You have abandoned all scientific arguments, and are now asking me why I am a pessimist for believing in the facts. Also, I don't WANT the world to circle the drain. I WANT politicians to fund more renewable energy (whether you believe in climate change or not, oil is non-renewable,) give tax credits for wind industry, and fund more research on renewable energy.
No there is a vast difference between science and politics.
You still missed my question. Who gets to say what data are "facts" and what are not? I'd venture to guess that you are not a climatologist. I doubt that you have personally sampled ice cores, sea water, rocks, or whatever else the claims may be based upon. Therefore, you are taking someone's word for it. My question, I think, is simple: Why do you readily accept claim "A" as gospel truth, and instantly dismiss claim "B" as conspiracy theory bullshit? You do not personally know one set of "facts" from another, so why do you so fervently believe one side, and so vehemently oppose the other?
Again, I am honestly asking. It is obvious that there is no evidence capable of shaking your faith, so I'm simply trying to satisfy my own curiosity.
The above questions are directed at @borutouzumakix only because we have been having this exchange. If anyone else would like to answer too, I would be glad for your input. As I said this is an honest question, and I am not intending to denigrate anyone. I am personally curious, but I am also looking for data for a thesis paper.
I used to actually not believe in global warming and I got in a debate with someone who proved me wrong. So, no, it's not that I'm unwilling to believe in it. It's just that the theories I believe in come from more reliable sources, and make more sense (imo), than the ones that yours come from. Also, you still haven't said why the Earth's temperature is increasing at rates we've never seen before, and why thay rate rapidly increased after the industrial revolution.
As I said I haven't personally conducted any research, but I have seen at least as much "evidence" that it hasn't as evidence that it has. If you think about it logically, if it is a scam to accrue power and/or money then wouldn't those perpetrating the scam produce falsified evidence?
For one, records were not kept at the tine of the industrial revolution, so we are relying on someone's interpretation of whatever historical or geological records they can find.
So you say you were persuaded after you were old enough to be able to make up your own mind? That is different than most who were simply indoctrinated from kindergarten. I thank you for your honesty.
Do you not trust the geological records? If you really don't, let me explain it. Using Pottasium Argon dating, we can pinpoint almost exactly when an Organism lived, and this works for up to 200000 years. Then, by analyzing oxygen in that organism, we can identify the temperature during said time period. That's how we figured out about the Ice age. We've collected data using the aforementioned method to figure out past temperatures. There is a warming trend that's been going on and it's been correlated with carbon levels. Also, global warming was discovered by people who don't care about money. It has been "disproved" by people who DO.
"the geological records" do not speak, so any info to be gathered from them is open to interpretation.
And just what people are the people who don't care about money? Even if the scientists (who said initially that we were all going to die in an ice age, by the way) that first discovered it were just sciencing, the billions (if not trillions) of dollars that have been thrown at researchers in the last 40 years might tend to give some of them an ulterior motive, don't you think? If they suddenly said "Oops, looks like we're all going to live after all, sorry to scare you" that money would dry up faster than my sex life after my marriage. Even if we take it as fact, shouldn't we sooner or later either see some improvements or discover there's nothing we can do? It's been 40-plus years for crying out loud.
Nobody said anything about the world dying or heating up to astronomical records... It's just going back to pre-historic temperatures which means a mostly tropical climate and some more intense weather patterns. And you are right there's nothing we can do to stop it, but we can definitely slow it down.
Ah but they have. Back in the 70s we were told the earth was going to get too cold for life, at least on most of the planet. In the early eighties they changed to the world getting too hot, and water and crops drying up, causing us to die out. Starting around 1980 or so we were told life would pretty much be gone in ten years unless we did "something". We were told "ten years" over and over for about 30 years, and we seem to still be here as far as I can tell.
Not a single prediction has come true, and I see these scientists and advocates like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio getting richer and richer, and flying everywhere or driving their gas guzzling, carbon spewing, polar bear killing SUVs and luxo cars while telling us we have to take the bus. I'm just saying all this makes me question.
What? I'm saying that the Earth's temperature HAS in fact slightly dipped recently. That's why scientista thought we were in a cooling trend. Then, they looked at the data, and realized we were in a warming trend. The graph is not going to be a straight line. It is fully expected to have fluctuations.
Look man you want to be pissed off at big rich people for not following up on their word i'd agree. (Altho Leo Dicaprio is an avid fan of tesla and fisker both of which are famous for tiny carbon footprint) It's also important to point out the thousands of scientists working for nasa constantly monitoring and trying to figure out how the world works. To say that climate change is a definite would be obtuse and small minded, but the same can be said for the latter. Just because there are sick people taking advantage of a very real situation doesnt make the problem illegitimate, it just shows who the assholes are. Also aside from just warming temperatures theres also a side effect of a rising sea level. I would look at nasa's charts as well as local stories from along low lying areas such as miami florida which had to spend several billion in infrastructure to stop flooding or New Orleans which has a large population living under sea level. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
I don't ignore everything that's going on. I'm of the belief, due to the studying that I have done, that either any effects of human activity on the global climate system are exaggerated, or there are no effects at all. That there is such a thing as climate change, I absolutely agree; however, the global climate has always had natural cycles and I know damn well our caveman forebears were not burning fossil fuels when their climate changed around them. If it's happened before, multiple times and without human intervention, I hardly see any reason to believe suddenly it's suddenly due to us.
Yes, the climate has changed before, but never as quickly as it is changing now. Also, you keep saying that there is conflicting evidence, but have failed to name one reason.
