'Not the greatest crisis' - Trump's EPA pick downplays climate threat

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Dont forget the climate change is a social justice issue too, but it is blatantly anticapitalist to boot:

http://www.cpusa.org/interact_cpusa/climate-change-is-a-social-issue/

 

Quoting:

"However, in saying that climate change is driven by human activity, we must be clear: capitalism itself is the primary culprit. Capitalist production depends upon a continuous commodification of the environment to sustain its growth; a continuous and unsustainable harvesting of resources in the never-ending quest for profit.  Under capitalism, a tiny minority of wealthy shareholders profit from the consumption of entire ecosystems, while the planet and the vast majority of its living inhabitants suffer the consequences.  Because capitalism and the capitalist class stand poised against the earth itself, a truly ecological and sustainable stance must by necessity be anti-capitalist in nature."

 

The true nature of the anti capitalist "Green" movement is best illustrated by their refusal to accept nuclear power. Settled science.

Again,who cares what Socialists and Marxist say. There are people out there who believe that Lizard People are behind the current state of Climate science. But I don't make that the responsibility of you denialists who don't believe in the Lizard People. 

[RickBradford]

 

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You are truly a master doublethinker.

More projection - it was you who introduced the subject of Marxism, and then had the silliness to attribute it to those who oppose radical restrictions on commercial activities in order to "save the planet".

 

Most, if not all, climate zealots regard capitalism as the root of all evil, populated by greedy fat-cat people who don't even care about their own children, so obsessed they are with amassing more wealth.

 

To label climate skeptics as Marxists is so absurd as to place you in a category where only one person resides.

[VincentRJ]

25 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's all about the increase in rate of change not the fact of change itself.

Really! So you think that the current rate of increase in warming is greater than has ever occurred in the past? You just believe everything you are told?
Do you really think we can compare the rates of temperature increases, over a few decades, using modern thermometers, with rates of increases over similar periods in the distant past, using proxy records such as ice cores?

 

The 2013 IPCC technical report (Working Group 1) admitted in their summary that they were not confident that extreme weather events had been increasing during the past 50 years, on a global scale, due to a lack of reliable evidence and differences in measurement techniques.

 

If the scientific community is not certain that extreme weather events have been increasing in recent times (except heat waves and precipitation), then how can they be certain that the current rate of warming is greater than any period in the past? Use your nous.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Really! So you think that the current rate of increase in warming is greater than has ever occurred in the past? You just believe everything you are told?
Do you really think we can compare the rates of temperature increases, over a few decades, using modern thermometers, with rates of increases over similar periods in the distant past, using proxy records such as ice cores?

 

The 2013 IPCC technical report (Working Group 1) admitted in their summary that they were not confident that extreme weather events had been increasing during the past 50 years, on a global scale, due to a lack of reliable evidence and differences in measurement techniques.

 

If the scientific community is not certain that extreme weather events have been increasing in recent times (except heat waves and precipitation), then how can they be certain that the current rate of warming is greater than any period in the past? Use your nous.

First off, that was 2013. Second, extreme weather events are one thing. Average temperature increase quite another.

[bristolboy]

35 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

If you think that capitalism can change the climate "crisis", fine. So do I, by the way.

 

I would therefore urge you to oppose all those Green/Left groups that demand that the capitalist system be corralled into supporting unsustainable regulations and targets. Their stated aims, in many cases, are driven by a hatred of capitalism, not to solve any climate "crisis."

 

And don't throw in playground slurs like "right-wing" or "Luddite". You know nothing about me, so silly comments like that just make you look petty and stupid.

Your indignation is particularly comical, coming as it does from a person who wrote this:

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

It's long been known that the Green/Left hates humanity, regularly describing humans as a "cancer" and a "plague", and would happily sacrifice the poorest people on the planet in order to bolster their own personal vanity projects

Some people aren't overendowed with self-awareness.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

First off, that was 2013. Second, extreme weather events are one thing. Average temperature increase quite another.

Extreme weather events are very noticeable and obvious. Global average temperatures measured with modern instruments are reasonably accurate, but still present problems. How many thermometers would you need in your house to get an accurate average temperature, considering that one part of a room is exposed to sunlight through a window, another part gets a cool breeze through a window, other parts such as cupboards are well insulated, and so on?

 

Getting an accurate, average, global temperature is enormously complicated, requiring thousands of temperature stations and many adjustments to compensate for biases such as the Urban Heat Island effect.
Getting equally accurate, average global temperatures of the distant past, from proxy records, in the absence of modern thermometers and satellites, in order to make accurate comparisons and make statements that the current rate of warming is faster than ever before, during the past million years or more, is impossible.

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Extreme weather events are very noticeable and obvious. Global average temperatures measured with modern instruments are reasonably accurate, but still present problems. How many thermometers would you need in your house to get an accurate average temperature, considering that one part of a room is exposed to sunlight through a window, another part gets a cool breeze through a window, other parts such as cupboards are well insulated, and so on?

 

Getting an accurate, average, global temperature is enormously complicated, requiring thousands of temperature stations and many adjustments to compensate for biases such as the Urban Heat Island effect.
Getting equally accurate, average global temperatures of the distant past, from proxy records, in the absence of modern thermometers and satellites, in order to make accurate comparisons and make statements that the current rate of warming is faster than ever before, during the past million years or more, is impossible.

Yes getting global temperatures is complicated but not even close to impossible. In fact, denialists used the business about urban heat island effects and such to debunk global warming. They even hired an eminent physicist named Richard Mueller to put together a dream team to disprove what climatologists were claiming. That didn't work out too well for them.

 

"Getting equally accurate, average global temperatures of the distant past, from proxy records, in the absence of modern thermometers and satellites, in order to make accurate comparisons and make statements that the current rate of warming is faster than ever before, during the past million years or more, is impossible."

Putting something in boldface does not constitute proof.

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Yes getting global temperatures is complicated but not even close to impossible.

Of course it's possible to get global average temperatures. It's the accuracy of those temperatures for comparison purposes with the distant past that's the issue, if one is going to claim that the current rate of warming is greater than any time during the past million years or more. It seems putting phrases in boldface to emphasize a point hasn't worked for you.

 

We now have vastly more weather stations around the globe than ever before, buoys in the oceans and satellites encircling the planet. We can estimate, but still within a margin of error, that the average global temperature has risen about 0.9 degrees C during the past 160 years or so. The margin of error is claimed to be +/- 0.1 degrees, but who really knows. An average global temperature is a mathematical construct with a lot of filled-in gaps.

 

Isn't it obvious that any estimation of global average temperatures in the distant past, before thermometers existed, must have a far greater margin of error. Crikey!

 

 

Quote

In fact, denialists used the business about urban heat island effects and such to debunk global warming.

 

Some might have. There are always extremists on any issue. However the UHI effect is real and is a major factor that has to be taken into consideration when calculating average global temperatures. The difference between thermometer readings in a large concrete jungle (modern city) and a reading from the same type of thermometer located a few kilometers outside of the city, in the country side, can be greater than the total increase in average global temperature over the past 160 years, that is, greater than 0.9 degrees C.