All because you purchased a plastic bottle of water, you Gaia hater you
(Accuweather, which should probably deal with simply the weather, rather than activism) Climate change has brought once lively and loud habitats to utter silence as their inhabitants of birds, frogs and insects have either vanished or drastically changed their migration patterns.
A relatively new study known as biophony, or the signature of collective sounds that occur in any given habitat at any given time, has provided scientific evidence to show that the sounds of nature have been altered by both global warming and human endeavors.
Warmists are the ultra-flat earthers, not wanting to see anything ever change.
While soundscape research has not been fully developed, hypotheses for the causes of these changes have been formed.
“My hunch from my work is that it has a lot to do with global warming,” Krause said. “Springtime is occurring almost two weeks earlier than it was even 20 years ago.”
Nature changes. And Mankind will change things through deforestation, habitat destruction, and real pollutants. But, not “climate change”. It was warmer during many of the previous warm periods during the Holocene. It may get warmer during this period, it may not. If Warmists really believed what they are saying, they’d modify their own behavior. Since most won’t make more than token changes, we have all the statistical evidence we need to call the issue mule fritters.
The Theory of AGW is false because you think some supporter, somewhere doesn’t live their life according to your mandate.
At what time in the Holocene was it warmer than now?
The Earth has warmed and cooled before, but the reason it is warming now is because of human-generated CO2 added to the atmosphere.
If the theory was correct, wouldn’t the people who believe in it make changes in their own lives to demonstrate their convictions?
Nah. That would make too much sense as it is easier to demand changes from others.
You know, kind of like those who hate the patent system and yet have profited from it when they could have released the rights.
Sound familiar Jeffery?
Your reasoning is flawed. Do you have evidence that those who support changing behaviors have not changed their own behaviors? Of course you don’t.
What degree of personal change would satisfy your ilk? This is important, since you base your entire “scientific” evaluation on this single criterion.
In fact, the reality is that the most important action an actual climate realist CAN take to fight global warming is to vote for Democrats and oppose Republicans.
You mean people like Al Gore? Those people?
No evidence?
Once again you faul to understand basic logic. It is not up to us to prove people have not changed, but rather it is for them to demonstrate they have changed.
All you have to do to find a hypocrite is look on the mirror.
gitar,
Once again you confuse an anecdote with evidence. Uncle Jody smoked two packs a day and lived to be 94, therefore cigarettes are good for you. Yet, when you collect evidence, it’s clear that cigarette smoking is linked to multiple human pathologies, including cancers, heart disease and lung disease. Whether Al Gore lives in a 100 room mansion or a solar heated tarpaper shack doesn’t change the fact that humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
I did not make the claim that evidence-based individuals are all hypocrites, W.T. did. I did not claim that Al Gore owning a big house refutes the Theory of AGW.
W.T., please explain your criteria for calling others climate hypocrites. For example, can an evidence-based individual ever fly in a plane? Can they ever drive or should they only walk or bike?
Finally, you confuse “belief” with “understanding”. You “believe” that man cannot influence the Earth’s climate but evidence-based individuals “understand” that man already has.
Jeffery,
It is interesting that you use the analogy of a man who smokes cigarettes. It is fairly applicable to the situation.
If the 2 pack a day smoker went around telling people how harmful cigarettes were and was still smoking those 2 packs a day, most people would say the man was a hypocrite and did not believe in what he was saying.
An honest person would live by the convictions he wishes to impose on others. An honest person would live by the convictions he demands of others.
Like most liberals, you don’t have an issue the very hypocrisy that is in front of you and that is in your life.
Liberals, having already screwed up their life always try to screw up the lives of others.
gitar,
You’ve jumped the shark on this one.
Where is the evidence? So far, you’ve cried “Al Gore.” Is there only one? Are there millions?
And what are your criteria for calling others hypocrites for their lifestyles while having no idea about those lifestyles you’re criticizing?
If an evidence-based person lives in a 1200 sq ft house, well insulated, uses significant solar energy, composts and drives a Prius, is he a hypocrite? His carbon footprint is likely 1/3 the typical American. Is he still a hypocrite because he doesn’t live in a cave?
What are your criteria? Don’t tell me you haven’t thought about it. Otherwise, how could you base your entire “scientific” position on it?
Anyway, I’m just toying with you for my own amusement. I know you got nothing. The reason you think AGW is a crock is because Al Gore is sanctimonious and has a big house. Typical conservative “science”.
Oh I dunno….. how about the fact that you put your hypocritical actions out there for all to see?
It is always amusing to watch liberals erect a strawman and then declare some sort of false sense of superiority as they try to destroy an argument that was never made other than in the vacuum of their own head.
If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny.
If you and the rest of the Warmists really Believed that (in defiance of 4.5 billion years of changing climate) you would change your behavior. You won’t. So why should we believea word you say?
I smoke. Been doing it since my teens. I’ve cut back to under half a pack, and slowly quitting through behavioral changes. But, I don’t lecture anyone about it being bad. You Warmists lecture everyone then jump in your fossil fueled vehicles. Hypocrites. Period.
And when confronted you give all sorts of excuses. Just about everything you wrote I’ve seen and heard many, many times.
W.T.,
What changes should those you slur as “warmists” make that would satisfy you? If a “warmist” drives a car, even a Prius, are they a hypocrite in your eyes? What are your criteria?