Always an excuse. My point is not what they eventually used to explain it away; my point is that they were so damn positive we were headed for an ice age and they claimed the evidence was irrefutable and we just HAD TO DO SOMETHING right away or we were all going to die. Same as they say now, and gave for nearly 40 years. Last time I looked we were all still alive and doing just fine.
Funny how every time they change their tune about something the excuse is always the "science changes with the facts", but they always claim there facts are beyond doubt. Until they decide to change them again.
And as for the ice; doesn't water freeze from the top down? So let's accept the premise of warning, just for the purpose of this conversation. If the world has been warming since the eighties (remember, before the early eighties we were told the world was cooling and we would all freeze) and the ice has been melting, then record "new" ice is a good thing and a sign everything's turning around. If we were still getting hotter and the thick, old ice were melting, there could certainly not be new, thin, easily melted ice.
There. Is. No. Evidence. Of. Warming. All this hype is based solely on computer models of what they THINK happened before records were kept, and what they THINK might happen in the next hundred years. If you pay attention it has been reported several times that several climatologists have been caught manipulating data; the worst of which was at the University of East Anglia where emails were discovered detailing the plans to "doctor" the evidence. Furthermore, not one single computer model has included the effects of the sun and it's cycles.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/amp/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/effect-of-sun-on-climate-faq.html#.V70BGcspBAg
Of course, there isn't much money to be made on cleanup, so scaring the pants off of people about the future will continue.
One of your articles still suggests a change is underway. I recommend that you read them more closely and look for meanings you may not of seen at first.
I should think that the simple fact that not a single prediction has come true in the past 40 years of climate doom and gloom would be enough to make people ask questions, but...
The fact is that climate change is quite real, and quite verifiable. It's why most of Europe finally warmed enough for habitation, and why many of the megafauna died out. The earth's climate does change; nothing in nature is static. However, humans had nothing to do with any of the previous changes, and nothing we can do will stop any future changes.
Oh and by the way:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/causing-less-harm-by-doing-nothing-on-climate-chan/
2 the sea levels are not rising.
Isolated incidents on remote islands are due more to land sinking. There is no measurable rise at any mainland point. This is a case of falsifying data (ie outright lying by researchers) or, at best, confirmation bias.
The Arctic and Antarctic still have ice - record ice in fact. It is not melting away and flooding our coastal cities.
In fact just a couple years ago a bunch of tree huggers went to Antarctica to film the "disappearing ice" and got stuck in all the ice that wasn't supposed to be there.
And exactly HOW does heat do it? I've boiled water before and never had a pH issue.
And this issue is nothing but politics, and there are too many questions that the scare mongers refuse to answer. If it rains it's global warming. If it's dry it's global warming. If it's not it's global warming. If it's hot it's global warming. If it's cold it's global warming. According to the liberals EVERY weather phenomenon is due to global warming. Impossible. Who caused the ice ages in the past? Who caused the warming tgat ended the ice ages in the past?
And yes we are talking about taxes and money money money. Are you freakin kidding me? Have you really never heard of carbon taxes or "cap and trade"? The so-called scientists get grants thrown at them and live pretty comfortably, and the politicians get tax increases. Just how poor do you think Al Gore is from going this myth?
This is about nothing but money and power.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
"I" have never said "I" was anything. "I" have done no studies, and "I" have run no computer models. "Scientists", however have, and there is no agreement across the scientific community regardless what the politicians may say.
Tell me something, honestly. Just why do you want to believe the worst? Why do you buy the doom and gloom but refuse to even consider that things may not be as bad as you were told? U really can't understand why you WANT the world to be circling the drain, and why you get pissed when someone says things aren't so bad. By "you", I mean your mindset; your generation; the people who believe like you.
Before you get pissy, I'm honestly asking just why is it so easy for you to believe the bad, but you can't believe the good?
You still missed my question. Who gets to say what data are "facts" and what are not? I'd venture to guess that you are not a climatologist. I doubt that you have personally sampled ice cores, sea water, rocks, or whatever else the claims may be based upon. Therefore, you are taking someone's word for it. My question, I think, is simple: Why do you readily accept claim "A" as gospel truth, and instantly dismiss claim "B" as conspiracy theory bullshit? You do not personally know one set of "facts" from another, so why do you so fervently believe one side, and so vehemently oppose the other?
Again, I am honestly asking. It is obvious that there is no evidence capable of shaking your faith, so I'm simply trying to satisfy my own curiosity.
For one, records were not kept at the tine of the industrial revolution, so we are relying on someone's interpretation of whatever historical or geological records they can find.
So you say you were persuaded after you were old enough to be able to make up your own mind? That is different than most who were simply indoctrinated from kindergarten. I thank you for your honesty.
And just what people are the people who don't care about money? Even if the scientists (who said initially that we were all going to die in an ice age, by the way) that first discovered it were just sciencing, the billions (if not trillions) of dollars that have been thrown at researchers in the last 40 years might tend to give some of them an ulterior motive, don't you think? If they suddenly said "Oops, looks like we're all going to live after all, sorry to scare you" that money would dry up faster than my sex life after my marriage. Even if we take it as fact, shouldn't we sooner or later either see some improvements or discover there's nothing we can do? It's been 40-plus years for crying out loud.
Not a single prediction has come true, and I see these scientists and advocates like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio getting richer and richer, and flying everywhere or driving their gas guzzling, carbon spewing, polar bear killing SUVs and luxo cars while telling us we have to take the bus. I'm just saying all this makes me question.
Funny how every time they change their tune about something the excuse is always the "science changes with the facts", but they always claim there facts are beyond doubt. Until they decide to change them again.