Remember me
▼ Content

Positive effects of global warming


Positive effects of global warming28-03-2014 01:03
Braden
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
As an informed student of climate science, I am well aware of the current state of climate change. Yes, I know that it will cause tremendous damages and infrastructure shifts. However, I never really hear anyone talk about this issue from the middle ground. As with any shift in society, there are negatives, and there are benefits.

Global warming has the potential to increase growing seasons in northern latitudes as well as create more habitable land for settlement. How much land is currently under utilized in Canada and Siberia? Also, on the whole with global warming, comes an increase of global precipitation, surely something that could bring benefits. Perhaps global warming is even necessary to ensure we don't face disaster due to another ice age? Surely a warmer Earth is better than a frozen one.

Let me be clear, however, I think one of the most important responsibilities we have as a society is to find a way to build a more sustainable and equitable world economically, politically, and environmentally. But shouldn't this be done regardless of whether the climate is changing? I'm just afraid that the climate argument is too weak and too little understood to carry significant political significance in relation to other global issues such as resource management, water shortage, and equitable development.

Please don't berate me if you don't agree. I think it's important to approach complex issues such as climate change from as many angles as possible. Insults do little to benefit society
.
29-03-2014 13:35
joshuah
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
It is hard to say. There are studies about CO2 increasing crop yields. Others say increase in extreme weather will offset gains of warming, but from my studies of the data I see no increase in extreme events.
08-04-2014 14:12
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
The damage done by a slight warming is not going to be as costly as maintaining our traffic lights.

We might need to improve our sea defenses a bit. Some more storm drains and things.

The benefits of greater agricultural production and of less cold winters (very slightly) are huge.

Yes, it would be good to develop some good solar power systems and the like. So lets put the money into such research rather than building all those pretty but useless wind turbines.
05-05-2014 06:02
Kano
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Study the Holocene optimum 9000-5000 yrs ago, due a shift in the Earths tilt the world was warmer then and because of that also wetter, this was the time when the Sahara was green with lakes and rivers, crocodiles and hippos as well as man and other animals lived there.
The Northern hemisphere arctic regions had extensive forests and much less perma frost, in China the deserts were much smaller.
All around the planet was a nicer place, the only downcome was sea levels were about 4meters higher.
28-11-2014 07:09
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Braden wrote:
As an informed student of climate science, I am well aware of the current state of climate change. Yes, I know that it will cause tremendous damages and infrastructure shifts. However, I never really hear anyone talk about this issue from the middle ground. As with any shift in society, there are negatives, and there are benefits.


It has been my observation that environmentalist and socialists use climate change as a big club to beat their agenda onto the world population. The cause of global warming is fossil fuel so the environmentalist are all in. The solution to global warming is big government and big taxes so the socialists are all in. Don't expect anyone in this group to give any consideration to the advantages of global warming.
Among the actual climate scientists working in the field there is an almost religious cannon on what information can be presented. The leaked emails showed this at work. Break the code and you lose your funding. To be sure there are good people in all three groups, it's just hard to tell who without a program.
That leaves you and me and millions of citizens with no agenda to have that discussion. Here is a good spot and now is a good time to start.
History records many advantages realized during the Medieval Climate Optimum and coming out of the Little Ice Age.
One negative affect I remember is the unrest leading up the French revolution at the start of the Little Ice Age. Farmers from the north fled permafrost in their fields to Paris to become a large unemployed lower class. Add to that they were no longer growing food for the rich in Paris. Starvation and revolution followed.
I imagine Historians could write volumes on the effects of climate change. I have no idea how closely their jobs are tied into the religious cannon on what information can be presented.


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
28-11-2014 22:26
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
einnor wrote:
It has been my observation that environmentalist and socialists use climate change as a big club to beat their agenda onto the world population.


It has been my observation that anyone who tries to bring socialism and socialists into a discussion of global warming has neither the intention nor the ability to discuss the science behind the issues in question.

einnor wrote:
The cause of global warming is fossil fuel


That admission will save a great deal of pointless debate.

einnor wrote:
so the environmentalist are all in.


Global warming is a threat to human culture and will impact most other species as well. Are you suggesting that if global warming were caused, say, by CFCs, environmentalists would NOT be "all in"?

einnor wrote:
The solution to global warming is big government and big taxes so the socialists are all in.


The solution to global warming does not require big government and the cost of not addressing it will require orders of magnitude MORE tax money. Besides, you misunderstand socialism. Socialists believe that "ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., should be vested in the community as a whole". They do NOT, by definition, favor big government or high taxes.

einnor wrote:
Don't expect anyone in this group to give any consideration to the advantages of global warming.


