Global warming is not people’s most pressing concern

[Sunsettommy]

Another article showing yet another poll showing global warming is not a concern.

Watts Up With That?

Global warming is not people’s most pressing concern

August 1, 2018

Guest opinion by Tom Harris

Selected Excerpt:

"We often hear claims that man-made climate change is our greatest threat. But according to a recent Gallup poll, very few people in the United States actually believe it is. Indeed, even the United Nations own polling reveals that respondents across the world rate climate change last among issues they would like the UN and governments to focus on. No matter how long the list, climate change is always last."

LINK

Couple of things. Tom Harris the author is besides someone who works as a climate denier also a mechanical engineer. Not anyone with what would be a relevant degree.
The link provided is a dedicated climate denier website. that in itself doesn't have to be a problem, if the claims made are sourced, which they aren't. Still not a problem if I could find the relevant polls. Here we do have a problem. Global Warming Concern Steady Despite Some Partisan Shifts This is the latest gallup poll on climate. I do not find the relevant polling data and nothing to suggest that only 2 percent find climate not a pressing concern. the actual number stands at around 50 percent. So not only does your link starts from a bias, and doesn't source. When the claims are checked with the claimed source they appear to be false.

Your own Gallop poll you posted was about a SINGLE TOPIC, Global Warming Concern Steady Despite Some Partisan Shift

Thus by your own link you failed utterly to show anything that contradicts the polling links Mr. Harris posted which were based on a very different criteria.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Another article showing yet another poll showing global warming is not a concern.

Watts Up With That?

Global warming is not people’s most pressing concern

August 1, 2018

Guest opinion by Tom Harris

Selected Excerpt:

"We often hear claims that man-made climate change is our greatest threat. But according to a recent Gallup poll, very few people in the United States actually believe it is. Indeed, even the United Nations own polling reveals that respondents across the world rate climate change last among issues they would like the UN and governments to focus on. No matter how long the list, climate change is always last."

LINK

Oh and by the way. Even if all of this wasn't true. How do people's OPINIONS have any relations with FACTS. If people don't deem something important does that by default mean it isn't? Pretty sure people don't think lightning hitting them is a major issue. I don't think that opinion allows them to play with a kite in a thunderstorm though.

Are you saying there are FACTS that support the agw theory?

Sure there are. The question is are you willing to accept facts when they are presented?

Hmmm by facts do you mean models and filling in holes with assumption, like our 2000 year old savage ancestors did with God?

No, with facts I mean facts. Like for instance the FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The FACT that humans have been pumping that greenhouse gas into the air at a higher and higher rate. The FACT that the average global temperature is rising. You know FACTS.

You are babbling here, since hardly anyone disputes that CO2 is a GHG that it is warming and that Humans emit a small percentage of the yearly total emissions.

But CO2 is a feeble ghg with a very small IR absorption window. It absorbs little of the OLWR to matter much to the heat budget.

Do YOU know what the AGW hypothesis is?

Do you know what the NULL Hypothesis is?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Are you saying there are FACTS that support the agw theory?

Sure there are. The question is are you willing to accept facts when they are presented?

Hmmm by facts do you mean models and filling in holes with assumption, like our 2000 year old savage ancestors did with God?

No, with facts I mean facts. Like for instance the FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The FACT that humans have been pumping that greenhouse gas into the air at a higher and higher rate. The FACT that the average global temperature is rising. You know FACTS.

Correlation doesnt mean causation.

No it doesn't but then the burden of proof then switches to you. If you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and you accept that humans are pumping this gas into the air at an ever increasing pace. Then you have to provide me with a reasoning why CO2 wouldn't act as a greenhouse gas in this case. See it's not enough to not be satisfied with an explanation. You need to be able to provide an alternative one. I gave you 3 different facts, that support a conclusion. If you want to invalidate that hypothesis you need to come up with a better one that fits those facts. There are of course other facts available but these are the core ones.

NO the burden is on WHO pushed the AGW hypothesis, skeptics don't have to prove it either way for you.

Do you know who originally posted the AGW hypothesis?

Your lack of science literacy is easy to see here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why cant something just not be explained? Why does there ALWAYS have to be a reason?
It reminds me of people in the ancient world that had to use Gods to explain everything. Man just cant wait for the facts.
Maybe one day we will progress past that

There is plenty of stuff that can't be explained. What you are doing is rejecting an explanation when given. There are facts, you just aren't accepting them. You bring up God. Do you realize you are using the same logic as a religious person? "I don't wan't to believe that climate change is true so I reject all evidence that proves it." It's the same as a Young Earth creationist rejecting basically the nature of the world because he believes the Earth is 6000 year old.

Explanations arent facts. I would like FACTS when my sovereignty and all ways of life are threatened.
I wont throw my life away for what ifs. Thats retarded.
So we are both thinking like a religious person.. hmm

-Nope, see a religious person rejects evidence, or explanations in this case. I ask for them. That's the whole point. You reject everything that doesn't fit your belief. I'm offering you time and time again to give me an explanation.
-As to the second part. How is believing in climate change throwing away your life? At the very worst the most that's being asked is a change in lifestyle? Ever heard of the concept of low risk, high consequence events? At best I'm wrong and climate change isn't happening. We are all out some money and have learned to recycle (oversimplification I know)
At worst, well we all better learn how to swim.
Your willing to bet on me being wrong and risk not having learned how to swim ( figuratively speaking)?

Ever heard of the concept of low risk, high consequence events? At best I'm wrong and climate change isn't happening. We are all out some money and have learned to recycle

Wasting trillions on "green energy" is not a low consequence action.

How do you know it's trillions? How is the cost offset by an entirely new sector of business being created? And most importantly how many trillions would it cost if the coastline shifts miles inland?

How do you know it's trillions?

Warmers don't want us to waste trillions on "green energy"?
When did they change their "minds"?

How is the cost offset by an entirely new sector of business being created?

Wasting money means the cost isn't offset.

And most importantly how many trillions would it cost if the coastline shifts miles inland?

How many trillions do we have to waste to ensure no coastline ever shifts anywhere?

 

[MisterBeale]

Why cant something just not be explained? Why does there ALWAYS have to be a reason?
It reminds me of people in the ancient world that had to use Gods to explain everything. Man just cant wait for the facts.
Maybe one day we will progress past that

There is plenty of stuff that can't be explained. What you are doing is rejecting an explanation when given. There are facts, you just aren't accepting them. You bring up God. Do you realize you are using the same logic as a religious person? "I don't wan't to believe that climate change is true so I reject all evidence that proves it." It's the same as a Young Earth creationist rejecting basically the nature of the world because he believes the Earth is 6000 year old.

Explanations arent facts. I would like FACTS when my sovereignty and all ways of life are threatened.
I wont throw my life away for what ifs. Thats retarded.
So we are both thinking like a religious person.. hmm

-Nope, see a religious person rejects evidence, or explanations in this case. I ask for them. That's the whole point. You reject everything that doesn't fit your belief. I'm offering you time and time again to give me an explanation.
-As to the second part. How is believing in climate change throwing away your life? At the very worst the most that's being asked is a change in lifestyle? Ever heard of the concept of low risk, high consequence events? At best I'm wrong and climate change isn't happening. We are all out some money and have learned to recycle (oversimplification I know)
At worst, well we all better learn how to swim.
Your willing to bet on me being wrong and risk not having learned how to swim ( figuratively speaking)?

Ever heard of the concept of low risk, high consequence events? At best I'm wrong and climate change isn't happening. We are all out some money and have learned to recycle

Wasting trillions on "green energy" is not a low consequence action.

How do you know it's trillions? How is the cost offset by an entirely new sector of business being created? And most importantly how many trillions would it cost if the coastline shifts miles inland?

The global temperature and sea levels are going up regardless of our actions.

Our money would be better spent mitigating and shoring this impending dire situation than having a useless theoretical debate.

 

[cnm]

Do you know who originally posted the AGW hypothesis?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

 

[cnm]

The global temperature and sea levels are going up regardless of our actions.

Why did you not show data from before the industrial age?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Do you know who originally posted the AGW hypothesis?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

"'The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year', the unknown journalist wrote.

'When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly'.

This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the Earth and to raise its temperature', he said.

The article finished with the prophetic line; 'The effect may be considerable in a few centuries'."

Does this look like a AGW hypothesis?

 

[Sunsettommy]

The global temperature and sea levels are going up regardless of our actions.

Why did you not show data from before the industrial age?

What you indicate here is that you didn't know that it was much warmer and Sea level were higher than now earlier in the Holocene.

Got nothing else to talk about?

 

[cnm]

Is that your explanation as to why he didn't show data from before the industrial age? Not a very useful one.

 

[cnm]

Does this look like a AGW hypothesis?

It looks like a report/explanation of one, but you'd first have to reveal what you're referring to as 'the' greenhouse hypothesis.

Do you know who originally posted the AGW hypothesis?

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect.
History of the greenhouse effect and global warming​

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you saying there are FACTS that support the agw theory?

Sure there are. The question is are you willing to accept facts when they are presented?

Hmmm by facts do you mean models and filling in holes with assumption, like our 2000 year old savage ancestors did with God?

No, with facts I mean facts. Like for instance the FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The FACT that humans have been pumping that greenhouse gas into the air at a higher and higher rate. The FACT that the average global temperature is rising. You know FACTS.

Correlation doesnt mean causation.

No it doesn't but then the burden of proof then switches to you. If you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and you accept that humans are pumping this gas into the air at an ever increasing pace. Then you have to provide me with a reasoning why CO2 wouldn't act as a greenhouse gas in this case. See it's not enough to not be satisfied with an explanation. You need to be able to provide an alternative one. I gave you 3 different facts, that support a conclusion. If you want to invalidate that hypothesis you need to come up with a better one that fits those facts. There are of course other facts available but these are the core ones.

Here are a few inconvenient facts...

1. Human influenced CO2 rise can not be differentiated from noise in our climactic system. Paleo records show that were are below the earths average CO2 level of 1561ppm..

2. The Earth has survived MILLIONS OF YEARS with CO2 levels above 5000ppm... No runaway has happened nor can it...

Those two facts alone kill the AGW Hypothesis.. The paleo record also indicates swings of 400ppm are not uncommon. Until you rule out all natural causes and influences your beliefs are unfounded by facts.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Explanations arent facts. I would like FACTS when my sovereignty and all ways of life are threatened.
I wont throw my life away for what ifs. Thats retarded.
So we are both thinking like a religious person.. hmm

-Nope, see a religious person rejects evidence, or explanations in this case. I ask for them. That's the whole point. You reject everything that doesn't fit your belief. I'm offering you time and time again to give me an explanation.
-As to the second part. How is believing in climate change throwing away your life? At the very worst the most that's being asked is a change in lifestyle? Ever heard of the concept of low risk, high consequence events? At best I'm wrong and climate change isn't happening. We are all out some money and have learned to recycle (oversimplification I know)
At worst, well we all better learn how to swim.
Your willing to bet on me being wrong and risk not having learned how to swim ( figuratively speaking)?

You just fill in stuff so you can "understand" it like they did.
"whats that bright light coming from the sky and striking the ground? Hmmm god must be pissed! What else could it be?"
How is that not what you are doing?
You both fill in holes without knowing the FACTS.
Again, im not rejecting carbon is a greenhouse and we release it. I doubt we are changing the natural evolution of Earth. That takes some pretty hard facts for me. Sorry.

If it was a belief, firstly it wouldn't have facts supporting it. If it was a belief I would reject any other explanation. It can't be more fundamentally different then that. If tomorrow some climatologist would publish a better alternative explanation. An explanation that his peers couldn't dispute. I would change what I belief. For instance, when I started on this board, I strongly believed that having guns in the house was irresponsible. Until I had a discussion on here with Ray From Cleveland. During that conversation I was making a point, to make that point I did some research and found that that research didn't support my assertion. Instead of dismissing what I found I conceded, linked what I found and changed my position that handguns in the house are not necessarily irresponsible. Instead of holding on to what I believed I let facts, not beliefs inform my view. It's never fun to admit that your wrong, especially in a place like this, but I rather be wrong then irrational.

I dont mind admitting i am wrong. Self improvement is the way to go!
Buuuut i have nothing to admit, here. There are no facts showing me man is changing the evolution of this planet. None.

Well I gave the relevant facts already and we aren't going to go understand each other any better by repeating them. So I'll just wish you a good night Harley.

Relevant facts?

You gave conjecture based on failed modeling.... If this is what passes as scientific evidence for you, you should be embarrassed...

 

[skookerasbil]

We need to spend $$ on the roads. Duh....if folks have to move a mile or two inland every so often, they'll figure a way when the time comes.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Does this look like a AGW hypothesis?

It looks like a report/explanation of one, but you'd first have to reveal what you're referring to as 'the' greenhouse hypothesis.

Do you know who originally posted the AGW hypothesis?

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect.
History of the greenhouse effect and global warming​

I ASKED YOU the question, your reply was to duck it. It wasn't even a scientific explanation either, just making unsupported claims is what they did. It certainly lacked any factual support.

Arrhenius didn't propose the AGW hypothesis at all, heck all he did was propose a relationship between CO2 and temperature effect, that would later be called the "greenhouse effect". He later revised his position in a 1906 paper with a much lower CO2 / temperature effect.

Do try keeping up.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Is that your explanation as to why he didn't show data from before the industrial age? Not a very useful one.

It certainly exposed your ignorance of climate history of the Holocene.

 

[cnm]

You still have not said what is 'the' AGW hypothesis to which you're referring. I expect such sidestepping to continue.

 

[fncceo]

Zealous environmentalists are in many ways like militant vegans. They believe their their heart that their cause is the most important thing in the world and are constantly dumbfounded that other folks just don't see it their way.

They don't get the idea that most people prefer KFC to quinoa tofu wraps and most people would rather drive than take the bus.

 

[skookerasbil]

Zealous environmentalists are in many ways like militant vegans. They believe their their heart that their cause is the most important thing in the world and are constantly dumbfounded that other folks just don't see it their way.

They don't get the idea that most people prefer KFC to quinoa tofu wraps and most people would rather drive than take the bus.

Lol....best post of the year in here by far. I'm still laughing.

Yet they are shocked when they get their clocks cleaned in elections.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You still have not said what is 'the' AGW hypothesis to which you're referring. I expect such sidestepping to continue.

The original question I posted, that YOU tried to answer and failed:

"Do you know who originally posted the AGW hypothesis?"

You FIRST say it was a newspaper article, then to Arrhenius, neither one made the AGW hypothesis at all. You have yet to show WHO posted the AGW HYPOTHESIS!

You are stumbling all over on a simple question, it is hilarious that you can't answer it. Your link is so bad it is impossible to know who might have formulated the AGW hypothesis in reading it.