Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Climate change seen as top threat, but U.S. power a growing worry - poll

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Poor performance based on what.   Liberal: Never let the facts interfere with your pre-conceived notions. This is what the very very liberal New York times had to say about Mr. Trumps's economy.  Compare that to his predecessor who despite spending the USA into a deficit greater than the combined deficits every president in history became the only president in U.S. history to never achieve even a 3% GDP growth rate once and who had one out of every seven U.S. citizens on food stamps and oversaw the decline in the average income of U.S. workers.   In the words of even Bill Clinton ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/upshot/we-ran-out-of-words-to-describe-how-good-the-jobs-numbers-are.html

Well, you've managed to demonstrate once again why it is that facts never come between Trump and his supporters. He's got a whole legion of mini-me's behind him. Here's a chart of US GDP growth rate:

United States GDP Growth Rate

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

 

And of course you also seem to be suffering from a bad case of historical amnesia. Obama inherited the USA's worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In fact it was the world's greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. ANd the USA was the first developed nation to pull out of it.

Edited by bristolboy
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Have you considered referring to scientific research on the subject?

 

 

 

I know the answer based on the scientific literature.  However it seems that many/most people posting on this topic have little to no idea what the data actually indicates.  

 

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

as5.gif Mark Twain quotes (American Humorist, Writer and Lecturer. 1835-1910)

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 9:18 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

Finally. The truth is laid bare. Irrefutable proof that the MAGA movement under the greatest US President ever Donald Trump has indeed made America more powerful. Just like it said on the box. How much more powerful? Almost double. What an amazing achievement. 

 And it is not lost on me, but what was once called "Global warming" is now called "climate change" after the theory of global warming was well and truly debunked. Can't believe so many are blind to this.

'

 

 

"Finally. The truth is laid bare. Irrefutable proof that the MAGA movement under the greatest US President ever Donald Trump has indeed made America more powerful."

 

I shudder to imagine what the worst president must have been like.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I know the answer based on the scientific literature.  However it seems that many/most people posting on this topic have little to no idea what the data actually indicates.  

 

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

as5.gif Mark Twain quotes (American Humorist, Writer and Lecturer. 1835-1910)

 

 

Scientific literature apparently unknown to 97 percent of climatologists.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ahab said:

So why would someone that asked that question not be viewed favorably with regard to his/her intelligence? I cannot wait to hear the answer to this one.

Because the choices you offered were inadequate. The best answer, the one that most climatologists would subscribe to would be " from most to all".

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to know that if I ever start a cherry growing farm there's a veritable army of experienced pickers available on TV.

Edited by gamb00ler
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Scientific literature apparently unknown to 97 percent of climatologists.

Do you have a list of the names of all the people on that 97% list? No you don't and either does anyone else in the world because that 97% number is complete BS (which is what kind of started this set of posts).  Have a nice and blissful day, you are more than welcome uninformed opinions, but should not be surprised when others do not share them.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Because the choices you offered were inadequate. The best answer, the one that most climatologists would subscribe to would be " from most to all".

Could you please link a single scientific paper stating that "all" the warming is attributed to anthropogenic activity?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Sure, it has.

 

That's why the IPCC disappeared the Hockey Stick in 2007 and re-instated the Medieval Warm Period. The IPCC knew it couldn't afford to lose any more credibility by hanging onto a paper which had been eviscerated by several competent authorities. 

 

Even Michael Mann admitted that, when he altered the graph to show the MEP for a subsequent paper, tantamount to a kind of scientific plea-bargaining. So even the author doesn't share your confidence.

What exactly do you mean by "the IPCC disappeared the Hockey Stick in 2007"? That an image was no longer used? In fact, the hockey stick has by now been confirmed over and over again including a huge study by 80 climatologists in Nature Geoscience.

Mann and others now do agree that there was a slight global warming during the Medieval Warm Period and slightly more Global cooling during the little ice age. 

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/ps-prc112309.php

(Red) Mann's Hockey Stick [6]. (Blue) Output response of Crowley's linear upwelling/diffusion energy balance model using all forcing terms (solar, volcano, CO 2 and aerosol) [7]. Instrumental temperature data (black). Note the very good agreement between the model and temperature reconstruction that is claimed by Crowley in his article. Note that from the Medieval Warm Period (1000-1300) to the Little Ice Age (1500-1750) both the model response and Mann's temperature reconstruction show a cooling of about 0.2 o C.  

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Red-Manns-Hockey-Stick-6-Blue-Output-response-of-Crowleys-linear_fig2_257564851

 

But what the denialists do is take the warmest regional temperatures for the MWP, like those in Southern Greenland, and generalize it to the globe. This is utterly dishonest.

 

And of course, the most relevant portion of the hockey stick is the blade. And that has been growing higher and higher. What's more, it has consistently accelerated at at rates that outstrips those predicted by the IPCC in their regular reports.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 1:29 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

So erm....

 

What about all the big businesses with a vested interest in halting, delaying, frustrating efforts to tackle climate change?

 

Did the motives and actions of these never enter your head?

No because I believe any attempts by the UK to influence these matters is a waste of time and effort. If the prime polluters don't care what difference will our efforts make even if GW or CC is in fact man made.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

No because I believe any attempts by the UK to influence these matters is a waste of time and effort. If the prime polluters don't care what difference will our efforts make even if GW or CC is in fact man made.

With a defaistic attitude like that nothing will ever be achieved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2019 at 11:34 AM, bristolboy said:

Mann and others now do agree that there was a slight global warming during the Medieval Warm Period and slightly more Global cooling during the little ice age. 

Very sensible. At least it's a compromise in view of the overwhelming evidence that both the MWP and LIA were global events. However, if we go back further, to the cold Dark Ages, and even further to the Roman Warm period,  we see that alternating warm and cool periods are nothing unusual.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They seemed to have missed the greatest threat facing the world. The rise of Chinese aggression and control around the world. They are far more dangerous than a few M us Lims with a machine gun or a 1 degree rise in temps. They will start WW3.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Very sensible. At least it's a compromise in view of the overwhelming evidence that both the MWP and LIA were global events. However, if we go back further, to the cold Dark Ages, and even further to the Roman Warm period,  we see that alternating warm and cool periods are nothing unusual.

It wasn't arrived at by compromise but by scientific procedure. And the fact is that the MWP was only slightly warmer on average. No paleoclimatologists have detected anything like the current sharp and accelerating rate of climate change. At least not since the last asteroid hit the planet.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It wasn't arrived at by compromise but by scientific procedure. And the fact is that the MWP was only slightly warmer on average. No paleoclimatologists have detected anything like the current sharp and accelerating rate of climate change. At least not since the last asteroid hit the planet.

Well, that's obviously not true. There are hundreds of studies that imply that both the MWP and the RWP were at least as warm as today, globally, and that even during the LIA there were fairly rapid changes from cool to warm and back again. But such studies are based upon proxy records and written reports of the times, so one cannot be certain of the precise temperatures.

 

In the context of such uncertainty, the alarmists with there own agenda, will cherry pick the data to underestimate the degree of past temperatures. However, the skeptics will also tend to gravitate towards the studies which imply the temperatures were higher during the RWP and MWP.

 

Perhaps the truth is in the middle. Both the RWP and MWP were about as hot as today.

 

The other issue is, does it matter? Are warm periods not better than cold periods? I emigrated from England to Australia. I much prefer the warmer climate of Australia.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...