I wouldn't expect anyone outside of the fossil fuel industry to do so and no one with more than a remedial education to do so honestly.

einnor wrote:
Among the actual climate scientists working in the field there is an almost religious cannon (sic) on what information can be presented.


There is a canon. It is not in the least bit religious. It's called good science or the scientific method or honesty or half a dozen other terms, none of which restrict what information should be presented save that it be the result of valid observations, applicable experiments and the accurate and appropriate application of the known laws of nature. That is, scientists want to see good science published. Their opposition to crap getting into print is not evidence of a unjustified prejudicial bias.

einnor wrote:
The leaked emails showed this at work.


The scientific method? Yes they did. The unsupportable accusations and misinterpretations of the denier network? No, they did not. And, BTW, they weren't leaked, they were stolen.

einnor wrote:
Break the code and you lose your funding.


Translation to reality: Do bad science and lose your funding

einnor wrote:
To be sure there are good people in all three groups, it's just hard to tell who without a program.


Three groups? What three groups? Environmentalists, socialists and "actual climate scientists"? I suspect there's substantial overlap among them and that there are several other parties with impacts, both real and potential, on the issue: conservatives, the fossil fuel industry, those of substance who owe their wealth to the fossil fuel industry, those who might owe future wealth to the spread of alternative energy systems, those simply concerned about global warming and hoping to prevent the harm it will do to the world we leave our descendants.

einnor wrote:
That leaves you and me and millions of citizens with no agenda to have that discussion.


What makes you think that climate scientists have an agenda beyond increasing our knowledge of the climate, that environmentalists have an agenda beyond protecting and restoring the environment and that socialists have anything to do with this issue? I would suspect the actual origin of such ideas is a political bias, but I'd just be guessing.

einnor wrote:
Here is a good spot and now is a good time to start.


Okay.

einnor wrote:
History records many advantages realized during the Medieval Climate Optimum and coming out of the Little Ice Age.
One negative affect I remember is the unrest leading up the French revolution at the start of the Little Ice Age. Farmers from the north fled permafrost in their fields to Paris to become a large unemployed lower class. Add to that they were no longer growing food for the rich in Paris. Starvation and revolution followed.


The LIA went from 1350 to 1850. The French Revolution took place in 1789. Several studies have looked at permafrost distribution in Europe during the LIA and other times (Haeberli, 1975, Barsch, 1996, Imhof, 1996, Ebohon and Schrott, 2008 and others). During the peak of the LIAl, the altitude of permafrost moved down 200-250 meters from the alpine altitudes where it had always existed http://www.univie.ac.at/ajes/archive/volume_105_2/avian_kellerer_ajes_105_2.pdf. This is not sufficient to have moved any substantial population of farmers off their farms and in to Paris and other cities. It is certainly possible that the colder weather of the LIA (average maximum temperature decline: 1.4C) could have had a detrimental impact on crops and caused some urban migration, but it was not caused by any significant intrusion of permafrost into agricultural areas.

BTW, you failed to note any advantages to the warmer temperatures of the MWP. I'm not saying there weren/t any, just that you failed to identify any of them.

einnor wrote:
I imagine Historians could write volumes on the effects of climate change.


I imagine they already have and will continue to do so. Particularly as AGW pushes us into completely novel situations: the forced migration of hundreds of millions dwelling near the coastlines and the loss and required replacement of the trillions in infrastructure they once occupied, the massive failure of crops, wildlife extinctions, massive marine extinctions from acidification at a rate unprecedented in the history of the planet... There will be a great deal to write about.

einnor wrote:
I have no idea how closely their jobs are tied into the religious cannon (sic) on what information can be presented.


Like anyone else, they are free to present whatever information, opinion, data, conclusion or speculation they like. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What they are not entitled to is their own set of facts".
Edited on 28-11-2014 22:46
29-11-2014 14:51
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Abraham3 wrote:
The LIA went from 1350 to 1850. The French Revolution took place in 1789. Several studies have looked at permafrost distribution in Europe during the LIA and other times (Haeberli, 1975, Barsch, 1996, Imhof, 1996, Ebohon and Schrott, 2008 and others). During the peak of the LIAl, the altitude of permafrost moved down 200-250 meters from the alpine altitudes where it had always existed

Thank you for the feet to the fire moment. That was a story I remembered incorrectly. Made me do my homework.

Laki is a volcanic fissure in the south of Iceland.
On 8 June 1783 The Laki eruption and its aftermath caused a drop in global temperatures, as sulfur dioxide was spewed into the Northern Hemisphere. This caused crop failures in Europe.
The meteorological impact of Laki continued, contributing significantly to several years of extreme weather in Europe. In France, the sequence of extreme weather events included a surplus harvest in 1785 that caused poverty for rural workers, as well as droughts, bad winters and summers, and a violent hailstorm in 1788 that destroyed crops. These events contributed significantly to an increase in poverty and famine that may have contributed to the French Revolution in 1789.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laki

Abraham3 wrote:
BTW, you failed to note any advantages to the warmer temperatures of the MWP. I'm not saying there weren/t any, just that you failed to identify any of them.


My only story on the positive side is growing Plumeria (a flower used for making leis). Mine froze every year until about 2000. They now thrive.


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
29-11-2014 15:48
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
I have a couple of plumerias. We've only had one brief freeze since we planted them and they survived that. I'm in Palm Beach county. Are you further north?
29-11-2014 16:06
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Abraham3 wrote:
I have a couple of plumerias. We've only had one brief freeze since we planted them and they survived that. I'm in Palm Beach county. Are you further north?


i-4-corridor
The freeze would kill the top branches so they did not get very high. I now have one higher than my house. The good side of global warming.


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
29-11-2014 17:24
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
I guarantee you the negative effects of global warming on agricultural productivity worldwide will vastly outweigh the benefits.
30-11-2014 01:22
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Abraham3 wrote:
I guarantee you the negative effects of global warming on agricultural productivity worldwide will vastly outweigh the benefits.

Predictions of the negative effects of global warming account for about 1/3 of the content of the internet. I asked the question about the positive effects in the interest of being fair and balanced. It would be a disservice to this important discussion to avoid the positive as is now evident.

Higher CO2 levels can increase yields. The yields for some crops, like wheat and soybeans, could increase by 30% or more under a doubling of CO2 concentrations. The yields for other crops, such as corn, exhibit a much smaller response (less than 10% increase).

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/agriculture.html


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
30-11-2014 03:28
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
That is correct. Increased CO2, all other factors held steady, will result in increased growth in several different crop plants.
30-11-2014 04:23
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Abraham3 wrote:
That is correct. Increased CO2, all other factors held steady, will result in increased growth in several different crop plants.

You seem to be fighting this. A few crop plants? The absorption of co2 is part of the very nature of plant growth. Without exception the more the better.
This from nature.com:
While a great deal of media and public attention has focused on the effects that such higher concentrations of CO2 are likely to have on global climate, rising CO2 concentrations are also likely to have profound direct effects on the growth, physiology, and chemistry of plants, independent of any effects on climate (Ziska 2008). These effects result from the central importance of CO2 to plant metabolism. As photosynthetic organisms, plants take up atmospheric CO2, chemically reducing the carbon. This represents not only an acquisition of stored chemical energy for the plant, but also provides the carbon skeletons for the organic molecules that make up a plants' structure. Overall, the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen assimilated into organic molecules by photosynthesis make up ~96% of the total dry mass of a typical plant (Marschner 1995). Photosynthesis is therefore at the heart of the nutritional metabolism of plants, and increasing the availability of CO2 for photosynthesis can have profound effects on plant growth and many aspects of plant physiology.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108

You are proving my point that there is an effort to minimize the positive. The agenda of global warming rejects a balanced discussion. The supporters of global warming's possible ill effects are rejecting, possibly suppressing, the science of global warming if it is good news. That will not end well for the future of mankind. The truth, like co2 for plants, is without exception "the more the better".


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
30-11-2014 04:56
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
einnor wrote:
It has been my observation that environmentalist and socialists use climate change as a big club to beat their agenda onto the world population.

Abraham3 wrote:
It has been my observation that anyone who tries to bring socialism and socialists into a discussion of global warming has neither the intention nor the ability to discuss the science behind the issues in question.


I will challenge that observation. It is my observation that much of the global warming/climate change movement is agenda driven. My agenda is in part to expose that agenda and the very real conflict of interest issues. Just as "big oil" is often cited as having a conflict of interest, so would environmentalist and socialists. Double edged sword.

So, what part of the Global warming debate do you think I have "neither the intention nor the ability to discuss the science behind"

I have access to Google and possess a curious mind.


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
30-11-2014 18:47
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
einnor wrote:
It has been my observation that environmentalist and socialists use climate change as a big club to beat their agenda onto the world population.


Abraham3 wrote:
It has been my observation that anyone who tries to bring socialism and socialists into a discussion of global warming has neither the intention nor the ability to discuss the science behind the issues in question.


einnor wrote:
I will challenge that observation. It is my observation that much of the global warming/climate change movement is agenda driven.


What specific observations? And what of observations that the vast majority of climate science is completely objective, that "environmentalists" are driven by a desire to protect and preserve our environment and that neither socialsts nor socialism figure into the issue whatsoever? They are extremely common observations.

einnor wrote:
My agenda is in part to expose that agenda and the very real conflict of interest issues.


You could begin by demonstrating to us, with specific observations, predictions, experiments and the like, why we should believe such an agenda even exists.

einnor wrote:
Just as "big oil" is often cited as having a conflict of interest, so would environmentalist and socialists. Double edged sword.


You say it is a double-edged sword but you have yet to present a single shred of evidence for that second edge.

einnor wrote:
So, what part of the Global warming debate do you think I have "neither the intention nor the ability to discuss the science behind"


Those who have decided that there is no global warming, there is no greenhouse effect, that humans have not put tens of gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere or that they have but it will do nothing and even those who think it will all be good for us - all have ignored an enormous amount of very convincing science. For you to conclude as you have, that socialism is the real ill behind the fever from which our planet suffers, puts you pat in the middle of that crowd. Thus my conclusions.

einnor wrote:
I have access to Google and possess a curious mind.


Good. Let's see what you can do with it. Why don't you find us some EVIDENCE that AGW is a socialist scam.
30-11-2014 20:11
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
einnor wrote:
I will challenge that observation. It is my observation that much of the global warming/climate change movement is agenda driven.

Abraham3 wrote:
What specific observations? And what of observations that the vast majority of climate science is completely objective, that "environmentalists" are driven by a desire to protect and preserve our environment and that neither socialsts nor socialism figure into the issue whatsoever? They are extremely common observations. Good. Let's see what you can do with it. Why don't you find us some EVIDENCE that AGW is a socialist scam.


First, I said much of the global warming/climate change movement is agenda driven. Not the science, the movement.
I did not say that either the environmentalists or socialists were trying to scam anybody.
Environmentalists and socialists are people with an agenda by definition. I am a free market capitalist and have my own agenda. My problem is with hidden agendas.
An example of a hidden agenda would be an environmentalists objecting to coal burning because of global warming but really started out objecting to the environmental damage coal mining and burning causes. The unstated (hidden) agenda is environmental. If he can get his way with global warming then he accomplishes his original objective of a cleaner environment. Mission accomplished! Not a scam but definitely agenda driven.
As a free market capitalist I claim no hidden agenda. It is my heartfelt position that fossil fuel has taken our civilisation from a painful, smelly, hungry, hard, short life to a comfortable, meaningful, pleasant, long healthy and successful life. Thank you fossil fuel!
My agenda is to keep fossil fuel in use until it can be replaced. I am not willing to give up so much for so many unless it is absolutely necessary. Removing fossil fuel could return us to the painful, smelly, hungry, hard, short life with a perfect sea level.
Have I made a case for my original statement that much of the global warming/climate change movement is agenda driven?
If so it would be helpful to understand the hidden agenda of those you discuss this topic with.


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
30-11-2014 20:45
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
einnor wrote:
einnor wrote:
I will challenge that observation. It is my observation that much of the global warming/climate change movement is agenda driven.

Abraham3 wrote:
What specific observations? And what of observations that the vast majority of climate science is completely objective, that "environmentalists" are driven by a desire to protect and preserve our environment and that neither socialsts nor socialism figure into the issue whatsoever? They are extremely common observations. Good. Let's see what you can do with it. Why don't you find us some EVIDENCE that AGW is a socialist scam.


First, I said much of the global warming/climate change movement is agenda driven. Not the science, the movement.
I did not say that either the environmentalists or socialists were trying to scam anybody.
Environmentalists and socialists are people with an agenda by definition. I am a free market capitalist and have my own agenda. My problem is with hidden agendas.
An example of a hidden agenda would be an environmentalists objecting to coal burning because of global warming but really started out objecting to the environmental damage coal mining and burning causes. The unstated (hidden) agenda is environmental. If he can get his way with global warming then he accomplishes his original objective of a cleaner environment. Mission accomplished! Not a scam but definitely agenda driven.
As a free market capitalist I claim no hidden agenda. It is my heartfelt position that fossil fuel has taken our civilisation from a painful, smelly, hungry, hard, short life to a comfortable, meaningful, pleasant, long healthy and successful life. Thank you fossil fuel!
My agenda is to keep fossil fuel in use until it can be replaced. I am not willing to give up so much for so many unless it is absolutely necessary. Removing fossil fuel could return us to the painful, smelly, hungry, hard, short life with a perfect sea level.
Have I made a case for my original statement that much of the global warming/climate change movement is agenda driven?
If so it would be helpful to understand the hidden agenda of those you discuss this topic with.


Environmentalists object to coal because of global warming AND because of the damage its production and use does to the environment. The agenda is an environmental one because of its impact on the environment. There is no hidden agenda there.

Fossil fuels are not smelly? Do not shorten lives with their toxicity? In what alternate universe?
30-11-2014 21:42
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
orogenicman wrote:
Environmentalists object to coal because of global warming AND because of the damage its production and use does to the environment. The agenda is an environmental one because of its impact on the environment. There is no hidden agenda there.

Global warming became the focus of activism at the time of the Earth Summit in Rio, in 1992. Bush the elder signed a climate-change treaty, with signatories agreeing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels. Global warming became the environmentalists cause celebre in the late 1980s. They had turned on a dime, for only a few years earlier global cooling had been their mantra. They didn't know what had caused that earlier "cooling trend," but its effects were sure to be bad. "The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only in ten years," Newsweek reported in 1975. "The resulting famines could be catastrophic."
While the activest chase a cause the scientist follow the evidence. Agenda matters.
Environmentalists are not bad people. They are just not objective in their pursuit.
The history of environmentalism is one of extremism. The history of science is one of conservatism by comparison.
Environmentalists brought the activism and socialist brought the carbon tax to the science debate. The science agenda is just the facts. Agenda matters.
Does the protest help the science? Do politics help the science?

Do you have an agenda you would like to state?


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
30-11-2014 22:12
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
einnor wrote:
Just as "big oil" is often cited as having a conflict of interest, so would environmentalist and socialists. Double edged sword.

Abraham3 wrote:
You say it is a double-edged sword but you have yet to present a single shred of evidence for that second edge.


If the big oil conflict of interest is obvious to you logically so should be the environmentalist and socialists conflict of interest.
Just as big oil benefits from disproving global warming environmentalist and socialists benefit from proving it. Nobody is the bad guy. Agenda matters.
I am sure proof of some conflict of interest from all three groups is out there to be found, that is not the point. Knowing conflict of interest exists is the point.
The proof I offer is logic.


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
30-11-2014 22:32
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
einnor wrote:
orogenicman wrote:
Environmentalists object to coal because of global warming AND because of the damage its production and use does to the environment. The agenda is an environmental one because of its impact on the environment. There is no hidden agenda there.

Global warming became the focus of activism at the time of the Earth Summit in Rio, in 1992. Bush the elder signed a climate-change treaty, with signatories agreeing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels. Global warming became the environmentalists cause celebre in the late 1980s. They had turned on a dime, for only a few years earlier global cooling had been their mantra. They didn't know what had caused that earlier "cooling trend," but its effects were sure to be bad. "The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only in ten years," Newsweek reported in 1975. "The resulting famines could be catastrophic."
While the activest chase a cause the scientist follow the evidence. Agenda matters.
Environmentalists are not bad people. They are just not objective in their pursuit.
The history of environmentalism is one of extremism. The history of science is one of conservatism by comparison.
Environmentalists brought the activism and socialist brought the carbon tax to the science debate. The science agenda is just the facts. Agenda matters.
Does the protest help the science? Do politics help the science?

Do you have an agenda you would like to state?


This is not make up shit Thursday. My only agenda is making sure in these discussions that people have their facts straight. Care to rephrase your statement, above? Or do I need to correct it for you?
01-12-2014 00:26
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
orogenicman wrote:
einnor wrote:
orogenicman wrote:
Environmentalists object to coal because of global warming AND because of the damage its production and use does to the environment. The agenda is an environmental one because of its impact on the environment. There is no hidden agenda there.

Global warming became the focus of activism at the time of the Earth Summit in Rio, in 1992. Bush the elder signed a climate-change treaty, with signatories agreeing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels. Global warming became the environmentalists cause celebre in the late 1980s. They had turned on a dime, for only a few years earlier global cooling had been their mantra. They didn't know what had caused that earlier "cooling trend," but its effects were sure to be bad. "The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only in ten years," Newsweek reported in 1975. "The resulting famines could be catastrophic."
While the activest chase a cause the scientist follow the evidence. Agenda matters.
Environmentalists are not bad people. They are just not objective in their pursuit.
The history of environmentalism is one of extremism. The history of science is one of conservatism by comparison.
Environmentalists brought the activism and socialist brought the carbon tax to the science debate. The science agenda is just the facts. Agenda matters.
Does the protest help the science? Do politics help the science?

Do you have an agenda you would like to state?


This is not make up shit Thursday. My only agenda is making sure in these discussions that people have their facts straight. Care to rephrase your statement, above? Or do I need to correct it for you?



A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
01-12-2014 00:29
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
orogenicman wrote:
einnor wrote:
orogenicman wrote:
Environmentalists object to coal because of global warming AND because of the damage its production and use does to the environment. The agenda is an environmental one because of its impact on the environment. There is no hidden agenda there.

Global warming became the focus of activism at the time of the Earth Summit in Rio, in 1992. Bush the elder signed a climate-change treaty, with signatories agreeing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels. Global warming became the environmentalists cause celebre in the late 1980s. They had turned on a dime, for only a few years earlier global cooling had been their mantra. They didn't know what had caused that earlier "cooling trend," but its effects were sure to be bad. "The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only in ten years," Newsweek reported in 1975. "The resulting famines could be catastrophic."
While the activest chase a cause the scientist follow the evidence. Agenda matters.
Environmentalists are not bad people. They are just not objective in their pursuit.
The history of environmentalism is one of extremism. The history of science is one of conservatism by comparison.
Environmentalists brought the activism and socialist brought the carbon tax to the science debate. The science agenda is just the facts. Agenda matters.
Does the protest help the science? Do politics help the science?

Do you have an agenda you would like to state?


This is not make up shit Thursday. My only agenda is making sure in these discussions that people have their facts straight. Care to rephrase your statement, above? Or do I need to correct it for you?


You need to correct it. Your only agenda is making sure in these discussions that people have their facts straight.
If you run out of facts feel free to correct my opinion.


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
01-12-2014 05:13
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
Actually, since it is your mess, you need to correct it.
Edited on 01-12-2014 05:13
RE: Challenge = Opportunity02-12-2014 02:36
HappySikalengo
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
We may take those challenges POSITIVELY
02-12-2014 03:15
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
HappySikalengo wrote:
We may take those challenges POSITIVELY


Welcome to the discussion. We need some new perspective.
P.S. It would help if you used the quote button so we can see what you are referring to.


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
02-12-2014 06:43
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
einnor wrote:
[quote]einnor wrote:
Just as "big oil" is often cited as having a conflict of interest, so would environmentalist and socialists. Double edged sword.

Abraham3 wrote:
You say it is a double-edged sword but you have yet to present a single shred of evidence for that second edge.


einnor wrote:
If the big oil conflict of interest is obvious to you logically so should be the environmentalist and socialists conflict of interest.


I have made no comments concerning a conflict of interest and "big oil" and this statement is NOT evidence of a conflict of interest for environmentalists or socialists. For starters, you do not seem to understand what a "conflict of interest" or an "agenda" actually is in this context. Environmentalists acting to protect the environment or socialists attempting to make the world more socialist are not suffering conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest is "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." An oil corporation spending it's own funds to attempt to influence public opinion regarding anthropogenic global warming is allowing a primary interest (providing the public with accurate information about its products and their effect on humans) to be influenced by a secondary interest (protecting the future of fossil fuels).

einnor wrote:
Just as big oil benefits from disproving global warming environmentalist and socialists benefit from proving it.


You don't seem to understand the distinction between conflicting primary and secondary responsibilities. Fighting global warming is a primary activity of environmentalists. If socialists were actually involved in global warming because the believed it is part and parcel of the socialist weltsicht: the community's authority over the mercantile; they would be practicing a primary responsibility of socialism. But they are not. Your inclusion of socialists here simply mark you as a conservative who still needs to think there's a boogey man under your bed. Neither socialists nor socialism represent a threat to the United States. And just to try to make this point clear: we have a democracy in this country. People are ALLOWED to believe socialism (or any other form of government) is best and to work within the constraints of our Constitutional framework to morph our government towards whatever end they want. The Constitution and the electoral power of their fellow citizens may not let them get very far, but they certainly have the right to try. What we as citizens do NOT have the right to do is to label one variety (socialism) as inherently bad, as a threat to the free state and to come to believe you are authorized to attack it with any means you care to use. If, in a public forum, you choose to speak of socialists and socialism - or any other such group - as if everyone agrees with your derogatory perceptions, the only thing accomplished will be to out yourself in a manner you probably did not intend.

einnor wrote:
Nobody is the bad guy.


That hasn't been your argument. You've been contending that almost everyone has been a bad guy.

einnor wrote:
Agenda matters.


What agenda matters to whom?

An agenda in this context is no more than "the goals of an ideological group". Environmentalists have an agenda: protect the environment. Oil industry executives have an agenda: protect the oil industry. Socialists have an agenda: spread socialism. Conservatives have an agenda: spread conservatism.

What you - and probably a lot of other people - think when you hear the word "agenda" is "hidden agenda". Like the hidden agenda of the oil industry's misinformation campaign which was revealed several years ago and the hundreds of millions of dollars they've provided to create a false controversy: to convince the public that AGW is still a controversial topic among scientists, that there is still active debate among them as to its validity or simply that it is false. You will NOT find that sort of HIDDEN agenda among environmentalists working on the global warming problem and you will not find socialists doing anything about global warming in numbers beyond what their presence in the general population would produce.

einnor wrote:
I am sure proof of some conflict of interest from all three groups is out there to be found


I am not. And since you've found none despite repeated requests tells me that it's not out there to be found. Or perhaps it's just particularly difficult for you. I suspect you found a great deal of material about conflicts of interest in the fossil fuel industry but very little within the environmental movement.

einnor wrote:
that is not the point.


That is precisely the point.

einnor wrote:
Knowing conflict of interest exists is the point.


In the abstract? Anywhere? With anyone? Don't be ridiculous. You brought this up in an apparent attempt to defuse accusations of COI against the oil industry by claiming that environmentalists were equally conflicted and, besides, it's all a socialist plot. You've made the extraordinary claim and now it is your responsibility to provide the extraordinary evidence. YOU need to provide evidence that environmentalists involved in global warming are driven not by a real regard and concern for the environment but by some conflict, secondary interest. And if you'd like to waste everyone's time, you can attempt to provide us evidence that AGW is not the product and conclusion of studies and papers by thousands of climate researchers but rather a socialist plot. Those were your contentions. It is of those we want to see evidence.

einnor wrote:
The proof I offer is logic.


Not yet it isn't.
02-12-2014 07:32
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
einnor wrote:
I am sure proof of some conflict of interest from all three groups is out there to be found

Abraham3 wrote:
I am not. And since you've found none despite repeated requests tells me that it's not out there to be found. Or perhaps it's just particularly difficult for you. I suspect you found a great deal of material about conflicts of interest in the fossil fuel industry but very little within the environmental movement.

TMI Too much information. It would be a chore to uncover the tip of the iceberg but I will start. My favorite is "instituting a genuine instrument of global governance" That is the long game for socialist.

How Climate Alarmism Advances International Political Agendas:

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S Undersecretary of State for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: "We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." - See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2013/02/06/global-warming-was-never-about-climate-change/#sthash.zMwpH4qd.dpuf

Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed the real goal: "We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?" - See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2013/02/06/global-warming-was-never-about-climate-change/#sthash.zMwpH4qd.dpuf

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: "No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2013/02/06/global-warming-was-never-about-climate-change/#sthash.zMwpH4qd.dpuf

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: "The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order." - See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2013/02/06/global-warming-was-never-about-climate-change/#sthash.zMwpH4qd.dpuf

Speaking at the 2000 UN Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC's climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: "For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established." - See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2013/02/06/global-warming-was-never-about-climate-change/#sthash.zMwpH4qd.dpuf

I stand by my statement that agenda matters.
In your court Abraham3

I stand by my statement that agenda matters.


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
02-12-2014 07:56
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
I didn't see the word socialism once in all your examples.
02-12-2014 08:28
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Abraham3 wrote:
I didn't see the word socialism once in all your examples.

The people quoted are socialist proclaiming their agenda for global warming.
Do you know how these people are?
Mikhail Gorbachev - The USSR was a communist government
Jacques Chirac - France is a socialist country
Christine Stewart - Canada is a socialist country

Socialists have adopted the causes of other social movements, such as environmentalism, feminism, liberalism and global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Bottom line, undeniable proof that agenda matters.


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
02-12-2014 09:49
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
einnor wrote:
Abraham3 wrote:
I didn't see the word socialism once in all your examples.

The people quoted are socialist proclaiming their agenda for global warming.
Do you know how these people are?
Mikhail Gorbachev - The USSR was a communist government
Jacques Chirac - France is a socialist country
Christine Stewart - Canada is a socialist country

Socialists have adopted the causes of other social movements, such as environmentalism, feminism, liberalism and global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Bottom line, undeniable proof that agenda matters.


Do you go to church? Do you attend AA meetings? Are you a member of any group?
02-12-2014 10:08
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
orogenicman wrote:
einnor wrote:
Abraham3 wrote:
I didn't see the word socialism once in all your examples.

The people quoted are socialist proclaiming their agenda for global warming.
Do you know how these people are?
Mikhail Gorbachev - The USSR was a communist government
Jacques Chirac - France is a socialist country
Christine Stewart - Canada is a socialist country

Socialists have adopted the causes of other social movements, such as environmentalism, feminism, liberalism and global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Bottom line, undeniable proof that agenda matters.


Do you go to church? Do you attend AA meetings? Are you a member of any group?

Yes no no
Do you have an opinion about the subject or just my character?


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
02-12-2014 13:48
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
I'm sorry, but locating three socialist individuals that have made statements concerning global warming is not evidence, much less proof, that global warming is a socialist plot.

AGW is supported by mountains of objective evidence and the opinions of thousands of degreed, active researchers from all the nations of the planet. The IPCC's position that AGW is near certain is accepted by socialist governments as widely as it is by anti-socialist governments. AGW is not a socialist plot and, I'm sorry, but the charge is not worthy of further response.

That environmentalists should be concerned about global warming and work to prevent it is not evidence of any conflict of interest or of a hidden agenda.

That elements of the fossil fuel industry should, secretly, operate and fund (to the tune of several hundred million dollars) what they know and intend to be a disinformation campaign in an irresponsible effort to protect their future income against actions required for the protection of human infrastructure and food and water supplies, is the implementation of a hidden agenda and a conflict of interest with their obligation to hold human safety above profit. They are knowingly acting in opposition to settled science and to known human welfare.
02-12-2014 14:30
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Abraham3 wrote:
I'm sorry, but locating three socialist individuals that have made statements concerning global warming is not evidence, much less proof, that global warming is a socialist plot.

AGW is supported by mountains of objective evidence and the opinions of thousands of degreed, active researchers from all the nations of the planet. The IPCC's position that AGW is near certain is accepted by socialist governments as widely as it is by anti-socialist governments. AGW is not a socialist plot and, I'm sorry, but the charge is not worthy of further response.

That environmentalists should be concerned about global warming and work to prevent it is not evidence of any conflict of interest or of a hidden agenda.

That elements of the fossil fuel industry should, secretly, operate and fund (to the tune of several hundred million dollars) what they know and intend to be a disinformation campaign in an irresponsible effort to protect their future income against actions required for the protection of human infrastructure and food and water supplies, is the implementation of a hidden agenda and a conflict of interest with their obligation to hold human safety above profit. They are knowingly acting in opposition to settled science and to known human welfare.


My original statement:
einnor wrote:
Just as "big oil" is often cited as having a conflict of interest, so would environmentalist and socialists. Double edged sword.

Your rephrasing it to "global warming is a socialist plot" does not require me to defend your statement.
Conflict of interest.
"We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong"
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
"The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order."
All quotes from the worlds leading socialist advising their followers to co opt the global warming issue for their own agenda, "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong"
It took me 5 minutes on Google to find those quotes. Socialist have the Gruber mentality when talking to their own.
Socialist world leaders!!! They are doing it without any fear of you calling them on it.
Gruber lives!!!!


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
03-12-2014 14:51
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Neither socialists nor socialism has anything to do with the validity of AGW. The opinions of the world's scientists do. They tell us in overwhelming numbers that AGW is valid. They do not believe it to be the result of a conflict of interest among socialists (which would be a socialist plot) nor among environmentalists: protecting the environment from things like GW is what environmentalists are SUPPOSED to do.
04-12-2014 15:26
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Abraham3 wrote:
Neither socialists nor socialism has anything to do with the validity of AGW. The opinions of the world's scientists do. They tell us in overwhelming numbers that AGW is valid. They do not believe it to be the result of a conflict of interest among socialists (which would be a socialist plot) nor among environmentalists: protecting the environment from things like GW is what environmentalists are SUPPOSED to do.

You, without my help, can go off the grid and save the world all you want. Get back to us on how it is working out for you. You can go back to whale oil for light use Solyndra solar panels for heat and the Chevy Volt for transportation. I hope you are willing to live with that as a reality.
I repeat for emphasis "you, without my help".


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
05-12-2014 13:26
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Then why are you here?




Join the debate Positive effects of global warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What effects global temperature2825-03-2019 03:41
Report: Great Lakes feeling effects of rapid climate warming (Update)122-03-2019 17:37
Researchers explore the effects of climate change on hunger420-03-2019 23:07
Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change29906-03-2019 18:50
Just a blog post about the effects of climate change1211-10-2018 01:04
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact