The republicans are putting my family in danger

[_canpakes]

From EA’s link:

It’s now “inevitable” that the contiguous United States will lose all of its glaciers within a matter of decades, according to scientists who have revealed the precipitous shrinkage of dozens of glaciers in Montana.

Warming temperatures have rapidly reduced the size of 39 named glaciers in Montana since 1966, according to comparisons released by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and Portland State University. Some have lost as much as 85% of their expanse over the past 50 years, with Glacier national park, site of 37 of the surveyed glaciers, set to lose all of its eponymous ice formations within the next few decades. Of the 150 glaciers that existed in the park in the late 19th century, only 26 remain

Reality: 1
Amore: 0

[_subgenius]

Yet, since 1995, in America the per capita annual carbon dioxide emissions has reduced by about 15% to 20%...and of the top 20 industrial carbon dioxide emitters...only 3 are American companies (with only 1 in the top 10 - #5 Exxon, #12 Chevron, #16 Peabody).

And being a skeptic of global warming prophecy is a more accurate characterization....of the 120 hurricanes that hit Florida since 1850, somehow it was last one that was because of AGW.

In addition to what has already been said, slowing the rate of incline in US total carbon emissions is not sufficient.

Thanks for your support of my point...a little redunadant, but appreciated.

Per capita is a useful number in some contexts, but not here.

Great! but my post did not reference per capita...so thanks for the coffee table fodder.

If we have more people, that's a problem.

So much for your "not here" proclamation....please continue beating the per capita into the ground inasmuch as you began by proclaiming its irrelevance "here".

The US has only just recently gotten to the point of slightly lowering total carbon emissions.

superfluous.

We are at the point where carbon emissions need to be rapidly reducing to get to a near zeroing out on net human contribution. Emitting a little less than we did annually than we did in 2002 is not going to cut it.

speculative.

Continuing to add to the problem is going to yield negative consequences and the pace is still towards severely negative consequences.

Arguable.

I am arguing in the post you are responding to that different US leadership would have resulted in being much closer to this goal both domestically and internationally.

Nice prophecy but if pigs had been born with wings...

You continue to ignore the fact that the US has the capacity to influence the policies of other nations even though I'm reaching directly to a comparable example in curtailing CFC emissions due to ozone depletion.

Ah, empire building via environmental policy, nice end-around. And to be fair, every nation has the capacity to influence the policies of other nations.

US scientists and diplomats were leaders in producing international agreements that not only reduced US contributions, but also reduced contributions from other areas in the world.

So what? Is your position that "other" nations are too stupid to initiate such policies on their own?

Continuing to write, as you do even after this post, as though Americans can only affect American pollution is simply false. Unfortunately, America has been a force towards thwarting international cooperation on climate change. We're not even neutral.

Jibberish conclusion.
No one is proclaiming that "Americans can only affect American pollution". The only ignorant proclamation thus far is that "The republicans are putting my family in danger".

Nevertheless, if you truly believed the circumstances were dire you would not have such a tepid approach to conservation....see you on the freeway!

[_EAllusion]

Yet, since 1995, in America the per capita annual carbon dioxide emissions has reduced by about 15% to 20%...and of the top 20 industrial carbon dioxide emitters...only 3 are American companies (with only 1 in the top 10 - #5 Exxon, #12 Chevron, #16 Peabody).

And being a skeptic of global warming prophecy is a more accurate characterization....of the 120 hurricanes that hit Florida since 1850, somehow it was last one that was because of AGW.

Per capita is a useful number in some contexts, but not here.

Great! but my post did not reference per capita...so thanks for the coffee table fodder.

Awesome. Maybe pay attention to whatever you are copying and pasting better.

So much for your "not here" proclamation....please continue beating the per capita into the ground inasmuch as you began by proclaiming its irrelevance "here".

One wonders if you even know what "per capita" means. I was specifically pointing out that what matters here is total carbon emissions. If per capita has gone down while the total population has increased, thus washing out the per capita declines, that's relevant.

No one is proclaiming that "Americans can only affect American pollution". The only ignorant proclamation thus far is that "The republicans are putting my family in danger".

Your entire reasoning here rests on the notion that America can only affect American pollution as that is the only way you can squeeze a relevant point out of noting American's contribution to global carbon emissions is fractional. Besides the issue of it still being large enough for Americans to care about what Americans can do about American pollution, Americans can have a diplomatic influence on how other nations approach their carbon footprints. Describing this as "empire building" is neat, but I don't think US led international cooperation to stop depletion of the planet's ozone layer was 1) an example of empire building or more importantly 2) bad. Republicans' action or inaction doesn't just affect domestic carbon policy. They affect Chinese carbon policy. Global problems require international cooperation.

Nevertheless, if you truly believed the circumstances were dire you would not have such a tepid approach to conservation....see you on the freeway!

This is the other argument you keep relying on in this thread. The idea is that if a person doesn't radically alter their own carbon footprint, then they are unserious in their concerns about climate change and this reveals a defect in what they are saying. First, to the extent this is supposed to be a refutation of their arguments, it's straight up ad hominem fallacy. It doesn't matter if they are hypocrites. Second, this completely misunderstands what is being advocated for and why. A single person changing their contribution is negligible. It takes something collective to have real impact. But you cannot realistically expect to get collective change unless you change the underlying system people are interdependent on. Expecting a person to give up their livelihood when it produces no meaningful change is unreasonable. That's why people focus on underlying systems such as building the true cost of carbon into its price so you can produce the kind of broad-based economic changes necessary to ameliorate carbon pollution. Used as a talking point here, it is no more deep than you just telling someone to shut up.

[_EAllusion]

Heh. I thought people might be familiar with "liberal logic 101" memes. Subgenius has posted a few in his day. They are a hardcore religious right clearing house for those kind of things most notable for combining sheer stupidity with an unearned sense of condescension.

[_Amore]

Yeah, it's not like any idiot with two minutes and access to Google couldn't have learned that about a hundred glaciers have disappeared from Glacier National Park alone. Or seen any of thousands of pictures showing glacial retreat around the globe. Or read scientific reports on the accelerating loss of mass by glaciers as a whole.

But what do we get? A made up statistic and an Al Gore meme.

ResIspa - you are absolutely right - we need proof, dammit!
So please, show pictures of you and credible glaciologists who are not liberally funded out there counting each and every glacier.

No? You’ve never counted them? Then how do you know? Oh - yeah, you blindly trust in your General liberal Authorities. “But I’ve seen pictures!!” Says the “idiot” who ignores photoshop, media bias & “$cienti$ts” willing to alter results for a bigger pay check.

And you still haven’t explained why anyone would be so idiotic to support the spending of trillions of dollars based on weather changes.

Global Warming Causes Global Spending: Follow the Money
“Some estimates put the spending on global warming causes at one billion dollars a day. Governments around the world, at the behest of the U.N., spend vast amounts of money on a problem which only exists in computer models. Climate change research has become big business; driven by political ideology and greed, instead of a quest for truth...

A survey of 3247 US research scientists who address global warming causes – all publicly funded through the National Institutes of Health, an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services – published in the science journal Nature, showed that 503 of them admitted to altered the design, methodology or results of their studies, due to pressure from funding sources. Those were just the scientists willing to be honest; it is safe to assume a much larger number.”

But the above is anti-leftists!!! How dare you expose yourself to such literature. Even if it seems true - you must always look to your liberal General Authorities. Be a good little herd-member and ignore those facts and just trust in your new herd.

[_Res Ipsa]

Yeah, it's not like any idiot with two minutes and access to Google couldn't have learned that about a hundred glaciers have disappeared from Glacier National Park alone. Or seen any of thousands of pictures showing glacial retreat around the globe. Or read scientific reports on the accelerating loss of mass by glaciers as a whole.

But what do we get? A made up statistic and an Al Gore meme.

ResIspa - you are absolutely right - we need proof, dammit!
So please, show pictures of you and credible glaciologists who are not liberally funded out there counting each and every glacier.

No? You’ve never counted them? Then how do you know? Oh - yeah, you blindly trust in your General liberal Authorities. “But I’ve seen pictures!!” Says the “idiot” who ignores photoshop, media bias & “$cienti$ts” willing to alter results for a bigger pay check.

And you still haven’t explained why anyone would be so idiotic to support the spending of trillions of dollars based on weather changes.

Global Warming Causes Global Spending: Follow the Money
“Some estimates put the spending on global warming causes at one billion dollars a day. Governments around the world, at the behest of the U.N., spend vast amounts of money on a problem which only exists in computer models. Climate change research has become big business; driven by political ideology and greed, instead of a quest for truth...

A survey of 3247 US research scientists who address global warming causes – all publicly funded through the National Institutes of Health, an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services – published in the science journal Nature, showed that 503 of them admitted to altered the design, methodology or results of their studies, due to pressure from funding sources. Those were just the scientists willing to be honest; it is safe to assume a much larger number.”

But the above is anti-leftists!!! How dare you expose yourself to such literature. Even if it seems true - you must always look to your liberal General Authorities. Be a good little herd-member and ignore those facts and just trust in your new herd.

Let's test your "evidence" yet again. Provide a link to the study you described.

[_EAllusion]

It took me a while to figure out where that claim even came from. I think I found her original source here:

http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/global-wa ... ney-video/

The way it cites its sources is hilarious.

Anyway, I anxiously await this study published in Nature from Amore.

[Guest]

And you still haven’t explained why anyone would be so idiotic to support the spending of trillions of dollars based on weather changes.

Because failure to mitigate or stop climate change will ultimately cost us much more than taking action to stop or slow it, and the longer we delay in taking effective action, the more it will ultimately cost. We could have saved billions, if not trillions of dollars if we had committed to a global effort to solve the problem decades ago when the problem first became apparent. Not only that, we would have opened up tremendous entrepreneurial and economic opportunities, created billions of new and desirable jobs, and greatly reduced environmental pollution. In short, the potential benefits would far outweigh the costs. If the USA does not take the lead in this effort, it will lose out big time to China, Europe and other countries who already are, and we risk becoming an economic, scientific and industrial backwater.

[Guest]

And you still haven’t explained why anyone would be so idiotic to support the spending of trillions of dollars based on weather changes.

Because failure to mitigate or stop climate change will ultimately cost us much more than taking action to stop or slow it, and the longer we delay in taking effective action, the more it will ultimately cost. We could have saved billions, if not trillions of dollars if we had committed to a global effort to solve the problem decades ago when the problem first became apparent. Not only that, we would have opened up tremendous entrepreneurial and economic opportunities, created billions of new and desirable jobs, and greatly reduced environmental pollution. In short, the potential benefits would far outweigh the costs. If the USA does not take the lead in this effort, it will lose out big time to China, Europe and other countries who will, and we risk becoming an economic, scientific and industrial backwater.

That Amore cannot distinguish between weather and climate tells you all you need to know. She's doing what she always does: copies and pastes false and misleading crap from sites that ideologically agree with her without even bothering to take the slightest effort to investigate their truth. Her accusation about other people being whores for ideology is simply massive projection on her part. It's what she does, so she assumes everyone else does it, too.

[_Res Ipsa]

It took me a while to figure out where that claim even came from. I think I found her original source here:

http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/global-wa ... ney-video/

The way it cites its sources is hilarious.

Anyway, I anxiously await this study published in Nature from Amore.

That looks right. Here's the thing. Anyone with a modicum of common sense and the slightest interest in the truth would at least question the notion of a survey of climate scientists who are all funded by the National Institutes of Health. The study, as reported in Nature and other places, was real. What's not real: the survey was of climate scientists. And if you look at the literature that followed the study, you find that this is a particular problem in medical research because of pressure by pharmaceutical companies. But Amore liked what she read, never even thought to question it, and fell for a lie, hook, line and sinker.

Yet, at the same time, she claims that any evidence that runs contrary to her conservative ideology must be fraudulent because... reasons.