Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, August 02, 2019

Amid an ongoing heat wave, new data show the Greenland ice sheet is in the middle of its biggest melt season in recorded history. It's the latest worrying signal climate change is accelerating far beyond the worst fears of even climate scientists.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Cool! We can have cheap Slurpees!

#1 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-08-02 02:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1


@#1 ... Slurpees! ...

Slurpees? Hardly. They're frozen.

From the cited article...

...On August 1 alone, more than 12 billion tons of water will permanently melt away from the ice sheet and find its way down to the ocean, irreversibly raising sea levels globally....


#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-02 02:42 PM | Reply

--A full-scale mobilization ­ -- including rapidly transforming the basis of the global economy toward a future where fossil fuels are no longer used -- would probably be enough to keep most of the remaining ice frozen, where it belongs.

That's the key point of this article, like all of Eric Holthaus's writing. We must have global central planning, green socialism, etc. Now.

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-02 03:00 PM | Reply

#2 | Posted by LampLighter

I don't think you know what a Slurpee is.

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-08-02 03:12 PM | Reply


@#4 ... I don't think you know what a Slurpee is. ...

It's a sweet carbonated frozen drink that hovers just below freezing temperature, giving it a slushy texture.

It is more ice than liquid.


#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-02 03:34 PM | Reply


As the climate changes, so do our words
www.axios.com

...As climate change and our debate around it intensifies, so are the words we use to describe it.

Why it matters: The presidential election season is directing more attention to our words and characterizations as we follow debates and rallies around the country. Words are especially important on a topic like climate change that is less tangible than others, like healthcare.

Driving the news: Activists and many progressive politicians are calling climate change an emergency, while most Democrats say it's a crisis. Certain media outlets are revamping their coverage and, in some cases, changing their style books.

- Some Republicans, meanwhile, are slowly coming back around to acknowledging the problem publicly, yet are turned off by the intensifying language used by many on the left. Conservatives aren't (for now) offering much in the way of new, big policies.

My thought bubble: I use words like issue or problem to describe climate change. Elevating that description to crisis or emergency doesn't really fit because it implies a sudden urgency that doesn't capture how long the problem has been developing or how long we'll live with it....


#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-02 03:36 PM | Reply


@#3 ... That's the key point of this article, like all of Eric Holthaus's writing. We must have global central planning, green socialism, etc. Now. ...

So, what would you propose instead?

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-02 03:37 PM | Reply

I'll take a green river please. Half ice.

#8 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-08-02 03:43 PM | Reply

So, what would you propose instead?

How about stopping slashing and burning in the Amazon and planting more trees across the planet to take away the Carbon Dioxide...

...and cleaning up the worlds oceans so that there is more room for Photo-plankton that generates up to 75% of the worlds oxygen.

The laws are already on the books... we just need to make it a priority and enforce them.

#9 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-08-02 03:46 PM | Reply

The methane release from that is going to accelerate global warming exponentially, actually.

Good thing Global Warming is a myth, and this is all just cyclical.

#10 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-08-02 03:51 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"How about stopping slashing and burning in the Amazon and planting more trees across the planet to take away the Carbon Dioxide."

People slash and burn because it makes them money.
How about stopping making money?
Most people are going to say no.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 03:53 PM | Reply

"How about stopping slashing and burning in the Amazon and planting more trees across the planet to take away the Carbon Dioxide."
People slash and burn because it makes them money.
How about stopping making money?
Most people are going to say no.

#11 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

They weren't slashing and burning until the recently elected Brazilian president changed the laws. They were doing a decent job of protecting the rain forest.

#12 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-08-02 03:59 PM | Reply

So, what would you propose instead?

I love this question, after at least 30 years of solutions have been put out there, only to be shot down by not-liberals as too expensive, or fake news or whatever.

I propose that everyone who has been vehemently denying climate science for the last several decades pull their collective heads out of their asses, listen to what you've been denying for as long as I can remember and get out of the way, for starters. Let the elites you despise so much implement their well-considered plans instead of spending so much time trying to own the libs and letting the oil moguls con you on a daily basis. How's that for a proposition?

#13 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-08-02 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

--A full-scale mobilization ­ -- including rapidly transforming the basis of the global economy toward a future where fossil fuels are no longer used -- would probably be enough to keep most of the remaining ice frozen, where it belongs.
That's the key point of this article, like all of Eric Holthaus's writing. We must have global central planning, green socialism, etc. Now.

#3 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

There is no suggestion of socialism. But yeah, it's happening and something needs to happen.

Here's an idea: Become Alaska.

Alaska treats Oil as a state natural resource and essentially has socialized it. Oil companies pay Alaska to drill for oil and Alaska provides its residents a credit in dollars each year.

Treat the air the same way. People and Companies pay to pollute with CO2. The credit is delivered to the US citizens each year based upon usage. You have a huge CO2 footprint, you pay to pollute. You have a smaller one, like your typical middle class family, you get a credit from the government each year.

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-08-02 04:02 PM | Reply

People slash and burn because it makes them money.
How about stopping making money?
Most people are going to say no.

People murder other people for money.
How about stopping murder for money?
Most people are going to say no.

#15 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-08-02 04:02 PM | Reply

People engage in the sex slave trade because it makes them money.
How about stopping making money?
Most people are going to say no.

What a great argument.

#16 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-08-02 04:03 PM | Reply

Murder is already illegal.
Burning the amazon to convert it to pasture is not.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 04:07 PM | Reply

Give people a better opportunity than burning the rainforest and people will take it.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 04:08 PM | Reply

Have no doubt about it. There are right wingers on this site who would rather have humanity go extinct than pay a penny more in taxes to fight global warming.

#19 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-08-02 04:14 PM | Reply

Have no doubt about it. There are right wingers on this site who would rather have humanity go extinct than pay a penny more in taxes to fight global warming.
#19 | POSTED BY MODER8

I would rather have government go extinct than pay another penny more in taxes.

#20 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-02 04:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

12 billion tons more today. And tomorrow. That is enough to change the salinity of the planet's oceans. Also affecting the thaw across huge swaths of tundra, frozen peat bogs, in Canada, Alaska, Siberia, releasing 10's of thousands of tons of carbon dioxide and methane, each and every day. Massive wildfires in Siberia, Alaska. Record temperatures expected over the arctic circle.

You are witnessing a man made extinction event, in real time. The next step in the cascade will be massive die-off in the oceans. This is now out of control.

As Zatoichi would say.....happy extinction.

#21 | Posted by gitmboy at 2019-08-02 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

As Zatoichi would say.....happy extinction.
#21 | POSTED BY GITMBOY

The irony is that he was predicting his own future.

You are witnessing a man made extinction event, in real time.

Nonsense. First, plants love CO2. Second, 80% of CO2 is from non-human sources.
In geological time, CO2 levels are at historic lows. At about half the current level, all plant life would die.

#22 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-02 04:34 PM | Reply

Ray,

Either provide an explanation of what we're seeing globally that fits the data or admit you're an ignorant ---- and STFU.

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-02 04:44 PM | Reply

Either provide an explanation of what we're seeing globally that fits the data or admit you're an ignorant ---- and STFU.
#23 | POSTED BY JPW

Here's two sources.
www.youtube.com
www.iceagenow.info

It's a natural cycle. What we're seeing now is extremes in events. More floods and droughts. Extremes in hot and cold. More earthquakes and volcano eruptions. I don't know about Greenland in this case. I know that some melting is coming from underground magma.

The idea that our government can do anything about it is stupid at the least.

#24 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-02 04:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"It's a natural cycle."

Burning 93 million barrels of oil a day isn't part of any natural cycle.

Stay in school, kids!

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 05:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"In geological time, CO2 levels are at historic lows."

In geological time, human civilization doesn't exist.

Stay in school, kids!

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 05:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#24

The idea that government can't do many things more effectively and efficiently for all parties involved than a corrupt oligarchy is about as stupid as you can get. Since loads of data and evidence show otherwise, I will just call it Ray doing what Ray does best.

#27 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-08-02 05:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The idea that our government can do anything about it is stupid at the least."

It's true, government can't stop volcanoes.
But cars emit 50x more CO2 than volcanoes.
And the government pulls cars over every day.

Stay in school, kids!

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 05:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#28 www.scientificamerican.com

Snoofy is right, unless anybody finds Scientific American problematic.

#29 | Posted by Karabekian at 2019-08-02 05:20 PM | Reply

Ray, Nullifidian, Andrea, a mattress, JeffJ, MadBomber, and a host of others find Scientific American problematic.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 05:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Let's just say pretty much all right-wingers -- Trumpers and Never Trumpers alike -- find Scientific American problematic.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 05:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Snoofy, I should point out that the SA article combines automobile and industrial emissions, but, yeah...anthropogenic emissions are obviously contributing to climate change.

