The Left's Choke Hold On Global Warming Beginning To Break

[tombanjo]

You'll be seeing more skeptics come out into the sun

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/global-warming-in-one-easy-lesson.php

[Gerry Zagorski]

You'll be seeing more skeptics come out into the sun

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/global-warming-in-one-easy-lesson.php

Glad you had the good sense to post this in non fishing Tom.... Unlike a few here who are clogging up the SW Fishing section trying to call attention to themselves and push their agenda :rolleyes:

[Bluefish]

im not sure which camp i am in? referring to the last posts about this topic i cite" "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
since i agree with the MIT Prof ..............
does this mean the MIT prof is an ignorant anti intellectual or a knowledgeable academic ?

[tombanjo]

These people had a real nice 25 year run peddling this bull. Most got very rich off of it too and those that didn't, the politicians, got huge donations and a built in power base as warming was lumped in with the usual leftist causes like abortion and anti-guns. Even the weak kneed Bush GOP ran in fear ("Oh! We'll lose votes!!") for 8 years. Funny thing about it though, despite massive attempts to convince the public with complete media immersion including going as far as indoctrinating through TV shows, GW STILL polls very poorly.

You know why? Because it doesn't make sense, as in common sense. The unwashed masses get that on a gut level. No matter how many bought and paid for results guaranteed "scientific" studies come out with doom & gloom 40 year projections, the average Joe, stupid as he may be, will invariably ask how come they get the weather wrong a week out half the time?

[Blind Squirrel]

These people had a real nice 25 year run peddling this bull. Most got very rich off of it too and those that didn't, the politicians, got huge donations and a built in power base as warming was lumped in with the usual leftist causes like abortion and anti-guns. Even the weak kneed Bush GOP ran in fear ("Oh! We'll lose votes!!") for 8 years. Funny thing about it though, despite massive attempts to convince the public with complete media immersion including going as far as indoctrinating through TV shows, GW STILL polls very poorly.

You know why? Because it doesn't make sense, as in common sense. The unwashed masses get that on a gut level. No matter how many bought and paid for results guaranteed "scientific" studies come out with doom & gloom 40 year projections, the average Joe, stupid as he may be, will invariably ask how come they get the weather wrong a week out half the time?
"The unwashed masses" aren't climatologists, and weather isn't climate.
Global Warming Fast Facts - NatGeo (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming_2.html)
Global Warming Facts, Definition, Causes and Effects | NRDC (https://www.nrdc.org/stories/global-warming-101)
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming (https://climate.nasa.gov/)
Climate change explained - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/climate-change-explained)

[Charlie B]

It a proven fact that the climate has changed in the past. Way before humans even existed the climate has gone through cycles of warm and cold and that is a fact. Any guessing on why the climate seems to be warming now is just a guess. Could it be influenced by human activity? I suppose it could be but the only known facts are that the climate has gone through cycles of warming and cooling in the past. Before any possible influence from human activity. I don't know the reasons the climate has changed in the past or why it is changing now. No one has proof positive of the reasons and that is a fact. The fact is no one knows all the answers and anyone who insists that climate change must be from human activity without considering other causes is just a fool...Charlie

[Blind Squirrel]

It a proven fact that the climate has changed in the past. Way before humans even existed the climate has gone through cycles of warm and cold and that is a fact. Any guessing on why the climate seems to be warming now is just a guess. Could it be influenced by human activity? I suppose it could be but the only known facts are that the climate has gone through cycles of warming and cooling in the past. Before any possible influence from human activity. I don't know the reasons the climate has changed in the past or why it is changing now. No one has proof positive of the reasons and that is a fact. The fact is no one knows all the answers and anyone who insists that climate change must be from human activity without considering other causes is just a fool...Charlie
It a proven fact that climate changes of this magnitude in the past took tens of thousands of years, not a century or two, and that man-made greenhouse gases are the driving force behind this one. The fact is no one knows all of the answers, and anyone who insists that climate change isn't from human activity is just a fool -- usually a Republican fool...
Global Climate Change Indicators: Introduction | Monitoring References | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI/NOAA) (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/indicators.php)

