You know, we should chat about global warming

[El_Kabong]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Doorhinge isn’t even correct about his centerpiece argument: Americans Have Never Been So Sure About Climate Change—Even Republicans.

In a nutshell, 3/4 of the public now accepts the scientific consensus on climate change. I wonder if dimwit will continue repeating his imaginary claims?

Well, he’s already hedged his bet by saying he believes there is climate change going on; he apparently just doesn’t believe increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity has anything to do with it. And he doesn’t believe that because people were rude to him. Or something.

[doorhinge]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

…But I didn’t call my target audience stupid.

Well, okay, I did:

But that’s under the assumption that you’re doing something very, very stupid.

But apparently you didn’t read the post you responded to. The whole point is that I don’t care about some hypothetical group of voters. When I post here, I’m talking to you. Put aside all those idiots. What do you think? Why do you think it? I can’t convince some random hypothetical voter. I can’t talk to said hypothetical voter. I can talk to you.

Anyone can see the results of almost 30 years of man-made-CO2-is-evil zealotry. COP 21 has been just as successful as COP 20, 19, 18, etc. The UN/IPCC is still trying to convince the public that man-made CO2, and all manufacturing, must be heavily regulated for CO2 output or the global temperature will increase. The global temp has been increasing since the last ice age. Long before man-made, CO2 spewing, manufacturing existed.

What is your goal? Is it to save the planet? Is it to save mankind (which is not necessarily the same thing)? Is it to tax industry? You’re like a football team that can’t figure out how to get past the defense’s 20 yard line, or a race horse that stops 100 feet before the finish line. You can’t seem to get the job done.

I’m talking to you. You haven’t been able to convince enough of the voters/public to buy what you’ve been selling. If you truly believe that you don’t need a bigger buy-in from the voters/public, or if you don’t care what the stupid public believes, you have little chance of making your CO2 dreams come true.

[andros]

@doorhinge

Anyone can see the results of almost 30 years of man-made-CO2-is-evil zealotry. COP 21 has been just as successful as COP 20, 19, 18, etc. The UN/IPCC is still trying to convince the public that man-made CO2, and all manufacturing, must be heavily regulated for CO2 output or the global temperature will increase. The global temp has been increasing since the last ice age. Long before man-made, CO2 spewing, manufacturing existed.

What is your goal? Is it to save the planet? Is it to save mankind (which is not necessarily the same thing)? Is it to tax industry? You’re like a football team that can’t figure out how to get past the defense’s 20 yard line, or a race horse that stops 100 feet before the finish line. You can’t seem to get the job done.

I’m talking to you. You haven’t been able to convince enough of the voters/public to buy what you’ve been selling. If you truly believe that you don’t need a bigger buy-in from the voters/public, or if you don’t care what the stupid public believes, you have little chance of making your CO2 dreams come true.

Or, if I might offer a translation:

“Fappity-fap-fap-fap.”

Don’t run out of tissues, almost-but-not-quite-rhymes-with-orange. And for Kdapt’s sake, use lotion so you don’t chap.

[doorhinge]

@Colibri

…The El Nino event now in progress is expected to be one of the most severe ever recorded. Torrential rains in California and other effects are likely. Next year I suspect that public acceptance of global climate change will again go up, but for the wrong reasons.

(post shortened)

California can certainly use the rain. “IF” your predictions come true.

Predictions of record hurricanes, tornados, glacier disappearance, coastal flooding, drought, cats and dogs living together have been making the rounds for decades. The question is, will your predictions actually come true?

[andros]

@doorhinge

Predictions of record hurricanes, tornados, glacier disappearance, coastal flooding, drought, cats and dogs living together have been making the rounds for decades. The question is, will your predictions actually come true?

This…this is…so brilliantly inane.

I take it back. Maybe you have learned something about trolling. you’re still not good at it, but yeah, you have some chops.

[Colibri]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

California can certainly use the rain. “IF” your predictions come true.

Predictions of record hurricanes, tornados, glacier disappearance, coastal flooding, drought, cats and dogs living together have been making the rounds for decades. The question is, will your predictions actually come true?

It’s not my prediction, it’s a prediction by major world meteorological organizations including NOAA.

I’ll bet you $100 right now that California will see wetter than average conditions in the coming year. This is a sucker bet, but you’re a sucker.

[Skywatcher]

@doorhinge

record hurricanes

Sandy? Patricia?

tornados

Bridge Creek-Moore? El Reno? Joplin?

[GIGObuster]

@andros

This…this is…so brilliantly inane.

I take it back. Maybe you have learned something about trolling. you’re still not good at it, but yeah, you have some chops.

It also demonstrate why guys like him are called deniers, for them it does not matter that there is overwhelming evidence (that can be seen also) that the glaciers are disappearing as we speak.

Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss

Extreme Ice Survey - A program of Earth Vision Institute - Extreme Ice Survey

And no, the scientists and experts reporting on the issue are already aware that the natural factors are not the main reason why the current warming observed is happening right now. Specially for the ice in the arctic the arctic amplification warming was a phenomenon that was predicted decades ago that was coming thanks to the increase in global warming gases in the atmosphere.

[septimus]

@Kimstu

This is in no way inconsistent with climate science’s findings of a long-term increasing trend in global surface temperature.

Yes. Isn’t much of the recent cooling due to La Niña ? Did I read that her big brother Niño has shown up? Didn’t we just see the first Category Six hurricane since the 18th century?

What are odds for another Cat-6 storm() in the coming decade? Two such storms?? :rolleyes: What will the confused right-wingers say then?
( - Yes, I know the deniopaths consider freak weather events inadmissable as evidence, when they made no landfall in the Lower 48 states. :smack: )

[GIGObuster]

My mistake, scientists did not predict the Arctic amplification decades ago, it was more than a century ago.

Arctic Amplification

[Trinopus]

@doorhinge

Predictions of record hurricanes, tornados, glacier disappearance, coastal flooding, drought, cats and dogs living together have been making the rounds for decades. The question is, will your predictions actually come true?

Bolding mine: Yes, glaciers are disappearing. Several have disappeared completely.

You’re an idiot.

[Colibri]

@Trinopus

Bolding mine: Yes, glaciers are disappearing. Several have disappeared completely.

You’re an idiot.

Here’s a safe prediction: doorhinge will continue to make a complete fool of himself in this thread.

[Trinopus]

He’s actually a climate-change double-agent, pretending to doubt global warming, in order to make the deniers look silly. In that role, he’s doing a heroic job, and doing it brilliantly.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@doorhinge

Anyone can see the results of almost 30 years of man-made-CO2-is-evil zealotry. COP 21 has been just as successful as COP 20, 19, 18, etc. The UN/IPCC is still trying to convince the public that man-made CO2, and all manufacturing, must be heavily regulated for CO2 output or the global temperature will increase. The global temp has been increasing since the last ice age. Long before man-made, CO2 spewing, manufacturing existed.

Oh look, an argument. It’s a shame it’s been rammed up your ass about as many times as you’ve posted it, which should be getting close to quadruple digits at this point. Hope you brought lube, your ass is probably pretty sore. Various factors cause climate to change in various ways. Yes, we’ve been warming since the last ice age, before we started producing massive amounts of CO2. Incidence rates of childhood diseases were going down before vaccines were introduced. Does this imply that vaccines have no effect on the incidence? Do you think that we couldn’t tell that they have an effect by looking at the chart and noting where it stops dipping slightly and starts to plunge?

Congratulations, you’ve figured out that climate is a complex, varying system. Maybe at some point you’ll figure out that it’s possible to understand something about that system, and that there’s some noteworthy difference between a very slow, gradual warming, and a jump of almost 1C in a century.

[BrainGlutton]

Paul Krugman: If we’re doomed, it’s the Republicans’ fault.

Anyone who follows U.S. political debates on the environment knows that Republican politicians overwhelmingly oppose any action to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, and that the great majority reject the scientific consensus on climate change. Last year PolitiFact could find only eight Republicans in Congress, out of 278 in the caucus, who had made on-the-record comments accepting the reality of man-made global warming. And most of the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination are solidly in the anti-science camp.

What people may not realize, however, is how extraordinary the G.O.P.’s wall of denial is, both in the U.S. context and on the global scene.

I often hear from people claiming that the American left is just as bad as the right on scientific issues, citing, say, hysteria over genetically modified food or nuclear power. But even if you think such views are really comparable to climate denial (which they aren’t), they’re views held by only some people on the left, not orthodoxies enforced on a whole party by what even my conservative colleague David Brooks calls the “thought police.”

And climate-denial orthodoxy doesn’t just say that the scientific consensus is wrong. Senior Republican members of Congress routinely indulge in wild conspiracy theories, alleging that all the evidence for climate change is the product of a giant hoax perpetrated by thousands of scientists around the world. And they do all they can to harass and intimidate individual scientists.

In a way, this is part of a long tradition: Richard Hofstadter’s famous essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” was published half a century ago. But having that style completely take over one of our two major parties is something new.

It’s also something with no counterpart abroad.

It’s true that conservative parties across the West tend to be less favorable to climate action than parties to their left. But in most countries — actually, everywhere except America and Australia — these parties nonetheless support measures to limit emissions. And U.S. Republicans are unique in refusing to accept that there is even a problem. Unfortunately, given the importance of the United States, the extremism of one party in one country has enormous global implications.

[septimus]

The Richard Hofstadter essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” just mentioned may be an interesting read. The fervid paranoia that marks the present-day GOP is an old American tradition.

[BrainGlutton]

@septimus

The Richard Hofstadter essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” just mentioned may be an interesting read. The fervid paranoia that marks the present-day GOP is an old American tradition.

Get the paranoids! God forbid they should be disappointed!

[doorhinge]

@Colibri

It’s not my prediction, it’s a prediction by major world meteorological organizations including NOAA.

I’ll bet you $100 right now that California will see wetter than average conditions in the coming year. This is a sucker bet, but you’re a sucker.

Is that the same NOAA that is currently refusing to turn over information on how they operate to a Congressional committee?

Do you have $100? How would you pay this $100 when you lose?

[Colibri]

@doorhinge

Do you have $100? How would you pay this $100 when you lose?

If you actually want me to take your money, we can arrange a method of transferring funds, if necessary via a third party. Put up or shut up.

[Ludovic]

Hahahahaha. This is almost as great as “lawyer” Beryl_Mooncalf’s going on a tangent and not even addressing lesser included offenses. For someone who knows an awful lot about climate and weather, it looks like an extremely ignorant miss. Sucker bet indeed.