#32 | Posted by Karabekian at 2019-08-02 05:33 PM | Reply

In geological time, human civilization doesn't exist.
#26 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Exactly right. CO2 levels have been once this low before humans existed. They've also been many times more before humans existed.

#33 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-02 05:50 PM | Reply

The idea that government can't do many things more effectively and efficiently for all parties involved than a corrupt oligarchy is about as stupid as you can get. Since loads of data and evidence show otherwise, I will just call it Ray doing what Ray does best.
#27 | POSTED BY BOCAINK

You must be looking at cooked data. Or else you're looking in all the wrong places. Or else, you're blind to the ---- pile in front of you.

#34 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-02 05:56 PM | Reply

"CO2 levels have been once this low before humans existed. They've also been many times more before humans existed.'

CO2 levels have fluctuated between about 150 and 300 ppm throughout human existence, in concert with the advance and retreat of glaciers, i.e. ice ages.

Up until the last century or so, when human industrial activity pushed CO2 levels up to 400+ ppm.

There's no reason to think breaking that cycle will not be disastrous for humans.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 06:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's a natural cycle.

It's modification of a natural cycle.

You don't even know the premise of the science but you want to comment on it?

Exactly right. CO2 levels have been once this low before humans existed. They've also been many times more before humans existed.

#33 | Posted by Ray

None of which changes the fact that human activities have skewed a natural equilibrium in the direction of a feed forward warming cycle while decimating the best buffer Earth had against it (deforestation in case you weren't there).

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-02 08:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nonsense. First, plants love CO2. Second, 80% of CO2 is from non-human sources.
In geological time, CO2 levels are at historic lows. At about half the current level, all plant life would die.

#22 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-02 04:34 PM

The problem with people like you, is I will not get to be the last person you see in life, standing over you as you beg me to put you out of your misery.

At about 450 ppm, the atmosphere starts becoming toxic to most life on this planet. Reptiles. Birds. Mammals. The additional freshwater in the oceans will reduce both salinity and oxygen. Everything in the ocean requires both to fluctuate within a very narrow band.

collapse.

#37 | Posted by gitmboy at 2019-08-02 08:41 PM | Reply

None of which changes the fact that human activities have skewed a natural equilibrium in the direction of a feed forward warming cycle while decimating the best buffer Earth had against it (deforestation in case you weren't there).
#36 | POSTED BY JPW

It's all --------. If that's what you want to believe, I'm not going to waste time arguing with you.

I knew when I gave you two sources, you would ignore them.

#38 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-02 08:42 PM | Reply

The problem with people like you, is I will not get to be the last person you see in life, standing over you as you beg me to put you out of your misery.

The problem with me is that I know politics is about manipulating the public through lies and myths.

#39 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-02 08:45 PM | Reply

all the while the Google Climate Summit has RICH Dems coming by a 114 private jets and Megayachts

#40 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-08-02 08:55 PM | Reply

Right, because 114 people are warming the globe, and 7,000,000,000 are not.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 08:58 PM | Reply

"At about 450 ppm, the atmosphere starts becoming toxic to most life on this planet."

As Zatoichi was fond of saying:

Breathe in 1% CO2 and get back to us on the health effects.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 08:59 PM | Reply

"The problem with me is that I know politics is about manipulating the public through lies and myths."

No, Ray.
The problem with you is you don't know anything else.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 09:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The problem with you is you don't know anything else.
#43 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Seeing no evil makes you easy prey.

Just saying ...

#44 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-02 09:12 PM | Reply

"Seeing no evil makes you easy prey."

You're giving advice to your own straw man now, Ray.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 09:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Snoofy

I'm pretty sure you won't watch it. It's 45 minutes too long for you.
Regardless, I'll end this discussion with a link to a Milton Friedman speech.

www.youtube.com

#46 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-02 09:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Tell you what.
Link to the text of a Milton Friedman speech and I might consider reading it.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 10:05 PM | Reply

Link to the text of a Milton Friedman speech and I might consider reading it.
#47 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

LMAO!

#48 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-02 10:19 PM | Reply

No link?
I see no evil.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-02 10:50 PM | Reply

It's all --------. If that's what you want to believe, I'm not going to waste time arguing with you.

I knew when I gave you two sources, you would ignore them.

#38 | Posted by Ray

I didn't have time to read them.

Besides, there's more than enough to address in the illogical points you made in your own words.

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-02 11:42 PM | Reply

Right, because 114 people are warming the globe, and 7,000,000,000 are not.
#41 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Lead by example, or you're just another poser.

All these black tie galas and finger-food cocktail parties are --------.

The Super-Rich Are Stockpiling Wealth in Black-Box Charities - www.bloomberg.com

#51 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-03 12:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Glaciers advance and recede, going though cycles over many millennia. Remember that our country was once under massive glaciers and guess what, the globe warned and they receded. Glacial ice melting; end of the world as we know it! 😱

www.researchgate.net736030999207948@1552494873356/Map-of-North-America-showing-area-covered-by-ice-during-Great-Ice-
Age.png

Also seas rising; [again nothing new]; end of the world as we know it!😰

www.researchgate.net614058147454977@1523414279316/Generalized-Danian-paleogeographic-map-of-North-America-Cannonball-
Sea-shorelines-based.png

But, just raise taxation, lower entire country's standard of living and the libs can fix it [just send your dollars to the AOC/DNC/UN, etc].

#52 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-08-03 12:09 AM | Reply

I asked you once before and you disappeared, so I'll ask again.

Do you really find "duh it's aleays cycled" to be a compelling argument? Do you think you're saying something that people don't know? Do you honestly think that the scientists who collected the data you're citing forgot to consider it when they found evidence for man made climate change?

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-03 01:09 AM | Reply

Many people are still denying global warming and climate change is occurring. What a sad state of affairs.

And all because the fossil fuel industry spends money to keep 1/3 of America stupid on the subject.

#54 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-03 05:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Do you honestly think that the scientists who collected the data you're citing forgot to consider it when they found evidence for man made climate change?
#53 | POSTED BY JPW

You make a naive assumption that scientists are objective seekers of truth.
When in fact, they are largely dependent on government financing.

Once science is politicized, it's no longer science.

#55 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-03 09:17 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's a natural cycle.

It is not a natural cycle.

Radioisotope studies have shown the rise in C02 is mostly man made.

www.realclimate.org

Rate of change, Ray, rate of change. It's not part of Jeebus' plan no matter how many snowballs your allies produce in Congress.

#56 | Posted by zarnon at 2019-08-03 11:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You make a naive assumption that scientists are objective seekers of truth.
When in fact, they are largely dependent on government financing.

You and your Trump-inspired, fact-free Conspiracy theories are now considered a threat and rightly so:

www.salon.com

AGW denial being the biggest threat this country faces.

Sure Ray, those people spent a huge chunk of their adult lives to get a phD in a highly politicized field.. for the princely sum of 80k avg per year?

For this big chunk of change these thousands of scientists, over decades of research, spanning dozens of countries, all got together and fudged the research -- together. Not a single whistle blower.

You low-info Trump-humpkins are some pieces of work. They should require an IQ test before you people are allowed in the voting booth.

#57 | Posted by zarnon at 2019-08-03 11:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#55 stick to gold buying

You clearly don't know how funding works in science.

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-03 11:55 AM | Reply

Ray, you want a real conspiracy with proof, I challenge you to read the collection of papers obtained from the FOIA and lawsuits , collated by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
They show a concerted effort by major oil companies to fudge the evidence over a 30 year period on AGW including a Road Map to Victory where confusion was their goal.
You want bought-out scientists, it's all in the papers.
You want whistle blowers, done.

Enjoy!

(None of the evidence has ever been refuted).

www.ucsusa.org

#59 | Posted by zarnon at 2019-08-03 11:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

I'm just pointing out that they are bunch of hypocrites

#60 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-08-03 12:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

hmmmm biodomes..... yep dats the future...

Covert abandoned shopping malls into biodomes and sell the space...

It's clear we are all gonna die by going extinct might as well make a buck before we go...

hmmm would make a good game... like monopoly only your building biodomes... and you can go to war against other biodomes to steal their food and solar panels.The most valuable thing will be lime... with which your can recharge your CO2 scrubbers for your soldiers. Two gangs fighting for control... the Rethuglicans and the Demorats... It will be an amalgam of "Monopoly" and "The Game of Life".