[tombanjo]

It a proven fact that the climate has changed in the past. Way before humans even existed the climate has gone through cycles of warm and cold and that is a fact. Any guessing on why the climate seems to be warming now is just a guess. Could it be influenced by human activity? I suppose it could be but the only known facts are that the climate has gone through cycles of warming and cooling in the past. Before any possible influence from human activity. I don't know the reasons the climate has changed in the past or why it is changing now. No one has proof positive of the reasons and that is a fact. The fact is no one knows all the answers and anyone who insists that climate change must be from human activity without considering other causes is just a fool...Charlie

Inconvenient facts Charlie. They only like to go back a little ways, like a hundred years or less so the data fits their claims and even then they are forced to revise their own finding to deceive the public.

[reason162]

In the not-so-distant future, when historians look back at our era (if our species manage to survive the coming cataclysm), the shocking conclusion they'll draw is just how successfully the true elites --- the coal/oil/gas barons --- managed to inscript the undying loyalty of the "unwashed masses" to further their own financial goals.

This campaign of disinformation, of tying up scientific data into the whirlwind of political theory and "freedom"...has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination. Here we have the common folk serving as mouthpieces for ExxonMobile, propagating the nonsense of industry-paid shills.

I have news for you: your interests do not align with the likes of Rex Tillerson.

[fishguy]

Glad you had the good sense to post this in non fishing Tom.... Unlike a few here who are clogging up the SW Fishing section trying to call attention to themselves and push their agenda :rolleyes:

The scientist cited on this thoroughly un-scientific website, (which is run by lawyers apparently, click on the "about us" link) is why it's 99% of the worlds scientists agreeing on climate change and not 100%. Science isn't a popularity contest so I'd be inclined to believe 99% and their decades of peer reviewed data.

"They get the weather wrong all the time!" There is a difference between weather and climate. Something you deniers can't seem to grasp.

Gerry, do you deny climate change is a reality and that human activity is contributing to it?

This is important for everyone in the fishing community to know as you will be representing us as a new board member of the RFA. If NOAA and NMFS find out that the board members of a group challenging their science don't believe in climate change I firmly believe it will harm our cause.




It's a legitimate question, Gerry. I think you should answer it plainly and clearly. I'm not "pushing an agenda" anymore than you are "pushing an agenda" by taking a contradictory position. So, what do you say?

PS I'm "clogging up the SW report page? Of the 32 posts there right now 3 were moved here and 23 of the remaining 29 were non-fishing reports.

[fishguy]

In the not-so-distant future, when historians look back at our era (if our species manage to survive the coming cataclysm), the shocking conclusion they'll draw is just how successfully the true elites --- the coal/oil/gas barons --- managed to inscript the undying loyalty of the "unwashed masses" to further their own financial goals.

This campaign of disinformation, of tying up scientific data into the whirlwind of political theory and "freedom"...has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination. Here we have the common folk serving as mouthpieces for ExxonMobile, propagating the nonsense of industry-paid shills.

I have news for you: your interests do not align with the likes of Rex Tillerson.

Bravo, sir. Bravo. You have really hit the nail on the head.

[Joey Dah Fish]

The scientist cited on this thoroughly un-scientific website, (which is run by lawyers apparently, click on the "about us" link) is why it's 99% of the worlds scientists agreeing on climate change and not 100%. Science isn't a popularity contest so I'd be inclined to believe 99% and their decades of peer reviewed data.

"They get the weather wrong all the time!" There is a difference between weather and climate. Something you deniers can't seem to grasp.

Gerry, do you deny climate change is a reality and that human activity is contributing to it?

This is important for everyone in the fishing community to know as you will be representing us as a new board member of the RFA. If NOAA and NMFS find out that the board members of a group challenging their science don't believe in climate change I firmly believe it will harm our cause.

It's a legitimate question, Gerry. I think you should answer it plainly and clearly. I'm not "pushing an agenda" anymore than you are "pushing an agenda" by taking a contradictory position. So, what do you say?

I don't know if Gerry does but I certainly do . By trying to trap someone into answering to you is and childish and ludicrous as you notion that what you say is fact.

[fishguy]

I don't know if Gerry does but I certainly do . By trying to trap someone into answering to you is and childish and ludicrous as you notion that what you say is fact.

There is nothing childish about it and this isn't a "trap", Joe. It a perfectly valid question and I think Gerry should answer it, plain and simple.

The worldwide scientific community is nearly unanimous in it's belief on this matter. They have data and facts that has led them to this conclusion. I happen to believe them. I want to know what the newest board member of the RFA's position is, a person who will be representing me and all of us in the coming battles over our fishery. It's a perfectly legitimate request.

[Charlie B]

There are those that are so sure that they are right about climate change.They can not prove it but insist they are right. No one knows what causes climate change. What can I say. Let them drink the kool aid if they want to. If they feel good about coming on here and making a fool of themself so be it. I think they would get a better reception over on the PETA sites with their fellow travelers. But those and their kind are hurting now and seem to feel the need to bring us down. The good thing is their side is not in power now and I don't think they are changing any minds...Charlie

[Joey Dah Fish]

There is nothing childish about it and this isn't a "trap", Joe. It a perfectly valid question and I think Gerry should answer it, plain and simple.

The worldwide scientific community is nearly unanimous in it's belief on this matter. They have data and facts that has led them to this conclusion. I happen to believe them. I want to know what the newest board member of the RFA's position is, a person who will be representing me and all of us in the coming battles over our fishery. It's a perfectly legitimate request.

Typical leftist type. You think people should and have an obligation to answer to you. Well news flash no one has an obligation to you. Should you ever decide to be opened minded enough to other answers other than your own beliefs. I'm all ears. But when you believe your answer is the only answer you only prove that you are clearly incapable of open constructive conversation.

[blindalfred]

Typical leftist type. You think people should and have an obligation to answer to you. Well news flash no one has an obligation to you. Should you ever decide to be opened minded enough to other answers other than your own beliefs. I'm all ears. But when you believe your answer is the only answer you only prove that you are clearly incapable of open constructive conversation.

"People" may not have any obligation to answer any questions, but, how about a board member of the Recreational Fishing Alliance? Is his position on a matter of of critical importance to recreational fishing not a reasonable question? I would be interested in his response.

[Charlie B]

I would think those climate change believers are members of PETA not the RFA...Charlie

[Joey Dah Fish]

"People" may not have any obligation to answer any questions, but, how about a board member of the Recreational Fishing Alliance? Is his position on a matter of of critical importance to recreational fishing not a reasonable question? I would be interested in his response.

If you would like the RFAs official stance on this please ask them. I don't believe anyone's person stance on climate change has anything to do with their desire to help the RFA. Still not sure why you or anyone can justify judging ones desire to help. So feel free believe what you like and I will continue to believe what I like.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Fishguy, I've had just about enough of you :mad::mad:

I don't owe you any sort of explanation on my stance on global warning. My personal opinion does not represent the official opinion of the RFA either, although I'm pretty sure it leans in the same direction.

[Blind Squirrel]

Typical leftist type. You think people should and have an obligation to answer to you. Well news flash no one has an obligation to you. Should you ever decide to be opened minded enough to other answers other than your own beliefs. I'm all ears. But when you believe your answer is the only answer you only prove that you are clearly incapable of open constructive conversation.
Tough call here. I don't know whether to believe a fellow recreational angler who calls himself "Joey Dah Fish (https://honjii.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/bush-cri.png?w=550)" on an Internet forum or ~97% of the world's climate scientists:
The 97% consensus on global warming (https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm) :confused: :confused: :confused:

[tombanjo]

Tough call here. I don't know whether to believe a fellow recreational angler who calls himself "Joey Dah Fish (https://honjii.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/bush-cri.png?w=550)" on an Internet forum or ~97% of the world's climate scientists:
The 97% consensus on global warming (https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm) :confused: :confused: :confused:

You people keep quoting the "97%-99% of scientists....." mantra. Yet another bought and paid for warming industry talking point hammered home again and again as if it means anything. You know as well as I do that ANY scientist that writes a paper or even whispers against the prevailing orthodoxy will be summarily attacked, tarred and feathered and then ostracized into oblivion. To deny this is to lie through your teeth.

So tell me, where would dissenting opinion find a home among professionals? Fortunately you'll start seeing it it now under this administration. Bravo to Trump for taking immediate action in dropping GW from EPA reviews and ending the Obama gravy train to the U.N. GW slush fund. Billions of dollars given over to the control of the most corrupt organization ever, can you imagine the idiocy of that? Just so Obama could bask in their praise and preen about doing something. I'd be surprised if they spent 10% of it on GW. Hopefully Trump can do something to stop that last huge balloon payment.

[fishguy]

Fishguy, I've had just about enough of you :mad::mad:

I don't owe you any sort of explanation on my stance on global warning. My personal opinion does not represent the official opinion of the RFA either, although I'm pretty sure it leans in the same direction.

Well, by not answering the question you answered it. You don't believe in climate change.
You also hinted that the RFA board members feel the same way. If this is true I will no longer support the RFA or any other organization that refuses to acknowledge reality.

[tombanjo]

Tough call here. I don't know whether to believe a fellow recreational angler who calls himself "Joey Dah Fish (https://honjii.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/bush-cri.png?w=550)" on an Internet forum or ~97% of the world's climate scientists:
The 97% consensus on global warming (https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm) :confused: :confused: :confused:

Let me guess......you use Crest as your toothpaste because 9 out of 10 dentists recommend it.

[Blind Squirrel]

Let me guess......you use Crest as your toothpaste because 9 out of 10 dentists recommend it.
Let me guess......you didn't bother to read the article I just posted (https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm):

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK

The Academies of Science from 80 different countries all endorse the consensus.

NAS consensus

13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)

National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences

Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

[reason162]

So tell me, where would dissenting opinion find a home among professionals?

The same place you'll find "scientists" who dissent from the germ theory of disease, or how about the throngs of professionals who disagree with the theory of gravity?

[fishguy]

The same place you'll find "scientists" who dissent from the germ theory of disease, or how about the throngs of professionals who disagree with the theory of gravity?

Exactly. That's why scientists have peer review. But let's put this into another context. Let's replace climate scientists with professional charter and party boat captains. Let's assume there is a way of being qualified that's similar to academics and they all have a PhD in fishing. Let's say of the thousands upon thousands of these men and women in the US alone 99% of them are 100% unanimous in the best way to catch a certain fish. Would you take their advice? Would you say they're all full of sh*t because their professional opinion differs from your amateur one?

[Charlie B]

Anyone remember the first earth day? I seem to remember them saying a new ice age is coming...Charlie

[Blind Squirrel]

Anyone remember the first earth day? I seem to remember them saying a new ice age is coming...Charlie
Do you "seem to remember" a ~97% consensus on that clearly flawed prediction from 47 years ago?
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming - IOPscience (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002)

[Charlie B]

Just wondering Blind Squirrel and Fishguy. How do you justify to your lefty buddies going fishing? I mean you burn fuel driving to the boat or do you walk? Then how much fuel does the boat burn or do you fish from a row boat?Oh and the device you use to post on here is it solar powered? How do your PETA buddies feel about fishing? Seems you got some explaining to do...Charlie

[Charlie B]

Do you "seem to remember" a ~97% consensus on that clearly flawed prediction from 47 years ago?
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming - IOPscience (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002)
Same old crap different day...Charlie

[Blind Squirrel]

Just wondering Blind Squirrel and Fishguy. How do you justify to your lefty buddies going fishing? I mean you burn fuel driving to the boat or do you walk? Then how much fuel does the boat burn or do you fish from a row boat?Oh and the device you use to post on here is it solar powered? How do your PETA buddies feel about fishing? Seems you got some explaining to do...Charlie
I'd be glad to match my "carbon footprint" with yours, and I don't support anti-environment clowns like Pu**y Grabber.
Trump Budget Attacks Clean Air & Clean Water Protections | NRDC (https://www.nrdc.org/experts/john-walke/trump-budget-attacks-clean-air-clean-water-protections)

[Charlie B]

Not much of an explanation and it's not me you have to explain it to. It's your leftist buddies you need to explain it to...Charlie

[Charlie B]

Oh and my carbon footprint is more like a big bootprint. But I am not a hypocrite claiming to be green so I don't care...Charlie

[Blind Squirrel]

Not much of an explanation and it's not me you have to explain it to. It's your leftist buddies you need to explain it to...Charlie
I really don't have to explain it to anyone, but you asked and I answered.

[Blind Squirrel]

Oh and my carbon footprint is more like a big bootprint. But I am not a hypocrite claiming to be green so I don't care...Charlie
You must be so proud of yourself... :rolleyes:

[Charlie B]

Actually I am more proud of my president and what he is trying to do...Charlie

[Blind Squirrel]

Actually I am more proud of my president and what he is trying to do...Charlie
You're proud of liars and con artists, huh?
Why It’s Pointless to Fact-Check Donald Trump | Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/02/politics-media-gaffes-lies)

[Charlie B]

You're proud of liars and con artists, huh?
Why It’s Pointless to Fact-Check Donald Trump | Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/02/politics-media-gaffes-lies)

No that would make me an Obama or Hillary fan...Charlie

[Joey Dah Fish]

If you like your climate change you can keep your climate change

[Blind Squirrel]

No that would make me an Obama or Hillary fan...Charlie
No, that would make you clueless:
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/01/forget_clintons_fake_scandals_donald_trumps_histor y_of_real_estate_grifts_is_the_real_deal/
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/republicans-have-long-been-tolerant-trump-con-artists
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist_us_572a105fe4b096e9f08fd0c9
https://newrepublic.com/article/134667/conservatives-groomed-perfect-suckers-trumps-epic-scam
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/14/donald-trump-junior-and-ivanka-material-witnesses-in-huge-tax-scam-case.html
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/06/bnefore-turmp-university
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/08/its_all_a_con_trumps_presidential_campaign_is_as_b ig_a_scam_as_trump_university/
http://time.com/money/4010695/trump-university-scam-donald-trump/
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/in-trump-institute-donald-trump-had-florida-partners-with-a-record-of-fraud/2283767
https://www.thenation.com/article/documents-show-just-how-suckered-students-of-the-trump-institute-felt/
http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/06/07/conservative-media-struggles-defend-trump-and-his-widening-university-scam-scandal/210770
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/eric-schneiderman-attorney-general-trump-university-fraud/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-university-fraud-allegations_us_56ddf3b9e4b0000de405887c
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/a-flip-flopping-con-man-conservatives-freak-after-trump-hints-that-hell-support-stronger-gun-control/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-fascist-con-man-20160404-story.html
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a61868/military-widow-cheryl-lankford-scammed-trump-university-democratic-national-convention/
http://www.salon.com/2011/04/28/donald_trump_discrimination_suit/
http://time.com/4414701/trump-plagiarism-scandal-racism/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
http://spectator.org/65519_trump-loser-stiffs-ordinary-joe/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-reports/

[Blind Squirrel]

If you like your climate change you can keep your climate change
You get to keep it too, Joey Duuuh (http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/4e75ac2b-db26-4745-8733-4f81879f689d/e23ec30c-434e-4696-8d63-26334b165b79.jpg):
The Reality of Global Climate Change is Upon Us (http://www.newsweek.com/reality-global-climate-change-upon-us-67757)

[bulletbob]

Sorry, its now mid June and finally it feels like we might have a summer..

Went FW fishing 1st week of June, and it was in the 30's when I left my house.. When I am still freezing my ass off in June, its VERY hard to jump on the global warming/climate change bandwagon.. lets talk again when we are fishing in salt water around the Delaware Water gap, then I will admit the oceans are rising due to the melting ice...

[Blind Squirrel]

You'll be seeing more skeptics come out into the sun

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/global-warming-in-one-easy-lesson.php
Lindzen's views on global climate change and the Paris Accord are not shared by his MIT colleagues:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump