Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[RickBradford]

You can't counter the science (of Antarctic ice melting fast), so you devolve to name-calling. Why am I not surprised

You are not surprised, because you made it all up. I didn't call anyone names.

I certainly didn't call anyone a "denier" (your favourite piece of name-calling,let's not forget), a "flat-earther", a climate criminal, traitor, creationist, nutjob, scum, ratbag, s**-spreader, evil, fossil-fuel hatchet man, or any of the other epithets routinely thrown out by the activists, politicians and other limousine liberals.

All I said was that their agit-prop has been incredibly ineffective. Which it has.

I always laugh at the Fox News** allusions. Warmists hold two completely incompatible beliefs, namely:

1) Climate skeptics are a tiny insignificant minority whose views can be ignored.

2) Climate skeptics are so powerful that their appearance on one TV channel has been enough to prevent the entire globe -- the UN, EU, national governments -- taking any significant action on climate change for 25 years.

Make up your mind.

The Green/Left's position on climate, as on other things, simply doesn't hang together, created as it is from emotion, not reason.

**insert Koch Brothers or the NRA or any other hate figures here

[thaibeachlovers]

more evidence of GW:

http://www.npr.org/2...entists-thought

NPR is whistling, but the dog's out of range. Nobody's buying it any more.

In fact, a recent poll from Gallup shows, the proportion of Americans who rate themselves as "not at all worried" by climate change has doubled from 12% to 24% over the past 25 years.

This is despite 25 years of an absolutely absurd amount of media scaremongering and high-level political activism; the ineffectiveness of their agit-prop is truly amazing.

We perpetually hear about new threats that never seem to materialize (unless you actually believe every weather event is new to our generation and due to climate change).

And as the fear-mongering becomes more far-fetched, the accusations become more hysterical, and the deadlines for action keep being pushed right over the horizon, fewer people seem to really care.

You can't counter the science (of Antarctic ice melting fast), so you devolve to name-calling. Why am I not surprised. I agree that a large % of Americans are unsure whether there's GW. It shows the success of the loud and vocal minority (Fox News fans and people tied into the fossil fuel corporations, mostly). Americans are known to flock to weird ideas. Most believe in virgin birth (Christians), and couldn't find Ecuador on a map of the world. Of course, if a Gallup Poll frames a question about GW, with the wording, "are you personally worried....." then most Americans can say they're not worried. Most Americans live outside Florida and NYC and Boston for starters, so they don't have to personally worry about their homes getting flooded. Plus, major flooding, Biblical droughts, bigger tornadoes/hurricanes/tidal surges will be coming decades in the future, when most Americans taking a survey will either be dead or in gated retirement communities. Plus, it's not a popularity contest nor a matter of what spooks Americans the most. GW is a phenomena which will affect people all over the world - mostly in coastal areas, and in deserts.

Americans are like most people elsewhere: they care about their immediate families, their homes, their cars, their electronic devices and (if eligible) their SS and pension payments. They're not going to worry about some Pacific island getting swamped, beyond its interest as a news article to read while sipping coffee.

The Antarctic ice melting does not prove that it is caused by man, or that if it is it can be reversed.

As for China, they probably have the only government in the world that could stop the population using cars and go back to bicycles. As they won't do that, it says to me that they don't believe it is caused by people, or they believe nothing can be done to reverse it.

[snarky66]

The Chinese just flat out don't care.

[F430murci]

Interesting and worth watching I suppose . . .

----------

Antarctica hits highest temp recorded, and here's what it means

One week of extreme temperatures in Antarctica isn't something to worry about by itself, but it's something to watch closely in the coming months and years, says a meteorological expert at the the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102545816

[MaxYakov]

Would Bradford rather see coal and other fossil fuel plants belching smoke over every landscape? Or perhaps nuclear. Yea, that worked well for Chernobyl and Fuku-yo-mother-shima. And before during and after those two N disasters, N-boosters kept saying, "there are no greenhouse gases" (that quote from Thailand's EGAT), and "it's a very cheap way to produce electricity" (a quote from every numbskull in the N industry) .....yea, great. I'll go and buy a parcel of property next to a N power plant for my grandaughter. I'm sure it will be a great place for her to raise her chitlens.

1.

Coal plants don't "belch" anything but steam in the Western world, due to the sophisticated scrubbing apparatus now required by law. Drax, in point of fact, is one of the most advanced plants in the world in this regard.

2. The French have been powering the world's 7th biggest economy for 40 years overwhelmingly on nuclear power without any problems.

They may not be very scenic to live next door to, but then again, neither is a sewage plant, or an airport. They would certainly be less intrusive than one of those idiotic wind 'farms'

And the nuke plants don't kill as many birds, but when the nukes go bad they can go really bad.

[thaibeachlovers]

Interesting and worth watching I suppose . . .

----------

Antarctica hits highest temp recorded, and here's what it means

One week of extreme temperatures in Antarctica isn't something to worry about by itself, but it's something to watch closely in the coming months and years, says a meteorological expert at the the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102545816

Back in 1977 the Antarctic Peninsula was known as the "banana belt" as it was well known to be warmer than the rest of Antarctica. We got up to -4 degrees celcius on Ross Island and went out for a BBQ as that was quite warm.

When it warms up at Vostock we can really start worrying.

[Neurath]

Here's something I was thinking about relating to this topic.

People who believe that anthropogenic global warming is a real threat believe, at least partly, that something must be done about it because we have a moral obligation to people not yet born - that is, future generations.

But, the people who believe that we must do something about global warming because we have a moral obligation to generations not yet born, are most often the same people who believe that abortion is justified because having the child is not good for currently living people.

So, perhaps I can consistently believe that global warming is real bad thing for future generations, but not want to do anything about it because doing something about it would stuff up my current lifestyle and support abortion rights for precisely the same reason.

[RickBradford]

Here's something I was thinking about relating to this topic.

People who believe that anthropogenic global warming is a real threat believe, at least partly, that something must be done about it because we have a moral obligation to people not yet born - that is, future generations.

But, the people who believe that we must do something about global warming because we have a moral obligation to generations not yet born, are most often the same people who believe that abortion is justified because having the child is not good for currently living people.

So, perhaps I can consistently believe that global warming is real bad thing for future generations, but not want to do anything about it because doing something about it would stuff up my current lifestyle and support abortion rights for precisely the same reason.

A great many of the people who loudly declare that we must preserve Planet Earth for the sake of the people not yet born, are exactly the same people who enthusiastically support killing millions of people not yet born, through abortion.

I don't see any consistency there. Quite the opposite.

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Here's something I was thinking about relating to this topic.

People who believe that anthropogenic global warming is a real threat believe, at least partly, that something must be done about it because we have a moral obligation to people not yet born - that is, future generations.

But, the people who believe that we must do something about global warming because we have a moral obligation to generations not yet born, are most often the same people who believe that abortion is justified because having the child is not good for currently living people.

So, perhaps I can consistently believe that global warming is real bad thing for future generations, but not want to do anything about it because doing something about it would stuff up my current lifestyle and support abortion rights for precisely the same reason.

A great many of the people who loudly declare that we must preserve Planet Earth for the sake of the people not yet born, are exactly the same people who enthusiastically support killing millions of people not yet born, through abortion.

I don't see any consistency there. Quite the opposite.

Yeah, I didn't think you would or could. I reckon there's hyperbole and a bombast getting in the way. Your first sentence is a simple and simplistic restatement of what I said - 'talk show style'. Your second sentence is a simple and simplistic misunderstanding of my last one.

[KonaRain]

Great comments!!

Aloha

[RickBradford]

Your first sentence is a simple and simplistic restatement of what I said - 'talk show style'.

We call it 'clarity' and 'readability'.

Your second sentence is a simple and simplistic misunderstanding of my last one.

No, it isn't, because I wasn't referring to your post.

I was making a separate, but related point about the prevalence of a large group of people who believe it is morally right to look after future generations (through climate actions) but equally morally right to kill those potential future generations (via abortion by choice). I don't see any consistency in that. Nothing to do with you at all.

[thaibeachlovers]

Here's something I was thinking about relating to this topic.

People who believe that anthropogenic global warming is a real threat believe, at least partly, that something must be done about it because we have a moral obligation to people not yet born - that is, future generations.

But, the people who believe that we must do something about global warming because we have a moral obligation to generations not yet born, are most often the same people who believe that abortion is justified because having the child is not good for currently living people.

So, perhaps I can consistently believe that global warming is real bad thing for future generations, but not want to do anything about it because doing something about it would stuff up my current lifestyle and support abortion rights for precisely the same reason.

A great many of the people who loudly declare that we must preserve Planet Earth for the sake of the people not yet born, are exactly the same people who enthusiastically support killing millions of people not yet born, through abortion.

I don't see any consistency there. Quite the opposite.

Given there at least 3 billion too many people on planet Earth, it's a case of either we use abortion on demand to reduce the population, or Gaia will kill a few billion and it won't be pretty.

Your choice.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[thaibeachlovers]

I just found out that California is in a severe drought and has little water left in the reservoirs.

If it continues long enough to make them all leave it could be that GW is a good thing, as the west coast has to be the epitome of anti environment with it stealing all the water from elsewhere to allow abominations such as Las Vegas to be built in a desert.