#61 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-08-03 12:11 PM | Reply

I don't have the patience I used to have to argue with you people.

Believe what you want to believe and I'll let it go at that.

You low-info Trump-humpkins are some pieces of work. They should require an IQ test before you people are allowed in the voting booth.
#57 | POSTED BY ZARNON

Good news for you! I stopped voting over 30 years ago. That's when I realized there are too many low IQ voters.

#62 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-03 12:14 PM | Reply

(None of the evidence has ever been refuted).
#59 | POSTED BY ZARNON

Who cares? Do you have an alternate energy source ready for market?

Do you have oil-free tech to replace cars, trucks, busses, trains, ships, military, heating, manufacturing, plastics, etc, etc.

Are third world nations already on board, or are the Gore-DiCaprio crowd organizing another yacht and private jet junket?

#63 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-03 12:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We will need to reduce not eliminate our Co2 output. We do need to transition from a predominantly fossil fuel economy. Pretending that alternative means of energy production doesn't exist is disingenuous at best.

So no, I do not want to eliminate oil but reduce our dependence on it.

And Al Gore does not, nor ever has been an argument against decades of climate research although you numbskulls and your Whattaboutisms never fail to deploy it.

#64 | Posted by zarnon at 2019-08-03 12:33 PM | Reply

Believe what you want to believe and I'll let it go at that.

I believe what I believe based on my analysis of the evidence.

Evidence, Ray, not some smoke and mirrors Unicorn conspiracy theory.

I showed you the paperwork outlining how Exxon and major oil companies fudged the research. Actual documentation and Ray the truth seeker, couldn't be bothered.

Show me the equivalent Ray, show me the paperwork where climatologists admitted they were faking results.

Hilarious. No sir, you believe what you want to believe. You may not vote Trump but you sure have the science and conspiracy theory chops for one.

#65 | Posted by zarnon at 2019-08-03 12:37 PM | Reply

Once science is politicized, it's no longer science.

#55 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-03 09:17 AM | Reply

And who politicized that science? I'll give you a hint, it isn't the scientists who are "largely dependent on government funding". Maybe it's the same people who politicized the science on leaded gasoline?

This study found that 56% of the drop in violent crime in the US between 1992-2002 could be directly attributed to the banning of leaded gasoline. There are many other negative effects of TEL in gas as well, many of which people like you like to attribute to vaccines. From this wikipedia article:
"Chronic exposure to TEL can cause long-term negative effects such as memory loss, delayed reflexes, neurological problems, insomnia, tremors, psychosis, loss of attention, and an overall decrease in IQ and cognitive function.[63]

The carcinogenity of tetraethyllead is up for debate; however, it is believed to harm the male reproductive system and cause birth defects.[64] "

The EPA also notes: "Even low levels of lead in the blood of children can result in: Behavior and learning problems; Lower IQ and Hyperactivity; Slowed growth; Hearing Problems; Anemia"

It can also cause cardiovascular disease and hypertension as well as birth defects.

You are so fond of finding the monetary motivation to attack science, but you ignore the industry that has a history of ignoring the long-term health effects of its products to increase its profits. Why is that?

#66 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2019-08-03 12:38 PM | Reply

-- etc, etc.

And modern agriculture, which depends on huge fossil fuel inputs.Take away that, and billions will starve, and global population will shrink to sustainable numbers. Sounds like a plan eco-fanatics would love.

#67 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-03 12:39 PM | Reply

Do you have an alternate energy source ready for market?

Maybe you should ask those hippies in China.

#68 | Posted by zarnon at 2019-08-03 12:39 PM | Reply

You are so fond of finding the monetary motivation to attack science, but you ignore the industry that has a history of ignoring the long-term health effects of its products to increase its profits. Why is that?
#66 | POSTED BY STATSPLEASE

Its human nature protecting its interests. Political, corporate, science, economics, individual, etc. The behavior pattern is the same.

The Chinese and Russians must be laughing their asses off watching this country self-destruct.

#69 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-03 12:48 PM | Reply

Who cares? Do you have an alternate energy source ready for market?

Do you have oil-free tech to replace cars, trucks, busses, trains, ships, military, heating, manufacturing, plastics, etc, etc.

Are third world nations already on board, or are the Gore-DiCaprio crowd organizing another yacht and private jet junket?

#63 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-03 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are oil-free alternatives to most, if not, all of those things, including plastics. The military has long been working on replacing its dependence on drilled oil by working on biofuel technologies. Heat pumps are fantastic for both heating and cooling for most of country. There are electric versions of cars, trucks, busses, and trains that are in use now. Given more research emphasis, they would be even further along than they are. Even the shipping industry is trying to find a way to move away from diesel. Why are you such a staunch fighter against progress?

If people had listened to the scientists and actually put policy in place decades ago, the costs would have been amortized over a longer period, and the damage would have been significantly mitigated.

I hear a lot of "it will destroy the economy" statements, but no evidence to back it up. I also remember when mandatory airbags were going to destroy the auto industry, the clean water act was going to destroy the economy, banning smoking was going to destroy bars, and a myriad of other "sky is falling" nonsense from the so-called "conservatives". None of those things had the dire effects that were asserted. In fact, in most cases, they ended up being beneficial to the economy and even the industries they were supposedly going to destroy. Why should I believe the same people making the same unsupported assertions about combating climate change?

#70 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2019-08-03 12:51 PM | Reply

Its human nature protecting its interests. Political, corporate, science, economics, individual, etc. The behavior pattern is the same.

The Chinese and Russians must be laughing their asses off watching this country self-destruct.

#69 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-03 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's just a cop-out. You didn't answer the question. You assert the science is faked because money, despite all evidence to the contrary, and believe the oil company propaganda despite the very real evidence they are the ones pushing the fake science. The scientists have been proven correct repeatedly, but you continue to assert they are just as corrupt as the proven liars. That's simple intellectual dishonesty and laziness dressed up like some kind of high-minded philosophy.

#71 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2019-08-03 12:58 PM | Reply

I propose a virtue signaling gathering of world leaders and wealthy celebrities at an exotic location. Bonus if they travel there using private jets and mega-yachts.

#72 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-08-03 01:03 PM | Reply

I'm just pointing out that they are bunch of hypocrites

#60 | POSTED BY MAVERICK

And an excuse to maintain your lifestyle of pollution and excess, right?

#73 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-03 01:13 PM | Reply

That's simple intellectual dishonesty and laziness dressed up like some kind of high-minded philosophy.

"Conservatism", and Ray, in a nutshell.

#74 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-03 01:17 PM | Reply

#71 | POSTED BY STATSPLEASE

You assert the science is faked because money, despite all evidence to the contrary, and believe the oil company propaganda despite the very real evidence they are the ones pushing the fake science.

I don't pay attention to oil company propaganda anymore than I pay attention to political propaganda. To get a real sense of climate change, you have to study climate change over hundreds of thousands of years. The evidence shows that climate change is cyclical.

"In the last million years the Earth's climate has alternated between ice ages lasting about 100,000 years and interglacial periods of 10,000 to 15,000 years. The new results from the NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen show that the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, the Eemian period, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago."
www.nbi.ku.dk

Earth is currently near the end of its interglacial period. Earth is not getting warmer. It's getting more erratic between extreme of heat and cold.

That's simple intellectual dishonesty and laziness dressed up like some kind of high-minded philosophy.

I could say that to you.

#75 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-03 01:20 PM | Reply

Isn't about time you demonstrate that you don't understand the meaning of 'reductio ad absurdum' again?

#76 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-08-03 01:21 PM | Reply

"Its human nature protecting its interests. Political, corporate, science, economics, individual, etc. The behavior pattern is the same."

Such nonsense.
Let's say my interest is to protect my home.
I could get a dog, or a gun, or better locks.
The behavior pattern is far from the same, unless you're dumbing it down to stimulus-response and not bothering to notice the responses are different.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-03 01:26 PM | Reply

To get a real sense of climate change, you have to study climate change over hundreds of thousands of years. The evidence shows that climate change is cyclical.

LOL its hilarious to watch deniers cherry pick data while presenting it with unwarranted confidence.

Hint-climate scientists are well aware of climate cycles. They produced the damn data showing the cycles over time. They noticed statistically significant trends that showed altered kinetics of warming to be more than noise and due to CO2 emitted by human activities causing feed forward cycles to gradually increase the effects of warming.

You've yet to present any evidence that it's logical or appropriate to stop after line 2 as you do, where you suddenly start leveling accusations and rationalizations to accept the data-based conclusions any longer.

#78 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-03 01:29 PM | Reply

Rationalizations NOT to accept...

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-03 01:30 PM | Reply

And an excuse to maintain your lifestyle of pollution and excess, right?
#73 | POSTED BY JPW

When will you stop ignoring Corporate Agriculture? "recycling" exports to third world trash dumps?

Why should I believe the same people making the same unsupported assertions about combating climate change?
#70 | POSTED BY STATSPLEASE

'Climate Change' is a red herring to pollution as a whole, which ignores water, soil, oceans, air quality, trash disposal, human waste, "recycling" - a joke. Ending oil and coal consumption is but one part of the larger picture; and that one aspect will never cease in China, Africa, South America, Eastern Europe, Russia.

We're destroying the planet, soil, fresh water, rivers and streams, animals, insects, microorganisms. Mass extinction is inevitable.

The Gore-DiCaprio yacht summit is a rich man's folly.

#80 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-03 01:39 PM | Reply

You've yet to present any evidence that it's logical or appropriate to stop after line 2 as you do, where you suddenly start leveling accusations and rationalizations to accept the data-based conclusions any longer.
#78 | POSTED BY JPW

I gave you two sources which you dismissed beforehand.

This is getting nowhere as I knew it would. Time to move on.

#81 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-03 01:40 PM | Reply

Rationalizations NOT to accept...
#79 | POSTED BY JPW

How much bio-waste does your lab produce and what do you 'believe' is done with it?

#82 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-03 01:43 PM | Reply

POSTED BY GITMBOY AT 2019-08-02 04:21 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 3

As Zatoichi would say.....happy extinction.
#21 | POSTED BY GITMBOY

The irony is that he was predicting his own....

The irony is that everyone can predict their own deaths. Because as individual's we know we will die because we ALL die. It's the deal.

He was predicting the extinction of our species.

Big diff

#83 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-08-03 01:44 PM | Reply

I gave you two sources which you dismissed beforehand.

This is getting nowhere as I knew it would. Time to move on.
#81 | POSTED BY RAY

I looked at them.

You've posted both before.

How about instead of posting like corky you provide links for further info but c&p the pertinent parts or paraphrase it to discuss?

#84 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-03 01:51 PM | Reply

ooooohhh relax... it's just Nature flushing the toilet.

#85 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-08-03 01:51 PM | Reply

"We're destroying the planet, soil, fresh water, rivers and streams, animals, insects, microorganisms. Mass extinction is inevitable."

Inevitable?
Mass extinction is currently taking place.

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-03 02:00 PM | Reply

YHow about instead of posting like corky you provide links for further info but c&p the pertinent parts or paraphrase it to discuss?
#84 | POSTED BY JPW

My attitude about this site has changed over the years.
I'm not going to waste my time on endless arguments that get nowhere.

You've posted both before.

I spent days on those two sites, and more time on others like it. Before them, I had no idea earth is nearing the end of 12,000 years of warming. That was the third link I posted which you ignored.

You are too prejudiced before you start.

#87 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-03 02:11 PM | Reply

"I had no idea earth is nearing the end of 12,000 years of warming."

Well, it was, until we came along.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-03 02:14 PM | Reply

Well, it was, until we came along.
#88 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

To the best of my knowledge, humans have been around for about 50,000 years.

Warming periods during ice age cycles have been around for at least 500,000 years.

"In the last million years the Earth's climate has alternated between ice ages lasting about 100,000 years and interglacial periods of 10,000 to 15,000 years. The new results from the NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen show that the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, the Eemian period, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago."
www.nbi.ku.dk

#89 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-03 02:39 PM | Reply

Ray,

You're apparently not going to budge from the erroneous assumption that just because cycles have occurred in the past we can't possibly speed them up by our activities.

Because that's what the science says.

Pointing out past cycles doesn't in any way refute that because climate scientists themselves are saying that the Earth has always had climate cycles.

Again, you're cherry picking data.

I spent days on those two sites, and more time on others like it.

All the more reason why it would be helpful if you simply paraphrased or made arguments in your own words then pointed to the sites for references.

But that would mean actually demonstrating mastery of the topic. This way you get to simply claim it while avoiding any test of it by dismissing before you even start.

#90 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-03 02:57 PM | Reply

"To the best of my knowledge, humans have been around for about 50,000 years.
Warming periods during ice age cycles have been around for at least 500,000 years."

When did industrial-scale de-sequestration and incineration of natural carbon sinks start happening?
Hint: You can spot the point of inflection on the atmospheric CO2 graph.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-03 02:59 PM | Reply

You're apparently not going to budge from the erroneous assumption that just because cycles have occurred in the past we can't possibly speed them up by our activities.
Because that's what the [politicized] science says.
#90 | POSTED BY JPW

FTFY

Pointing out past cycles doesn't in any way refute that because climate scientists themselves are saying that the Earth has always had climate cycles.

I read that to mean we have no control over cycles.

All the more reason why it would be helpful if you simply paraphrased or made arguments in your own words then pointed to the sites for references.

I've been down that road too many times. You're intelligent enough to do your own investigation if you were sincerely interested in what the counter-arguments and counter-evidence have to say.

#92 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-03 03:15 PM | Reply

I spent days on those two sites, and more time on others like it. Before them, I had no idea earth is nearing the end of 12,000 years of warming. That was the third link I posted which you ignored.

You are too prejudiced before you start.

#87 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-03 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

You spent days on sites about climate by a random guy on YouTube and an Architect pretending he knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists? Then you point to a video by an economist, also claiming to know more about the climate than those who've studied it extensively?

Perhaps you have chosen poor sources for your information, and hence are poorly informed. Those who study the climate are well aware of Milankovitch Cycles. Hell, I learned about them in school and I'm not even a climatologist. I didn't read much at IceAgeNow, but the arguments I saw the site put forward were the sources of the "Watch out for Global Cooling" article in the 70s people like to point to when they pretend the science hasn't been consistent about climate change.

These are arguments that were looked at, considered, and found to not match the data literally decades ago.

I'm out for the night. I suggest researching the topic from people who actually understand it if you really want to learn.

#93 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2019-08-03 04:22 PM | Reply

I'm out for the night. I suggest researching the topic from people who actually understand it if you really want to learn.
#93 | POSTED BY STATSPLEASE

My daddy taught me to never trust politicians or political causes. It turned out to be wise advice. Everything those people touch turns to ----. You people can't grasp what's obvious to me.

This is just another scam to scare the public into accepting more government control.

Earth is at the beginning of a cooling cycle. Like Russiagate, someday the truth will come out.

#94 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-03 04:43 PM | Reply

"Earth is at the beginning of a cooling cycle."

Not based on current CO2 levels it's not.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-03 06:00 PM | Reply

You're intelligent enough to do your own investigation if you were sincerely interested in what the counter-arguments and counter-evidence have to say.

"Do your research!!" The rallying cry of the uninformed.

You make the assertion, you back it up. If you're too intellectually lazy to defend your own point I'm not going to do it for you.

#96 | Posted by zarnon at 2019-08-03 06:23 PM | Reply

You people can't grasp what's obvious to me.

This is what annoys the F#$K out of me with Conspiracy Theorists. They think they're privy to some super-sekrit (TM) font of knowledge the rest of us Drudges never drink from. These usually take the form of YouTube videos or Google searches to find the "real" answer. This is true for Chem Trails, anti-vaxxers and AGW denialists. It appears Ray has swallowed the pseudo-science ----- willingly again and again.

No dude, you're not on some intellectual mountaintop looking down on the rest of the unenlightened masses. You're a gullible uneducated chump who can't understand the actual science so sticks to the fringes where the rest of the idiots reside.

#97 | Posted by zarnon at 2019-08-03 06:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

LOL! This thread is still running strong.

If you're too intellectually lazy to defend your own point I'm not going to do it for you.
#96 | POSTED BY ZARNON

Many years on this site has taught me to recognize when further conversation is pointless.

I'll believe what I believe and you believe what you believe.

No hard feelings.

#98 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-03 06:53 PM | Reply

"Earth is at the beginning of a cooling cycle."

Not based on current CO2 levels it's not.

#95 | Posted by snoofy

Or temperatures...

#99 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-03 07:43 PM | Reply

No dude, you're not on some intellectual mountaintop looking down on the rest of the unenlightened masses. You're a gullible uneducated chump who can't understand the actual science so sticks to the fringes where the rest of the idiots reside.

#97 | Posted by zarnon

Ouch...

You might want to ice that.

#100 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-03 07:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

In accordance with the thread title the country of Greenland soon will not exist so I guess there will be nothing but empty ocean there ; )

#101 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-08-04 11:21 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort