Quote by Sir John Houghton, pompous lead editor of first three agenda reports: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
And if there isn't any they will make on up. This is an article where events are being blamed on Climat Change.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...
The Inability To Find MH370
The Washington Mudslide
The National Cold Snap
The California Drought.
The Los Angeles 4.4 Earthquake
They are getting desperate.
Change and Evolution are natural phenomena that would occur with or without humans around, that being said, the speed and intensity to which they occur is affected by humans. It is easy enough to go into the debate on whether or not climate change is human induced, in our world look to the major players (above governments) whose interests are being affected by this research. Why would these people want to change the system that is currently in place, why would upper class citizens and developed striving nations want to sacrifice what they worked so hard to achieve?
People have this mentality that climate change is a scam by people looking to de-evolve globalization and turn profit through fear.....but what is different about this compared to how we work now, fear is what drives any mass decision. In any case, I think climate change is real, but the approach to what it means is wrong, when individuals change their outlook on life, maybe then we will see the reality of it. Human ethics are replaced by ones drive for "success", but ask any individual what success means to them and what they are doing to achieve it and most will not be able to answer or be confronted with an obligation to go against what they truly believe to "support their basic needs" and "survive" in todays world. This is all nonsense, we as individuals stretch and stretch (mainly in western society) what success actually means, we are achieving exactly what those major players want us to and unless we change one of two things will happen.....we will continue to consume and fill the pockets of a small group of people tugging at the strings of the worlds economic health, until we exhaust the planet and look to war for a technology boom which is a historic process. Maybe it will be too late when we decide this is or is not real, we are gambling with the health of our planet for success that most don't get satisfaction out of achieving, but when we don't have it, every person benefitting off us wanting it makes it so desirable! Ethically it should be an obligation to leave a better world for the next generation despite what others have done in the past.
We must re-establish what it means to be successful. Bank accounts, fame, GDP are all created illusions for "success" and what do they actually mean? Nothing, they are all relative, but yet we hold them to the highest standard and make excuses to why..... when global warming, or environmental degradation or water shortage, disease, etc. start to affect the individual and they are forced to make sacrifices to survive they will look back at us and realize how selfish we were to leave them with a list of extinct species and exhausted resources, todays heroes and idols will be meaningless... I see that being the best case scenario as we are all to selfish and are waiting for our neighbour to sacrifice more than us, the never ending race to be the best.....at what?
I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that we have increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, if nothing else changes this will cause the earth to retain more of the sun's energy. It is irrelevant if I want AGW to be true or not, those are just facts.
Sagebrush's quote is taken out of context (a lie by omission), the full quotes is "If we want a good environmental policy in the future we'll have to have a disaster. It's like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there's been an accident." [1] (After 9/11 costly attempts were made to prevent further hijackings and those costs, nor their inconvenience, would have been acceptable before 9/11.)
This is not the first lie, or first attempt by Sagebrush at an association fallacy [2]. Here are some quotes by Sagebrush (who frequently quotes Nazi's to further his cause) to show what kind of person he is.
"Execute all those who voted for OBAMA",
"Sustainability is a codeword for communism",
"Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch",
"Justice and equality are codewords for communism",
"God has his hand on the thermostat".
So while it is obvious what kind of person Sagebrush is, if we were to use his "logic" [2] it would make ALL deniers, genocidal, Nazi loving, justice, equality and sustainability hating, religious extremists. Although it would not be unreasonable to assume that his fans are.
I live in Michigan. It's just a couple of days until April. It's barely 30 degrees and they are predicting snow. What button can I push to have global warming.
I don't believe in global warning. I find it difficult to believe that a group of scientists that can't accurately predict the weather for next week can predict the weather 20 years from now.
On the other hand, when the Old Farmers Almanac can accurately predict what the weather will be, and they claim global warming is a bunch of nonsense.....makes you wonder. Look it up, they accurately predicted the weather for the Winter of 2013/14 while the wizards of smart at the weather bureau were 100% wrong.
I don't think there is much doubt that climate change is occurring. There is debate about the extent and the causes - I personally think there is reasonable evidence that much of it, at least, is caused by human activity ("AGW"), but that's not the issue here.
But I certainly wish that it were NOT happening, and that we could continue as we are, increasing economic activity worldwide and spreading prosperity without any adverse consequences. But I'm afraid that may be too much to hope for.
Are you serious? Of course I don't want it to be true! What sort of question is this? Why would people want to see ever-worsening weather in their own lifetimes, and know it will only get worse for each generation of the next many generations? What sort of person would be like that? I do not want to see the world worse off for my kids, or my relatives and friends' kids, or their relatives and friends' kids, and still worse for everyone's grandchildren, and on, and on. It requires something very wrong inside that person for anyone to hold that attitude.
In looking over the previous answers, I find it very telling that every science affirmer has answered strongly in the negative, but deniers claim affirmers want AGW, even in the face of the evidence here in these answers. What sort of people are deniers?
I complain about climate change.
No, there's no part of me that wants climate change to happen.
If you've watched this board for a while, you've seen climate change deniers, sometimes say that warmer is better. People won't die in the winter. More CO2 will allow us to grow more food.
You've never seen someone who says that we need to address climate change, say, or imply, that global warming is good. If we thought it was good, why would we be complaining about it? That just doesn't make any sense.
On the other hand, we see crap like
Sagebrush -- Two of the top scientist are hoping it is true
Mike -- They want it to be true
NO WE DON"T.
I do not want it to be true. Probably nobody does. But the basic fact of 30% increase in CO2 would logically cause a change. It is more true (I believe) that deniers want it to be not true so badly that they ignore the basic facts. The most basic fact is that we cannot make a 30% change in the chemical balance of the air and not expect some change.
I see AGW as a challenge. In a perfect world, people would rise up to the challenge. But, unfortunately, that is not what is happening. Germany is abandoning nuclear power.
http://rt.com/news/germany-poland-nuclea...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...
In the U.S., environmentals would rather blame Canada for having oil in the form of oil sands, rather than look at their own practices.
Even though I believe there is very little warming, and I know how dangerous for humans is cooling, but I cant helped wishing for there to be some slight cooling to occur, even though it will be very bad for humankind.
Just because so many people are convinced about AGW, and even though there is no empirical evidence. I want to prove that the sensationanal forecasts that the media has always reported is and has been B.S.
If you valued honesty at all you would admit that you are as ignorant of behavioral science as you are of physical science.
I respect honesty above all else. It may be challenging for anyone (including yours truly) to be objective about oneself. I defy you to look deep within yourself for the purposes of this question.
If you believe that climate change is indeed occurring, I want to ask you something. Think carefully about your response, please. Do you actually WANT it to be true? Do you want the climate to be changing? If you are honest, and you can admit that you do want it to be true, can you please explain precisely why? Thank you in advance.
On a purely selfish level, I do want it to be true in terms of a slight and gradual warming that will benefit the northernmost states, since I live in Minnesota and like it here a lot but would like the winters to be a little less severe and long lasting. In fact, it was 15 years of unusually mild winters and a shift in temperate zone maps slightly northward that got me interested in climate change to begin with.
However, I do not want to see some of the more severe outcomes that are being predicted in some corners to come along with it, including increasing weather extremes that may become too costly. The timing of the outcomes, including real disruptions in our collective ability to adapt, seem too much to warrant my more self-centered hopes for more pleasant weather in my neck of the woods.
And yes, from the standpoint of a layman I do believe that mankind's activities have an impact on climate, that the science is sound enough; I am among those who question, however, how significant our activities are vs. natural processes as well as the timing and significance of that impact. I am aware of many of the variables which affect long term predictions of outcome and at least some of them seem to be in play at the moment; climate science has acknowledged those variables and there is certainly internal debate in the field, but the raucous media and political battle doesn't seem to be advancing public understanding of the underlying state of the research at the moment. There is a great deal of alarm being foisted on us by media outlets and politicians jockeying for position, influence and money. Less so in climate science itself if one reads carefully, but there are people in any endeavor who are moved to press for an advantage to themselves, including science. The difficulty is sorting out who is credible and who is not. Some people have made that decision and opine relentlessly about it, others are not as readily convinced by the sources that are quoted.
You may count me among the people who are not as readily convinced of anything by biased sources, and also as one who tries to balance my own subjective outlook with the more objective information that is available if one looks into the topic deeper than what the media, government tell us, as well as groups, organizations-including environmental and corporate-and individuals want us to believe. I'm more successful at that than some, less than others.
One thing that is really evident to me is that many people to not grasp the time frames that are being discussed, and there are several reasons for that. One is media and political alarm, which emphasize the more sensational impacts and imply immediacy rather than generations and even centuries out. They do this by selective quotes of the more extreme publicity hounds...the blogosphere and certain other media outlets, political and other groups, organizations and individuals try to counteract this by quoting their own extremists or sensationalizing the issue in other ways, sometimes primarily by trying to undermine the credibility of the science itself, groups and individuals, and politically motivated agendas. In some instances this misrepresents the time frames being discussed and some people scoff because events and developments predicted have not occurred yet or variables are influencing them when Climate Science itself says that these outcomes are not expected for many, many years, decades, generations or centuries, etc. It is hard for us to think of time in any greater increments than our own lifespans or at best, a few generations out...how much connection do we feel with the lives of our great great grandparents, or more esoterically, what our great great grandchildren might experience? It is nebulous; even if we are concerned for future generations, how do we decide what we need to do NOW to avoid dire consequences in centuries to come? We don't want our more negative characteristics to be our legacy, like the rampant waste of natural resources (here in the U.S. especially) that occurred in the 19th century to be the primary way we are remembered-and denounced in many ways. But we DO consume a LOT; there has to be a balance that we can achieve between our own subjective wants and needs today compared to our collective responsibility for others, including future generations.
I think what people are fighting over so nastily right now is rooted in trying to figure out where that balance is, whether it is climate change or any number of other concerns. Many are far more immediate, and there is certainly a broad spectrum of opinion ranging from entirely self-serving to pie-in-the-sky idealism. In most instances, at least at the extremes, some people want to look at a single point on the map or timeline to make a very complex matter black and white simple when it is not. You can see that in many 'debates' including, for example, the political unrest in the Middle East, which did not develop in a single U.S. Presidential Administration or as the result of a single decision or event, but is the result of a cumulative series of occurrences that finally came to a head with negative consequences.
Anyone would have to be a complete moron to want climate change
They want it to be true, because the true agenda is to implement policies in line with the green religion.