Do you consider a Teabagger who accepts any Federal gov’t aid to be a hypocrite? Is a Teabagger who receives Social Security, unemployment payments, Medicare, Medicaid, or uses an interstate highway or that benefits from medical advances funded by the NIH a hypocrite to you? Come to think of it, weren’t the Feds involved in the internet infrastructure?
The Teabag mentality is to have a “belief” and then use whatever psychological crutches you need to support your belief. I get it. To admit you were wrong on global warming is too threatening. Facts contrary to your worldview only make you dig in deeper in your unsubstantiated belief. Your false construct that you refuse to understand global warming because Al Gore has a big house is a psychological projection of the sort of excuse making you condemn.
How about starting with the changes warmists demand of others.
Now you will ask for a clarification for that simple response, so before you do, just go and look at what the warmists say others must do (but don’t do in their own lives.)
You know…. kinda like those who demand patent law reform but have profited from it.
You, W.T., Rush et al., mock and ridicule the behaviors that evidence-based folks already exhibit to limit their carbon footprint, e.g., recycling, bicycling, conservation, hybrid cars, renewable (non-CO2 based) fuels, solar power, wind power, forest protection, local economic activity, mass transit and environmental regulation. Now you criticize them for not doing enough!
Internal consistency has never been a strength of conservatives.
Why is atmospheric CO2 steadily increasing? Because humans are burning fossil fuels, generating CO2 faster than the Earth can absorb it. This increased CO2 is rapidly warming the Earth (greenhouse effect) which will likely lead to unpleasant and economically expensive impacts on human societies.
So clearly, we need to think of ways to reduce the global production of CO2. Until 2008, conservatives supported a market-based solution, namely carbon cap-and-trade. Our shared production of CO2 is causing trillions of $ of economic harm yet no one is taking responsibility.
What limitations?
And warmists are not “evidence based.”
I’ve seen that excuse a few times, too. An attempt to deflect and put us on the defensive. Then you throw out talking points blaming mankind. If you believed you’d practice what you preach, and your Warmists leaders are the worst.
I don’t expect you to be perfect, but I do expect to at least try. I consider myself an environmentalist. I’m not perfect. I buy plastic bottles. But I reuse the hell out of them. I don’t use cloth shopping bags (for a few reasons), but get plastic. I have a pail under my sink full of them. I’ll reuse or drop them at the market. I smoke. I use a bottle in my car rather than throw them out the window. I long ago refused to purchase any beverage with those plastic tabs. That was non-negotiable. I’ve agitated to do away with them. I donate to several environment groups. I don’t litter. I recycle. I turn things off when not using. And other environment friendly things.
Know what I mostly don’t do? Lecture people, even when I practice what I preach.
W.T.,
Good for you for being at least somewhat of a conservationist! Every bit helps.
Unfortunately, the enormity of global warming is such that your efforts or mine are miniscule when compared to the problem.
According to the EPA, in the US, CO2 sources are: electricity generation 38%, transportation 31%, industry 14%, other 16%. China and the US are the big CO2 generators, but Europe, Russia and India contribute.
gitar,
The limitations were described in the my text.
“Warmists” are more evidence-based than you “teabaggers.”
The data and evidence supporting the Theory of AGW are overwhelming (except to teabaggers).
You missed the point Jeffery.
When I asked “what limitations,” I wasn’t asking the limitations you want or think are in place, but rather what limitations or changes in lifestyles warmists have embraced within their own lives.
In other words, “prove it.”
Secondly, the term “warmist” as used on this site has never been a pejorative. It has always been understood to mean a certain group of people who believe in a certain thing. It is a lot easier than tying “those who believe in AGW” every time.
Yet either not understanding that, or just looking to be insulting, you jumped to the clearly derogative and known to be such term “teabaggers.”
Once again, faced with an argument you cannot refute, liberals resort to insults.
GT beat me to the stuff about Warmist, and you going with slur “teabagger”. When you see “alarmist” or climahysteric, yeah, those are derogatory. But nothing like Warmists comparing us to Holocaust deniers.
W.T.,
You don’t have to believe me, although I tell you the truth and support my arguments with evidence.
You are able to evaluate the data on your own and reach your own conclusions. That you now refuse to consider the evidence and instead base your “scientific” conclusions on what others may or may not be doing is problematic.
You have presented no evidence (except shouting, “Al Gore”) to support your argument. You refuse to state your criteria for your vague assertions of hypocrisy.
I’ve watched the devolution of the science denier crowd concerning AGW. The original complaint was that it wasn’t warming (heat island effects, Watts, misplaced thermometers, climategate emails, cheating scientists). Now, it’s hard to find a sentient human who denies the fact of warming. Now we are transitioning past the minority position of “it’s not CO2, it’s natural warming” meme (you guys are stuck on that now, but will abandon that position as you accept the overwhelming data supporting human-generated CO2 as the cause of the current warming). Eventually, even the most ardent denier will conclude that man-made CO2 is causing the current rapid warming, but that the activities required to stop it will do more harm to human civilization than does warming. You will be wrong once again.
I get it. You’re an intelligent guy but you’ve been backed into a corner by the evidence and you’re looking for a way out. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and admit you were wrong. Good luck.