Half Moon Bay Review
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

Some Are Beginning To See The Light

Are they beginning to see the light?

"Last month, six major oil and gas companies based in Europe, including BP and Royal Dutch Shell, wrote a letter officially endorsing an international price on carbon. “Climate change is a critical challenge for our world,” they declared. “The challenge is how to meet greater energy demand with less [carbon dioxide]. We stand ready to play our part.” In the short term, these companies stand to benefit from carbon pricing, which would shift demand away from coal. But even if their position is partially self-serving, it’s an important declaration, and one that deeply undercuts the climate change deniers’ arguments. Even oil companies, we can now say, believe climate change is real — and admit it’s something they are causing.

While Exxon Mobil did not sign the letter, its stance has also evolved. For years, the company poured millions of dollars into organizations promoting climate change denial. However, in a report to shareholders last year, an Exxon Mobil vice president said , “The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action.” To that end, Exxon Mobil has expressed support for a carbon tax"

"The pressure, it appears, will come from more than marchers, too. Earlier this month, North Carolina businessman Jay Faison, a major Republican donor, announced that he would spend $175 million to encourage his party to embrace climate change as a crisis in need of action. His new organization, ClearPath, endorses a carbon tax that would use the revenues to reduce other taxes. Likewise, Jerry Taylor, president of the libertarian Niskanen Center and a former skeptic of climate change, released a paper in March titled “The Conservative Case for a Carbon Tax.” Web Link

Now if the Republican Presidential candidates would see the light we could see real progress.


Now if the Republican Presidential candidates would see the light we could see real progress.

Congress seeing the light would be even better.

"Congress seeing the light would be even better." Ah, yes...Congress. The only light Congress has seen in the last seven years has been the headlight of that oncoming train and subsequent train wreck called elections and re-elections. They have been completely blind to our issues, our troubles and our needs as a nation - the greatest nation on Earth, despite their counter-productive behavior. I wouldn't give 10 cents for the lot of them. They have stood by and watched the severe troubles we have had since the meltdown and have been so busy blaming everyone else that they have not taken Any proactive actions to help - to do their jobs. A truly pathetic bunch, all of them.

As to the republican Presidential candidates: for the first time in my life that I can recall, I have never seen such a field of losers, each seemingly doing their level best to beat the rest to the cellar. Never seen anything like it, and the only reason or conclusion I can muster is that their isn't a leader in the bunch. They are equal to Congress in being pathetic ... yet one of them may actually become President. How's that for a horror movie? Hitchcock couldn't even have come up with that type fear.

If those self-serving elected could/would at least agree that there may be more than just coincidence between the way nature is performing and the way humans have been performing, we might just achieve the major milestone of a basis for intelligent discussion on the matter.

Here's one of many examples of someone that needs to go: "Inhofe’s stomach-churning hypocrisy: Why the GOP’s top climate denier suddenly cares about endangered species", Web Link

With friends like him, who needs enemies? What a joke, and he is not alone.

^^^ Now if the Republican Presidential candidates would see the light we could see real progress. ^^^

Now if only the alarmists could prove that reducing carbon emissions has any effect on climate whatsoever.

Now if only the alarmists could prove that reducing carbon emissions has any effect on climate whatsoever.

They already have to a very large extent. The only thing remaining is each of us accepting that data as proof or not. You do not. That's the cool thing about science, though. It doesn't care if you accept the data or not and you're not in a position of power or influence in that scientific dialog anyway.

Chase your own tail, dude. Try to catch up with the rest of the world.

This board is loaded with data, good data that most can and have learned something from. The key, however, is to actually open the dozens of links provided, then reading them and comprehending what has been offered.

Some, like our little buddy from Gualala, just want to argue. Reasonable and rational folks seem to get it. Maybe they are all actually studying the data provided?

Imagine that.

"alarmists" ... as if

From Jeremiah 5.21 directed to climate change deniers

21 ‘Hear this now, O foolish people,

Without understanding,

Who have eyes and see not,

And who have ears and hear not:

No explanation is possible for those who refuse to read or listen

Looks like it is the Left that is anti-science:

Web Link

^^^ The only thing remaining is each of us accepting that data as proof or not. ^^^

Again, treating evidence of climate change as proof that it is AGW. That's not science. It's more like religion. And stupidity.

The data shows that we've been increasing CO2 emissions while global temperatures remain largely unchanged, thereby directly refuting the assertions of the climate alarmists. And how do the alarmists and their minions respond? By altering data or chastising those that don't accept their hoax. Or calling them "deniers." Are quoting the Bible to imply that they're knuckle-dragging ignoramuses.

