Climate Change Denial (4 Viewers)

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
13,088
Reaction score
17,678
Offline
Sticky Post
I just read about this island in Louisiana that has nearly disappeared. You all may already know about this, but this is new to me.

One of the worst things about this administration is it’s science denial. Trump isn’t very smart nor is he well educated. This has permeated the entire administration. It’s yet one more way Trump is hurting the very people he says he is helping.

I know we had a thread an this originally, but it was past two pages back, so I decided to start a new one. I know this case isn’t completely due to climate change, but as the article points out, in the future there will be many cases like this.

http://www.businessinsider.com/isle-de-jean-charles-climate-change-refugees-2018-4
 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
22,091
Reaction score
35,755
Location
Toronto
Offline
Woke up to an 'ice day' here. We went from -40 to 50 in a couple of days. Now we are getting a mix of rain, snow, hail, and freezing rain. Schools shut down. Nobody is going anywhere.

Frogs are forecast for the afternoon.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
9,612
Reaction score
12,616
Location
Xibalba
Offline
Woke up to an 'ice day' here. We went from -40 to 50 in a couple of days. Now we are getting a mix of rain, snow, hail, and freezing rain. Schools shut down. Nobody is going anywhere.

Frogs are forecast for the afternoon.
So was there blood in the morning?
 

Jeff

All-Pro
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 14, 2001
Messages
1,477
Reaction score
1,074
Age
46
Location
The purgatory between Shreveport and Alexandria
Offline
I guess the pure unpredictability of the weather is another example of the effects of climate change we're seeing every day.
That's perhaps one of the worst aspects of it. The more unpredictable and unreliable the seasons become, the more you can kiss sustainable agriculture goodbye.
 

Optimus Prime

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 18, 1998
Messages
6,240
Reaction score
4,967
Offline
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A Connecticut lawmaker wants to strike climate change from state science standards. A Virginia legislator worries teachers are indoctrinating students with their personal views on global warming. And an Oklahoma state senator wants educators to be able to introduce alternative viewpoints without fear of losing their jobs.

As climate change becomes a hotter topic in American classrooms, politicians around the country are pushing back against the near-universal scientific consensus that global warming is real, dire and man-made.

Of the more than a dozen such measures proposed so far this year, some already have failed. But they have emerged this year in growing numbers, many of them inspired or directly encouraged by a pair of advocacy groups, the Discovery Institute and the Heartland Institute.

“You have to present two sides of the argument and allow the kids to deliberate,” said Republican state Sen. David Bullard of Oklahoma, a former high school geography teacher whose bill, based on model legislation from the Discovery Institute, ran into opposition from science teachers and went nowhere.

Scientists and science education organizations have blasted such proposals for sowing confusion and doubt on a topic of global urgency. They reject the notion that there are “two sides” to the issue.

“You can’t talk about two sides when the other side doesn’t have a foot in reality,” said University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles.

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said these legislative proposals are dangerous, bad-faith efforts to undermine scientific findings that the fossil-fuel industry or fundamentalist religious groups don’t want to hear..............................….

 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
25,101
Reaction score
13,216
Age
51
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A Connecticut lawmaker wants to strike climate change from state science standards. A Virginia legislator worries teachers are indoctrinating students with their personal views on global warming. And an Oklahoma state senator wants educators to be able to introduce alternative viewpoints without fear of losing their jobs.

As climate change becomes a hotter topic in American classrooms, politicians around the country are pushing back against the near-universal scientific consensus that global warming is real, dire and man-made.

Of the more than a dozen such measures proposed so far this year, some already have failed. But they have emerged this year in growing numbers, many of them inspired or directly encouraged by a pair of advocacy groups, the Discovery Institute and the Heartland Institute.

“You have to present two sides of the argument and allow the kids to deliberate,” said Republican state Sen. David Bullard of Oklahoma, a former high school geography teacher whose bill, based on model legislation from the Discovery Institute, ran into opposition from science teachers and went nowhere.

Scientists and science education organizations have blasted such proposals for sowing confusion and doubt on a topic of global urgency. They reject the notion that there are “two sides” to the issue.

“You can’t talk about two sides when the other side doesn’t have a foot in reality,” said University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles.

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said these legislative proposals are dangerous, bad-faith efforts to undermine scientific findings that the fossil-fuel industry or fundamentalist religious groups don’t want to hear..............................….

One wonders if they've moved on from battling evolution or if this is in addition to...
 

rajncajn

Lurker Extrodinaire
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
3,469
Reaction score
3,179
Age
47
Location
Ocean Springs, Ms
Offline
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A Connecticut lawmaker wants to strike climate change from state science standards. A Virginia legislator worries teachers are indoctrinating students with their personal views on global warming. And an Oklahoma state senator wants educators to be able to introduce alternative viewpoints without fear of losing their jobs.

As climate change becomes a hotter topic in American classrooms, politicians around the country are pushing back against the near-universal scientific consensus that global warming is real, dire and man-made.

Of the more than a dozen such measures proposed so far this year, some already have failed. But they have emerged this year in growing numbers, many of them inspired or directly encouraged by a pair of advocacy groups, the Discovery Institute and the Heartland Institute.

“You have to present two sides of the argument and allow the kids to deliberate,” said Republican state Sen. David Bullard of Oklahoma, a former high school geography teacher whose bill, based on model legislation from the Discovery Institute, ran into opposition from science teachers and went nowhere.

Scientists and science education organizations have blasted such proposals for sowing confusion and doubt on a topic of global urgency. They reject the notion that there are “two sides” to the issue.

“You can’t talk about two sides when the other side doesn’t have a foot in reality,” said University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles.

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said these legislative proposals are dangerous, bad-faith efforts to undermine scientific findings that the fossil-fuel industry or fundamentalist religious groups don’t want to hear..............................….

I was just helping my daughter last night study for a science test. I kinda chuckled as I was reading the questions, all of which basically said fossil fuel bad, solar, wind, hydro good. My daughter asked what I was laughing about & I just said "politics." I do think that it's sad that we teach such things and don't give any reasons as to why we still use fossil fuels.

Another anecdote, my mom is about as liberal as they come and we were talking one day on the phone about all the crazy weather & climate change. She said that she was worried that sometime soon my house would be inaccessible due to the eroding shoreline and rising water levels.

Now, I live about 500 yards from the Gulf of Mexico & granted, we get flooded in on rare occasion and I did get almost 3' of water in my house for Katrina, but... "Mom, I've been in this house for nearly 20 years & the shoreline is no closer to me now than it was the day we moved here. I really doubt in another 20 that it's going to be on my doorstep or anywhere close."

The point of that isn't a denial of climate change. I know as well as anyone that we need to do much more than we currently are in order to protect our environment or we will start seeing some really major damage done that could be irreversible. That said, it's this alarmist, extremist, end of the world, we have to drastically change EVERYTHING NOW or we're all going to die, mentality is no better at getting real & positive change accomplished than the climate change deniers. The whole thing gets turned into this ridiculous back & forth political battle where it's difficult to take either side really seriously.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,961
Reaction score
8,665
Offline
I was just helping my daughter last night study for a science test. I kinda chuckled as I was reading the questions, all of which basically said fossil fuel bad, solar, wind, hydro good. My daughter asked what I was laughing about & I just said "politics." I do think that it's sad that we teach such things and don't give any reasons as to why we still use fossil fuels.

Another anecdote, my mom is about as liberal as they come and we were talking one day on the phone about all the crazy weather & climate change. She said that she was worried that sometime soon my house would be inaccessible due to the eroding shoreline and rising water levels.

Now, I live about 500 yards from the Gulf of Mexico & granted, we get flooded in on rare occasion and I did get almost 3' of water in my house for Katrina, but... "Mom, I've been in this house for nearly 20 years & the shoreline is no closer to me now than it was the day we moved here. I really doubt in another 20 that it's going to be on my doorstep or anywhere close."

The point of that isn't a denial of climate change. I know as well as anyone that we need to do much more than we currently are in order to protect our environment or we will start seeing some really major damage done that could be irreversible. That said, it's this alarmist, extremist, end of the world, we have to drastically change EVERYTHING NOW or we're all going to die, mentality is no better at getting real & positive change accomplished than the climate change deniers. The whole thing gets turned into this ridiculous back & forth political battle where it's difficult to take either side really seriously.


Any idea what and where this is from?
 
Last edited:

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
25,101
Reaction score
13,216
Age
51
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
The point of that isn't a denial of climate change. I know as well as anyone that we need to do much more than we currently are in order to protect our environment or we will start seeing some really major damage done that could be irreversible. That said, it's this alarmist, extremist, end of the world, we have to drastically change EVERYTHING NOW or we're all going to die, mentality is no better at getting real & positive change accomplished than the climate change deniers. The whole thing gets turned into this ridiculous back & forth political battle where it's difficult to take either side really seriously.
But what if it's already really, truly, honest-to-god(s) so bad that nothing but full-on everything we can do, ram the brake pedal to the floor action will save future generations?

If you're a climate scientist and that's what the evidence tells you, how the hell else can you phrase it?
 

rajncajn

Lurker Extrodinaire
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
3,469
Reaction score
3,179
Age
47
Location
Ocean Springs, Ms
Offline
But what if it's already really, truly, honest-to-god(s) so bad that nothing but full-on everything we can do, ram the brake pedal to the floor action will save future generations?

If you're a climate scientist and that's what the evidence tells you, how the hell else can you phrase it?
And how do you get China, India, Russia, Japan, Korea, Middle East & EU to care about climate scientists when it means they have to put the full burden on their industry/economy?
 

simeon58

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
623
Reaction score
737
Offline


Any idea what and where this is from?
Exxon, early 1980's.
Imagine knowing this and just not giving 2 forks. It's hard for me to reconcile that type of greed. I tend to agree with Chomsky when he says that it's the corporate capitalist organizational structure bent on profit that causes it, but it's a hard pill to swallow.
 

Booker

All-Pro
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
3,291
Age
44
Location
Littleton, CO
Offline
Imagine knowing this and just not giving 2 forks. It's hard for me to reconcile that type of greed. I tend to agree with Chomsky when he says that it's the corporate capitalist organizational structure bent on profit that causes it, but it's a hard pill to swallow.
It wasn't just that they didn't give 2 forks, they also lobbied extensively for decades to refute and undermine what they knew to be true.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,961
Reaction score
8,665
Offline
Looks like an alarming vague-post from someone completely over-judging my stance on climate change.
It's an internal document from Exxon circa 1982 from their internal research projects about the effects of overall GHG emissions that their industry and others produced and its projected effect on the atmosphere.

A surprisingly accurate forecast that trends pretty closely to what bodies like the IPCC have recently been talking about in terms of irreversible changes and harm if something is not done in the next couple decades (for instance they predicted atmospheric CO2 levels to rise to about 410ppm by 2020 and as of today it is 410.91 ppm, and predicted by around 2030 global temps would rise an additional 1.5 degrees Celsius).

The science is real and settled, and threat well understood is the point, even from the very people that turned around a few years later and buried this research and began funneling money into former Tobacco "think tanks" to spread disinformation to paralyze public and political support to protect their businesses. Creating this false narrative of two competing sides of what was already a settled issue. No one of scientific note is saying everyone will die, but the enormous breadth of harms that are looming in a much shorter time schedule then even the most favorable forecasts are real and irreversible unless major action is taken almost immediately. That is not alarmist or extremist, it is simply the natural result of changes that science and climate forecasts predicted were coming 40 years ago but as we did nothing to alter our behavior(and still do little to nothing) the penalties for ignoring the bills are becoming due.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)



New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

Headlines

Top Bottom