Global warming discussion IV

[Reality Check]

...bit of an Al Gore tirade...

Yes - we get that you do not like Al Gore, acementhead!
A personal opinion of Al Gore has nothing to do with the validity of climate science. Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Al Gore presented mostly valid climate science in a documentary.

 

[Trakar]

Good point. A lot of these people are in the Grim One's preferred demographic.

...he will serve no whine.
before its time...,

oh wait,

that's the California version.

move along, these aren't the droids you're looking for...

 

[The Atheist]

The US has the best politicians that money can buy.

Home run.

 

[CapelDodger]

The US has the best politicians that money can buy. Al Gore for instance, a bloated, hypocritical, non-scientist, dumb(IQ132 from SAT) failed Divinity Student.

I'm sure you feel better for that, but the effect soon wears off, I fear.

Gore flies all over the world in a private jet.

Envious?

He has nothing worth while to say. He is a revolting money grubbing PR BSer. And dumb, did I mention dumb?

He seems to loom large in your world for someone dumb who never made it past Vice-President. He's not even a politician anymore - he is an ex-politician. One who, admittedly, failed to beat a chimp in a run for the White House, but it wasn't Bush's brains which beat him - it was Uncle Karl's and his rat-****ers'. Gore did make a fortune from the internet business while many were losing theirs to the dot.con, which suggests a certain wiliness if nothing else. And he's been on the right side of the AGW isue since that unfortunate episode at Kyoto. When he was only doing Bill Clinton's bidding anyway.

For active politicans you can't do better than point to Senator Inhofe if you want to get the tumbrils rolling. Not advocating, just saying.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The US has the best politicians that money can buy.

It seems to be one of only a few reasonable explanations for their reluctance to address climate cha—

Al Gore for instance...

Oh. So, Al Gore makes a movie and suddenly climate scientists and environmentalists are this incredibly dangerous movement raining money down on politicians. The poor, destitute oil industry is no match for such a powerhouse.

 

[macdoc]

While the oil industry has a part ( Exxon supposedly out of funding the deniers thanks to the Rockefeller board revolt ) primary villian these days is King Coal ala Koch and Co.
Collect billions in profits and millions on subsidies.....they want to defend their pig trough.

Killing coal is job 1 and it can be done.

 

[uk_dave]

The problem in California isn't drought it's mad "environmentalism".

Environmentalists are killers.

Wow. Strewth. Blimey. Way to show your true agenda.

 

[Warmer1]

Oh, trés scientific.

Carbon, I understand, is mainly emitted by energy generation, industry, agriculture and vehicles.

Has the 80% of Americans who aren't in denial stopped using their cars yet?

You're on the wrong target. Deniers are a factor in climate change in exactly the same way fuel-saving scams are a factor in petrol prices.

You must not have learned that there is a huge network of climate change denial front groups that are misleading people on the dangers of climate change. Once you learn about it you will understand that climate change denies are a major factor in the lack of action to address climate change.

"It's no wonder there is such rampant denial and a propagandized "debate" in the mainstream. Dirty deeds obfuscate the truth to keep us confused and in the dark in order for big polluters to keep on polluting without any responsibility to humanity or the environment."

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/koch-industries-funding-climate-science-denial-front-groups/

 

[Warmer1]

Has the 80% of Americans who aren't in denial stopped using their cars yet?

Could you please cite where you heard that 80% aren't in denial. Recent polls that I have seen didn't have that high of a percentage.

 

[Warmer1]

"The Koch brothers outspend Exxon Mobil on pro-pollution disinformation aimed at preventing action to preserving a livable climate. "

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/04/04/207816/kochtopus/

 

[Warmer1]

The US has the best politicians that money can buy.

Home run.

You don't say

Koch Brothers’ Budget of $889 Million for 2016 Is on Par With Both Parties’ Spending

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/u...-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=0

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh. So, Al Gore makes a movie and suddenly climate scientists and environmentalists are this incredibly dangerous movement ...

Not suddenly; that started with DDT. What seemed sudden to me was Al Gore's promotion to leadership of said dangerous movement, regardless of the sterling work he'd done to minimise the Kyoto targets. (In fairness that was in the hope of getting Congress to ratify the treaty, which was never going to happen anyway. Congress won't ratify the Law of the Sea, fcol. They only signed up for NATO because they thought it stood for New American Territories Overseas. Which, admittedly, it sort of did.)

Looking forward to Paris. I'm hoping to blag a lift off Al in his private jet.

 

[The Atheist]

You must not have learned that there is a huge network of climate change denial front groups that are misleading people on the dangers of climate change.

See below.

Could you please cite where you heard that 80% aren't in denial. Recent polls that I have seen didn't have that high of a percentage.

What I see shows 18% denial: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...hows_americans_believe_in_global_warming.html

"The Koch brothers outspend Exxon Mobil on pro-pollution disinformation aimed at preventing action to preserving a livable climate. "

Yes, I acknowledged the Koch Bros, but the mere fact that they've been exposed has harmed their cause.

Take a look at where the carbon is coming from: USA & China are by far the biggest emitters and USA has a President devoted to the cause and China are serious enough that they're saying they will spend $6T trying to stop it.

How is denial affecting that?

Denial is a red herring. Outside of lunatics like Tony Abbott, there is no governmental acceptance of denier propaganda and I don't believe deniers matter a damn. Everyone recognises Monckton as a buffoon; David Bellamy might as well be dead... In what way are they causing any problem?

 

[macdoc]

Then why is Senator Inhoffe head the Environmental Committe...

Sen. Inhofe takes charge of Environment Committee | TheHill
thehill.com/.../230254-sen-inhofe-takes-charge-of-environment-committ...
Jan 21, 2015 - “And if I was to hand this gavel over to anyone, I'm happy that it's you. ... them to deal with are the regulations of the EPA,” Inhofe told reporters.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/230254-sen-inhofe-takes-charge-of-environment-committee

Zealot of US climate change sceptics Jim Inhofe to determine environmental policy

US environmental policy is in line to handed to senator who says God, not people, changes the climate

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...o-determine-environmental-policy-9852459.html

He and his compatriot environmental thugs matter a whole lot.

 

[DavidJames]

See below.



What I see shows 18% denial: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...hows_americans_believe_in_global_warming.html



Yes, I acknowledged the Koch Bros, but the mere fact that they've been exposed has harmed their cause.

Take a look at where the carbon is coming from: USA & China are by far the biggest emitters and USA has a President devoted to the cause and China are serious enough that they're saying they will spend $6T trying to stop it.

How is denial affecting that?

Denial is a red herring. Outside of lunatics like Tony Abbott, there is no governmental acceptance of denier propaganda and I don't believe deniers matter a damn. Everyone recognises Monckton as a buffoon; David Bellamy might as well be dead... In what way are they causing any problem?

Let's see if one of the deniers becomes president and the party of deniers remains in control of Congress. Then we can revisit your question.

 

[macdoc]

a regrettably possible occurance given the ability of Koch and cronies to subvert the election process.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm pretty much with the Atheist on this. It's difficult to picture things proceeding much differently over the last thirty years without denialism, unless there was a very energetic PR effort in the opposite direction.

The IPCC was set up in 1988: a standard bureaucratic response, setting up a committee and commissioning a reportin the hope it all goes away. The first report, in 1990, didn't make it all go away so it became a preliminary report - again, standard practice. When it still hadn't gone away in 1995 two years were spent on Kyoto, '97. None of this delay is really down to denialism.

The failed conferences have been down to standard diplomacy - pushing one's perceived national interests - being applied to a non-standard problem. Similarly with national politics. We'll see if things have changed in Paris.

I don't think much would have been shaved off this if there hadn't been a denialist effort. We're simply not set up, institutionally, to handle something like AGW, nor set up constitutonally, as humans, to fully appreciate such threats.

 

[CapelDodger]

a regrettably possible occurance given the ability of Koch and cronies to subvert the election process.

The Koch's would be doing this anyway, AGW or not. They're motivated by their Libertarian fantasy world; the third-party route having failed (who'd have thought) they resorted to entryism. AGW denial is incidental to the Tea Party phaenomenon and the Koch-ing up of Congress.

 

[The Atheist]

We're simply not set up, institutionally, to handle something like AGW, nor set up constitutonally, as humans, to fully appreciate such threats.

Oddly enough, that's exactly where I boarded this vessel.

 

[macdoc]

We did oky with SO2 and with the Montreal accord over ozone damaging chemicals despite a similar end of the world clamour from the impacted industries.
The resistance collapsed when the courts got involved.

The courts are getting involved on CO2

The harm is evident.
The companies knew the score ( like tobacco did ) from their own internal sources.
Time to pay the piper.

There is lots of precedence for other types of pollution and pollution clean up.

Coal will be the first target as it should be.
Capel....we ARE set up to deal with this....there is due process for taking corporations to task for harm...Shell and Exxon got dinged a chunk.

It took a while for tobacco and the battles still go on but Quebec just dropped a bomb on the tobacco companies with a pay immediately order without appeal.

Quebec Smokers Win $15 Billion From Tobacco Giants
CP | Sidhartha Banerjee, The Canadian Press | Posted 06.02.2015 | Canada Business
Read More: Cp, Video, Quebec Smoking, Quebec Smoking Lawsuit, Quebec Tobacco Lawsuit, Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health, Quebec Tobacco Class Action, Jti-Macdonald, JTI-Macdonald Lawsuit, Imperial Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Canada, Canada Business News

MONTREAL - In a ruling described as "historic" by one lawyer, a Quebec judge has ordered three major cigarette companies to pay $15 billion to smokers...

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/01/judge-awards-15-billion-_n_7487778.html

snip

"By choosing not to inform either the public health authorities or the public directly of what they knew, the companies chose profits over the health of their customers," Riordan wrote.

"Whatever else can be said about that choice, it is clear that it represent a fault of the most egregious nature and one that must be considered in the context of punitive damages."

The three firms will split the $15.6 billion according to responsiblity set out by the court — 67 per cent will fall to Imperial Tobacco ($10.5 billion), 20 per cent to Rothmans, Benson & Hedges ($3.1 billion) and 13 per cent to JTI-Macdonald ($2 billion).

The judgment calls on the three companies to issue initial compensation of a total of more than $1 billion in the next 60 days, regardless of an appeal. The judge will decide at a later date how to distribute those funds.