Anything but proof that reducing CO2 emissions will affect our climate any way whatsoever.

Like myself and many others have said so many times before, the facts are in abundance / the "proof" is about as tight as anyone can imagine / but one has to first read it, then comprehend it to 'get it'.

Until that time rises in your life, if it ever does, just keep on repeating your ignorance ... and maybe, just maybe somebody will swallow it - doubtful, but just about anything is possible.

After enough repetition, you might even believe your own trash.

Until then? the world will move forward and you are left to argue with yourself ... chasing your own tail - while most of us learn more and laugh at your arrogance and immaturity.

Have a great day, francis, and don't forget to turn out the lights when you leave.

The demand for proof demonstrates a real ignorance of science. The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

"Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem."

"In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final."

That is why it is called the Theory of Relativity, not the Law of Relativity.

The one thing I forgot....facts only increase Conservative resistance.

"Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research."

The Hoax of Climate Denial

From Bill Moyers...

Web Link

"Globally, this May was the warmest May since record-keeping began in 1880, NOAA data show. Coming in at 1.57˚F above the 20th century average, this historic heat continues this year's trend of extremely warm months. So far in 2015, all five months of the year have been at least in the top three hottest for their particular month. With El Niño likely to drive temperatures even higher, this year is expected to easily surpass 2014 as the hottest on record. Thirteen of the fourteen hottest years on record have occurred "

Web Link

^^^ Real scientists never use the words ^^^

Real scientists never claim that "97% of scientists agree," which is what "Boney Bills" and other political ideologues have insisted time and time again.

There is no proof that increasing anthropogenic CO2 releases changes our climate in any appreciable or measurable way. Evidence is mounting that it does not. The high priests of NOAA so venerated by "Boney Bills" is guilty of altering their data set in an effort to "hide the pause" while still failing to explain the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warming Period.

No reputable climate scientist "denies" climate change -- that's a hyperpartisan ad hominem attack used by alarmists to discredit those they can't refute.

Ideologically-driven climate alarmist pukes like "Boney Bills" and "George" don't even know what they hope to achieve or whether it's even possible. I suspect it's because they and the politicians they support don't want to be held accountable for the predictable failure of the policies they're pursuing.

"Real scientists never claim that "97% of scientists agree," which is what "Boney Bills" and other political ideologues have insisted time and time again."

Well, Francis is sorta right. The correct number is not 97%. It is 99.9%.

"According to James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in 2013 and 2014. Only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause, he found."

“It’s now a ruling paradigm, as much an accepted fact in climate science as plate tectonics is in geology and evolution is in biology,” he told msnbc. “It’s 99.9% plus.”

Powell, a member of the National Science Board under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, decided to share an exclusive draft of his research on Tuesday — just days before Pope Francis is set to deliver a major address on climate change — because he doesn’t want his holiness to reference outdated numbers."

Web Link

By the way, the man making this statement is a scientist. He holds a Ph.D. in Geochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and several honorary degrees, including Doctor of Science degrees from Berea College and from Oberlin College.

Your use of the term "pukes" when referring to other posters is offensive.

Really? The Director reviewed 24,000 papers? I don't believe it. That is 6.122 papers per hour for 40 hours a week for 49 weeks a year (he gets a 3 week vacation) for 2 years.

Not happening. The guy has better things to do.

Plus AGW papers may self select for those wanting to keep their jobs.

Now, I'm not taKing a position either way. I'm just pointing out holes in the story.

Not taking a position is taking a position.

You either accept the findings or you don't . To assume that the Director reviewed each paper himself is silliness.

So what you are saying that the authors of 24.009 reports are all willing to risk their professional careers by lying. You do understand that Federal Funding for Research and University funding for research is not results based. No, obviously have no knowledge of scientific research, researchers, or the scientific process at all.

Try again. These papers are not all focused on whether humans caused global warming. That's not what papers generally do. They usually focus on a very narrow aspect - in global warming it might be some measurement technique or some other interesting consideration. Maybe the sun threw off a different wavelength or maybe the particle size of volcanic ash varied or whatever. I don't know and I don't make a decision because I haven't read much of the literature, and even then I won't be an expert. I don't trust the 99.9 or 97% figures simply because of the politicized nature of the field.

One thing for sure is the researchers are not all lining up and saying yes, humans caused global warming. That is an eye rolling statement.

About our busy Director. The story does say he reviewed the papers. If it's not true then what else are they wrong on?

"James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in 2013 and 2014. Only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause, he found."

"Some Are Beginning To See The Light" - this thread's title.

For full disclosure and a tighter title, including this at the end of it may help: "And Others Never Will".

If you're referring to me, George, how is my oft-stated position anything but logical:

Don't disrupt the baseline CO2 even if there is controversy. It's 350 vs 400 parts per million which may not be enough to change anything. But let's not take chances.

Why is that not sufficient for you? Why is it necessary to buy into the PC belief system?

And maybe the overbearing cult like and money making political situation is causing more push back from middle America than if a calmer approach was used.

If, as you profess, you support not increasing CO 2 into the atmosphere, what are you doing to support that belief?

Are you opposing increasing the number of coal powered electricity generating plants?

Are you supporting candidates who favor the coal industry?

Of course I oppose more coal plants.

Are you supporting tariffs on dirty Chinese goods? Are you trying to bring cleaner manufacturing back here?

It is great, Uffish, that you have rejoined the liberal caucus. The EPA is under attack by the Coal Industry and most of the Republican candidates for President.

"Some coal industry leaders – including Craft – have gone so far as to deny climate change was even occurring, or that carbon dioxide emissions were the driving factor."

"The incoming EPA rules, which will make it virtually impossible to build new coal-fired power plants on a profit basis, are applying further pressure on the industry."

Web Link

There is no hope of a majority of the jobs lost to China/Third World will ever return-None. There is, however signs of progress in "dirty Chinese goods" production.

No, however, I do not favor higher tariffs. History has shown that high tariffs always lead to military conflict.

"In November 2014, the presidents of the United States and China delivered a joint announcement committing their countries to new, aggressive measures to curb carbon emissions. Those pledges were seen as a breakthrough in global climate change negotiations. "

“To meet its new 2030 targets, China will need to take aggressive steps, including introducing a nationwide price on carbon emissions as well as preparing for the safe and efficient deployment of nuclear and renewable energy at large scale,” says Valerie J. Karplus, assistant professor of global economics and management at the MIT Sloan School of Management and director of the Tsinghua-MIT China Energy and Climate Project (CECP). “But with strong action, China’s targets are credible and within reach.”

Web Link

Read 'em and weep...

Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction

Web Link

The oft-repeated claim that Earth’s biota is entering a sixth “mass extinction” depends on clearly demonstrating that current extinction rates are far above the “background” rates prevailing in the five previous mass extinctions. Earlier estimates of extinction rates have been criticized for using assumptions that might overestimate the severity of the extinction crisis. We assess, using extremely conservative assumptions, whether human activities are causing a mass extinction. First, we use a recent estimate of a background rate of 2 mammal extinctions per 10,000 species per 100 years (that is, 2 E/MSY), which is twice as high as widely used previous estimates. We then compare this rate with the current rate of mammal and vertebrate extinctions. The latter is conservatively low because listing a species as extinct requires meeting stringent criteria. Even under our assumptions, which would tend to minimize evidence of an incipient mass extinction, the average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to 114 times higher than the background rate. Under the 2 E/MSY background rate, the number of species that have gone extinct in the last century would have taken, depending on the vertebrate taxon, between 800 and 10,000 years to disappear. These estimates reveal an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way. Averting a dramatic decay of biodiversity and the subsequent loss of ecosystem services is still possible through intensified conservation efforts, but that window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

Regarding the linked Research Article "ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES "Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction" by authors Gerardo Ceballos1,*, Paul R. Ehrlich2, Anthony D. Barnosky3, Andrés García4, Robert M. Pringle5 and Todd M. Palmer6"

Web Link .... Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich is also the author of seminal The Population Bomb. Although humans haven't starved to the degree he predicted, he did say this: "When I wrote The Population Bomb in 1968, there were 3.5 billion people. Since then we've added another 2.8 billion -- many more than the total population (2 billion) when I was born in 1932. If that's not a population explosion, what is? My basic claims (and those of the many scientific colleagues who reviewed my work) were that population growth was a major problem. Fifty-eight academies of science said that same thing in 1994, as did the world scientists' warning to humanity in the same year. My view has become depressingly mainline!"

On my short list is The Sixth Extinction" by Elizabeth Kolbert: Web Link .... "

So given all this..... why oh why do we want massive numbers of people to flood into the US??

"If you aren't alarmed you're not aware." Frequent and repeated use of the word "alarmist" as a dismissive noun only trumpets willful ignorance, which is neither excusable nor tolerable in any reasonable, fact-based discourse on the matter at hand. But please proceed, if you must, in waving that flag. It does, at the least, assist in quickly and decisively identifying whom not to pay any serious attention to.

Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium