Nice to hear from the hysterical 20 something crowd
I’m twentysomething, I vote, and I won’t take seriously any candidate who doubts climate change
I’m a voter — a white, male, college-educated twentysomething voter, born in the conservative South, living in the liberal North. I was raised in a middle-class family but now occupy an economic class more concerned with finding jobs than itemizing tax deductions. I understand the complex foreign policy issues our country faces and yet I do not understand the self-cannibalizing direction of our domestic politics.
My vote is up for grabs. Heading into 2016, it will be coveted, along with those of my fellow twentysomethings. For any candidate looking to “inspire the youth vote,” here is the key to mine.
If you’re thinking “a good jobs market coupled with a great economy”, well, you didn’t read the headlines
Today’s news leaves no American wanting for reasons to fear: Islamic State, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Russia, not to mention our own border security, national debt and political gridlock. Yet one issue receiving less attention is the most pressing: Our planet is dying. It is hemorrhaging, suffocating and it is going to flatline. Soon.
Evidence of this inexorable march toward planetary collapse is overwhelming and yet the United States, the nation that considers itself “leader of the free world,” can’t even agree that it is happening? This is the issue. The only issue. We must do something to slow this trend — because we’ve already squandered any hope of reversing it.
Doooooooom! I guess if you have no reasonable job prospects, thanks to voting for people like Obama, one has time to whine about Hotcoldwetdry. Even though the Earth has survived multiple warm periods, ones which were warmer than the current warm period, in the Holocene alone.
The youth of this country want desperately to be proactive. We aren’t entitled. We want to innovate and improve things. This is not a crisis we asked for, but it will define our lifetime.
I wonder if the writer, John Cubelic, has given up all use of fossil fuels and made his own life “carbon neutral”? Obviously, that is rhetorical, because we know the answer is “no”. For all the talk of being proactive, it’s all about forcing other people to comply.
Climate change threatens the future of the planet. If that rhetoric sounds alarmist, that is only because we have been asleep on this issue for far too long. As for politicians who refuse to wake up, I take that inaction or opposition as a direct threat to my future and the future of my family. No politician who threatens me, my home and my family would ever receive my vote.
What action have you taken in your life, John?
I see the indoctrination was very successful in this case.
Too bad he’s a white male though.
He’s going to have to answer for that, no matter how politically correct his thinking and actions are.
>and yet the United States, the nation that considers itself “leader of the free world,” can’t even agree that it is happening?
That may be one of the reasons the U.S. is a leader of the free world. Independent thinking.
However, the American propaganda machine needs to held to account for much of what is believed about AGW and for it’s lack of transparency.
Ohhh Teach how you are going to hate finding out that Mr Cubelic is actually doing quite well in his profession as an independent film maker
Of course since his resume includes working on The Hobbit and a bunch of other movies so he does have that going for him
Oh and I bet his job also comes with a lot of pretty perks http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4102418/
Probably the most important thing that he does is cast his vote for Dems
Doing thar will help more than anything else changing our national policies is the way to effect change the most
Ok, so once again John provides meaningless babble barely related to the post. But, hey, he was good enough to inadvertently highlight that Mr. Cubelic takes lots of fossil fueled travel to make films. Climahypocrite.
“Our planet is dying. It is hemorrhaging, suffocating and it is going to flatline. Soon.”
Good grief. Overheated, overblown idiocy like this is seen as “the sky is falling!” malarkey by any sensible person.
You’d think that the warmists would realize that this kind of extreme alarmism hurts their own cause rather than helps it. On the other hand, maybe they aren’t that sensible…..
“I’m twentysomething, I vote”
A strong argument for raising the voting age to 30.
I added the following comment to this article at the LA Times:
This was written by Pajama Boy, wasn’t it? I mean, who else has that combination of naiveté, emo despair, and apex self-esteem? Here’s a guy with a cult-like certitude about an issue he has absolutely no educational background in who blindly follows people he deems leaders who have been wrong ON EVERY SINGLE GLOBAL WARMING PREDICTION SINCE 1980. Every single one. Yeah, tho he exhorts them to believe in the next prediction of disaster for that one will surely be right. Even though it hasn’t warmed in 18 years, global sea-ice is at normal levels, the predicted extreme weather such as tropical storms and tornadoes are at or near record lows, the sea level continues to rise at the same minute rate that it has since the LIA, and most of our hot temperature records were set over 60 years ago. With the story photo he wants us to believe that glaciers are melting in -40C weather. He lives in the North East, where the only reason he survived last two frigid winters comes from burning fossil fuels for heat and electricity.
Very well stated J.
If you added this to the LA Times, then good for you!
I am saddened that the information that you stated is not reaching the general public.
Hopefully readers will see your comments there and be intriqued enough to fact check on their own to reach the conclusions that you have.
And you’re bragging about this because?
An obvious lie. The Earth has warmed since 1980, as predicted. About 0.45 C. That’s a lot of warming in a short time.
Another obvious lie. The Earth has warmed since 1997. About 0.18 C.
A meaningless statement. What’s normal? What we do know is that Arctic sea ice area and volume continues to decrease. Antarctic sea ice area in winter is increased, but not nearly so much as Arctic sea ice area has decreased.
Another obvious lie.
Another obvious lie. And an irrelevant one at that. The US makes up less than 5% of the Earth’s surface. That means there is more than 95% of the Earth’s surface not here.
Also, I thought the LA Times banned letters filled with lies from deniers. No? I was just looking at the over 300 comments there and most were from deniers.
>Also, I thought the LA Times banned letters filled with lies from deniers. No? I was just looking at the over 300 comments there and most were from deniers.
They do. They only print truthful ones from Deniers.
As for the term “Deniers.” Trying to label people who “question authority” or who will not accept statements on belief alone, with a term used for the holocaust, is quite mean spirited and will not serve well to convince others to your opinion.
That should be a red flag on it’s own. Those who belief in AGW seem quite threatened by deniers. Why?
Because all their solutions require consensus. Or at least a majority who believe, so that laws can be voted in to force the rest of us who don’t believe.
Fortunately, that is our saving grace. It is an extremely hard to get everybody on board to endorse your imagined utopia.
Especially those being asked to pay for it.
The more people resist, the greater the hype until AGW goes from being a concern that we humans need to adapt to (as it was touted in the 1980’s). To the human species faces extinction by the end of the century.
Why don’t all the AGW promoters pay a volunteer carbon tax, pay a volunteer carbon off setting fee
and lead by example!!!
Alternatively, they can take a non-socialists approach and invest the same money they would pay as a carbon tax into stock like Tesla. That would spawn more development into green energy to solve the problem more quickly, and they can just get on with it. They don’t have to insult, cajole, threaten, scare, or bully those into compliance in order to move forward to solve the problem like they have been trying to do without success since 1980.
…and these people want to rule the world?
Phil,
Denier is as appropriate as warmers, warmists, alarmists, nice fascists, hypocrite, communist, conspiracist etc.
You can’t change facts. The Earth is warming from CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere. The only question is what, if anything, to do about it.
The only question is what, if anything, to do about it.
Many deniers deny, not because of concern about the facts, but from political ideology. Denying the facts is a tool, a tactic to enable the ideological strategy.
A carbon cap and trade program is not fascism or communism or part of a global conspiracy to enslave Americans. It’s a market-based approach to transition from fossil-fuels to renewable energy sources in an effort to slow CO2 emissions.
Realists appreciate suggestions from deniers on how to address the problem, e.g., warmists should give up all fossil fuel use; warmsist should stop breathing; warmists should pay for any remediation themselves…
Seriously? The fascists/communists who want to rule the world are working for a consensus?? Is that what dictators do? lol
So it seems you’re saying that if realists start being nice to you, and stop driving to work, you’ll change your opinion on the facts of global warming. If you’re not fibbing, it reveals the shallowness of your position.
The Earth has warmed since 1980, as predicted. About 0.45 C.
According to who? Cite your source.
The Earth has warmed since 1997. About 0.18 C.
Source?
Little jeffy, again you’re not being clear.
(alarmists, nice fascists, hypocrite, communist, conspiracist) are not nice terms, but warmist is not too bad. It can’t be compared to a term used for the holocaust. …Advocates and skeptics are probabably the best terms.
An unbiased non political person after examining available facts would say that skeptics have reason to be skeptical, or at least they can see why they might be skeptical.
>Many deniers deny, not because of concern about the facts, but from political ideology. Denying the facts is a tool, a tactic to enable the ideological strategy.
I do not disagree with this. It is a tool to prevent consensus to prevent heavy handed wealth redistribution laws.
Other deniers say if someone is coming to tax me I better be sure the reason to be taxed is a good one! That’s why they fact check. They then see the reasons are not conclusive. They see that at a minimum Goddard, WWF, and the IPCC have not been transparent. Some would say deceptive.
And alarmists say a great many things that they can’t back up. It is merely conjecture on their part. What makes it worse is that they have been wrong in the past.
> fascists/communists, no they do not need permission they already have societies money. Thats why they do not endorse AGW. They do not need too. However socialists do. They need the power of government to advance their ideology.
carbon cap and trade program is not “market based” if you are FORCED to participate! It is the advocates way to soft sell it to the public.
If I was a warmer and I TRULY believes in AGW, I would abandon my attempts to convince everyone else and engage in a strategy that by-passes deniers. If that strategy was focussed on green energy development and did not force people to pay or participate then most deniers would not care and say “power to you”. The side effect is no pollution. Most deniers do not care about other areas of environmentalism because their solutions do not advocate the above. However, most socialists with green hats also do not care about other areas of environmentalism for the same reason.
>So it seems you’re saying that if realists start being nice to you, and stop driving to work, you’ll change your opinion on the facts of global warming.
No I will not change my mind on the facts. I have seen to much or too little. But I will not care. In the same way I do not care if you are religious or not. But I would REALY care if you are trying to pass a law that makes me tithe to the church against my will.
Then I would fact check the bible.
At least Christians admit their belief is faith based and they choose to belive because their faith is not conclusive, nor has it “been decided.”
Little bitchy,
You can do it yourself, you citizen scientist, you. Here’s how. Google “temperature trend calculator” – there are several – this is my fav (http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php), and perhaps the most intuitive to use – and start plugging in the dates yourself. You can access the Gistemp, NOAA, Hadcrut, Berkeley datasets and even the RSS and UAH satellite derived datasets!
For example, the UAH satellite dataset shows 0.1 C per decade from 1997 to 2015. 0.1 C x 1.8 decades (18 years) yields 0.18 C increase. You don’t have to rely on me or anyone else. You’ll be surprised to discover that I’ve been telling you the truth and your “climate elites” like Teach and Monckton have been lying to you.
So have at it and tell me what YOU discover, without relying on Teach and Goddard to tell you what to think. Good luck.
Ok this is a cool site. Assuming you trust the data, then plugin 1944 to 1977. You will see a cooling trend of about 34 years. Any source. Satellites not available then.
Now plug in 1977 to 1998 and RSS shows slight warming.
UAH slows less warming but still warming.
Now plug in 1997 to 2014 for RSS and you will see a warming trend.
Now plug in 1998 to 2014 for RSS and you will see a cooling trend.
Same for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2009 2010, 2013…till 2014. All cooling trends!
2013 to 2014 was a big cooling trend.
Years 2005, 2006, 2008, (which was a cold year) show warming trends.
So therefore it is fair to say that the temperature is stagnate currently.
NOW notice in all situations, 2014 WAS NOT THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD as was recently claimed by the media. So did they lie to us?
UAH gives different data to show slight warming trends for most years. Whose right?
Land and sea is not as reliable but show slight warming trends.
In all instances the warming or cooling is not significant.
So why all the gloom and gloom.
and after thought.
If you plugin 1985 to 2014 to UAH, (the date in which AGW first became popular)
you get a warming trend of:
Trend: 0.164 ±0.092 °C/decade (2σ) UAH
and a
Trend: 0.138 ±0.094 °C/decade (2σ) RSS
So does that mean the world has warmed about 1/10 of a degree C in 30 years!
They cherrypicked the datasets that showed 2014 to be the warmest. Never trust the media to enlighten on complex issues, especially science. It’s fair to say that 2014 was one of the warmest years.
This is why scientists look at long term trends and not just highs a lows.
Plot any of the surface datasets of the last 100 years and look at the trend lines. There are yearly swings as well as apparent cyclic waves – up periods for a decade or two, flat periods for a decade or two. And all of this superimposed on what appears to be a steady increase.
Trend: 0.164 ±0.092 °C/decade (2σ) UAH over a period of 30 years
Note the units:
0.164 C/decade
1 decade = 10 years
so 30 years = 3 decades
So, 3 decades X 0.164 C/decade = 0.492 C from 1985 to 2015
That’s almost 1/2 degree C in 30 years. That’s a lot of warming. And from a satellite system, too.
Guys,
I assumed you all were familiar with the basic temperature data.
Ok. Then:
If you take the lowest estimate of UAH which is 0.080 x 3 you get 0.24 degrees.
If you take the highest estimate of UAH which is 0.164 x 3 you get 0.49 degrees.
RSS comes out around 0.34 average give or take.
So I think we can say somewhere in the middle is likely the correct temperature.
Now this was during a hotter than normal decade (1990’s) Which started all of this, and which we all agree.
C02 started to climb in 1945.
During that time the world cooled for 32 years. (1945 to 1977)
During that time the world warmed for 20 years (1978 to 1998)
During that time the world stabilized, slightly cooled or slightly warmed based on your opinion for 16 years. (1998 to 2014)
Based on this, is it logical to assume that man made C02 is the main cause?
If the trend continued and the world warmed another 1.0 by 2100 would the human species become extinct?
Is this worth trying to do cap and trade etc etc or should we just get on to coming up with marketable fossil fuel alternatives.
Very likely within our lifetime or at least yours we will move away from fossil fuel anyway as better alternatives become available. Just like we moved away from horses to cars in the 20th century.
We are coming out of an ice age. The temperature readings of the past were not precisely accurate, just educated guesses that were likely close but not exact. I googled “how much the earth has warmed in the last 100 years. I clicked on the first hit and you will see by the graph on the top right that the world cooled greatly the first half of the 20th century and then warmed greatly the second half. Could not nature be responible for both?
see link here:
https://www2.ucar.edu/news/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years
Alternatively put into your chart 1880 to 1935. Any source. All show temperatures are below the the global adverage which is (who knows) because they never tell you what 0 on the graph represents. Regardless, it cooled then according to your chart. Then after a warm period of 5 years or so cooled again for about 32 years. Caused by nature or something else?
The sun was cooler duirng this time. Warmer during the 1980’s and 1990’s and now it is cooler again.
Could the sun be the main cause of world warming or cooling?
Little jeffy gets all hot and bothered when asked for a source and comes back with a calculator from of all places SkS. Nice try.
Probably should take a look at Climate4You.
Click on Global Temperatures.
Enlighten youself.
Or maybe just get back to your sandbox.
Little bitchy ignores science when he “discusses” science.
Do you have a point, my little bitch?
If you do, try and make it. It would be your first. What a big moment for you that would be!
Otherwise, just get back to your doggy style. Do your hands and knees get sore?
I checked the website, and read through some of it.
Did you know it’s run by Ole Humlum? lol
You reject Skeptical Science out of hand and send me to Ole Humlum? Why, was Chris Monckton’s site crashed?
So little Jeff prefers a site run by an Aussie cartoonist?
Evidence does not support other causes.
Probably not. But human extinction is a pretty high bar for action wouldn’t you agree? Cigarettes kill some 400,000 Americans a year and we still sell them. Writes economist Paul Krugman(1):
“… there is a rough consensus among economic modelers about the costs of action. That general opinion may be summed up as follows: Restricting emissions would slow economic growth — but not by much. The Congressional Budget Office, relying on a survey of models, has concluded that Waxman-Markey “would reduce the projected average annual rate of growth of gross domestic product between 2010 and 2050 by 0.03 to 0.09 percentage points.†That is, it would trim average annual growth to 2.31 percent, at worst, from 2.4 percent. Over all, the Budget Office concludes, strong climate-change policy would leave the American economy between 1.1 percent and 3.4 percent smaller in 2050 than it would be otherwise.”
That amount of “drag” on the economy, while real, does not support the idea of a destroyed economy. Globally the impact is expected to be less.
How do we finance the development of marketable alternatives with fossil fuel costs being kept artificially low by billions per year in direct and indirect subsidies? What motivation would smart investors have to compete with that?
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html
My Little Bitchy,
Yes. The temperature trend calculator is valid.
Let me know when you have something relevant to add.
>Evidence does not support other causes.
What evidences is that. I have yet to see it.
Given the option between the sun and C02, I would choose the sun. It make more sense to me.
It may be true about the cost of carbon not effecting the ecconomy that much. I don’t buy that either.
But that is what all tax promoters claim.
“..ahh it’s just a little bit. You won’t notice it. A few bucks from you, means millions to us.” Then after awhile they increase the tax and after that increase the tax some more. Income tax was designed to pay for WWI, but once the gravy train starts it never stops.
It’s time to stop rewarding the unproductive who are capable of being productive and serving society the way it wants to be served.
>How do we finance the development of marketable alternatives with fossil fuel costs being kept artificially low by billions per year in direct and indirect subsidies? What motivation would smart investors have to compete with that?
Currently there is none. So why is the tax payer investing in it? Mostly against their will.
Those who think greening the world is worthwhile should invest voluntarily in viable accountable projects that have a possibility to succeed.
Their money would be much better invested than a carbon tax, and if the project succeeds then they will also finacially benefit.
Dispite current oil costs, a great product would still be cheaper and the world would embrace it practically overnight as they have always done when a better cheaper product becomes available.
As for oil subsidies that should stop as well. Corporate bums are still bums.
During feudal times the land owner got the his share of the crop and the harvesters go the minor share. The land owners got rich and the peasents remained poor. Somehow in the 1920’s that switched to now the land owners are getting the minor share. What’s up with that?
As a Canadian I pay more for Canadian gas then Americans do for Canadian gas. I pay way more than the Saudi’s do for their gas.
Also, few know that all Saudi’s get approimately 30,000 dollars a year from the government in a society where a four star resturant meal costs 2 dollars U.S.
Let me rephrase. There is no evidence to support other causes. Changes in the energy output of the Sun do not correlate with the temperature increase – unless one attributes some previously undiscovered actions of the Sun. That you think it’s the Sun is not as powerful an argument as evidence. Please present the evidence that the Sun’s warming and cooling is causing the Earth to warm.
A Nobel Laureate economist who supplied the best evidence available vs your “I don’t buy that either”. Your “belief” based on your feelings vs. the work of professional economists: Why should we believe your position?
One can’t ignore the fact that the fossil-fuels industry is heavily subsidized directly and indirectly when discussing investments in renewable sources. In addition, “Too big to fail” corporations (think GM, Wall Street banks, Chrysler, fossil fuel industry) have a large implicit subsidy from the US gov’t that investors recognize, and amounts to an advantage over other corporations in the same class. These subsidies, direct and indirect, would not exist in a true free market. Below market loans are subsidies too.
That was a misunderstanding.
>That amount of “drag†on the economy, while real, does not support the idea of a destroyed economy.
I meant to say “I don’t buy that” meaning i do not believe a carbon tax would destroy the economy” either.
It would not help though and is just another burden on society.
The fact that you cannot find actual evidence of a link between C02 and temperature means that is a theory. Conjecture based on the rise of C02 at a time when the temperature also rises. Advocates look at the two scenarios and connect the dots. All the proxy “evidence” is an attempt to solidify that claim as being valid. However the temperature was rising LONG before C02 started to rise in 1945. What was causing it then?
Could it be that we ae coming out of an Ice age? Though the rate of warming was greater in the 1990’s and cooler in the 1940’s does it not average out to a small rate of warming overall as a result of coming out of an ice age and the temporary warming and cooling is from the Sun?
James Hansen suggests so as a reason for the recent pause. Don Easterbrook makes that claim as well as a great many others who are actually scientists who work in the field of weather.
Now “the sun is the culprit” is also a theory. Nobody knows for sure. That is the point. However, before we start trying to re-engeneer society I think the advocates need to make a much stronger case. Their prejections based on the green house gas have not panned out as expected. We have had 35 years to test out this theory. In the meantime the Sun theory predictions advocated by Easterbrook and others has been more accurate. He did say in that video (which you did not watch) that it should start getting cooler after 1998 and as we now know from your chart, most years it did, and may continue to do so till at least 2020 or if he is really right 2030. At which point it will start to warm again.
In the meantime i will try to find correlations of the suns warming or cooling in line to what we observe of the Earth’s temperature.
If I do I hope you read it!
***In the meantime I must say i like that little chart. It is fun to play with. I did notice again that the rate of error on many calculations is very high and often greater or almost greater than the variations that we see in temperature.
1998 to 2014 RRS the error rateis -0.052 ±0.218 °C/decade (2σ) for example.
Here is the link again with James Hansen:
Here is the brief 2 minute interview by the BBC:
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/05/18/i-should-correct-what-you-just-said-hansen-on-global-surface-temps/
Of course it’s a theory. So is gravity. But there is overwhelming evidence to support both. Scientific theories cannot be proven, only falsified. The theory of AGW has yet to be falsified, and as evidence accumulates in support, it becomes less likely to be falsified. What evidence would convince you that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm now, if over 90% of climate scientists can’t convince you?
If you were ill and you visited 100 expert physicians and 97 recommended one course of action and 3 recommended doing nothing, would you assume the 97 knew what they were talking about or would you declare it a toss up?
It’s actually more correctly called an hypothesis, and one that has not been promoted to the level of a theory because… little supporting evidence.
Climate scientists say variations in the Sun are responsible for 11% of the warming since the 1800s. That’s the calculated difference between the cumulative slight warming and cooling of the Sun over that time.
>Of course it’s a theory.
Well your counterparts say it is a “fact,” it is “decided” etc…
That should be a red flag to you.
>What evidence would convince you that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm now.
For starters that climate model predictions based on C02 actually came true.
They did not.
That the world continued to warm significantly above and beyond 1998 levels, after C02 reached almost 400ppm.
It did not.
That the so called 90 percent of scientists would state so in public. Like the scientists who do not believe in AGW.
That though the media says that 90 percent are on board, they are strangely silent. You couldn’t name three.
That James Hansen the so called “Godfather of AGW” has lost a lot of support even among advocates and now blames the sun for lack of warming now that it suits him.
That the AGW movement has not been transparent. That the pause is not public knowledge. That misleading headlines are routinley published.
That AGW press releases are given a pass to fact checking that other stories do not enjoy.
That the leaders of IPCC are not scientists. That they seem more intersted in a larger agenda of which AGW is a catalyst for.
That scientists have quite the IPCC over allegations scientific fraud.
That the touted C02 doomsday fiqure was 400PPM. … and now that we are basically there , no Doomsday.
That the topic it seems more political than scientific.
More religious than scientific. I could go on an on…
Scientists who do not believe are marginalized and ostrazied, yet scientists differ on a great many other topics. Why such a demand for compliance on this topic? That debate is stifled on this topic virtually everywhere. Like religion, or in the past evolution. Creationists did not want their believers to know other explanations. That is a red flag for me.
**Now on the other hand scientists like Don Easterbrook makes a claim it is the Sun. He said in 1999 that the world would stop warming and start cooling. It did. It has cooled more than warmed depending on what years you choose. Your chart helped to confirm that. ..or at least it slowed.
How did he know that? When C02 proponents did not?
He was ridiculed at the time but now “The Pause” is accepted by advocates and skeptics alike.
In addition those scientists who agree with him have great credentials in climate studies!
He said that North America would start seeing winters like we saw in the 1970’s. We are. In fact the last several winters have been colder.
He said that C02 rose in the 1040/50’s while the temperature went down. Your chart confirmed that It did!
Past temperatures have increased and decreased without the aid of C02. What made them increase or decrease in the past?
Those natural forces are still with us and must still play a role.
Predictions of sea level rise, polar ice melts, and polar bear demise have been grossly exaggerated and have not come true or at least not to the degree predicted.
Finally the lack of interest of believers to look at the other side of the story. Watch video links or news stories that contradict their belief convinces me the issue is more ideological than scientific.
***So I ask you. If you are at the racetrack and two handicappers came to you and said they know how to predict winners and one picked three in a row and the other one did not, who would you bet on?
The one that is mostly right, … or the one you wish to be right?
after thought.
>Of course it’s a theory. So is gravity.
Yes but gravity is easily provable. Drop a rock and it falls to the ground every time.
If if did not fall to the ground most of the time i think we would be questioning gravity.