NBC's Chuck Todd: "We're Not Going To Give TV Time To Climate Deniers"

[Anti Federalist]

I am unqualified, as are you, to argue about the details of climate change. Why should I waste my time trying to argue with religious imbeciles on an internet forum, that, thankfully, have very little power in the real world? Evidence demonstrating the veracity of anthropogenic climate change is not easy to undermine, or it would have already been done and accepted within the scientific community. The fact that it hasn't been, tells me that you are suggesting there is a vast conspiracy to silence the truth regarding climate change. Please provide evidence for this vast conspiracy. Or do you think all the scientists are just too stupid to properly interpet their own observations?

You are like those religious idiots who pretend that evolution isn't real so they can continue to believe the Bible is the literal word of an omniscient creator.

How in the hell do you have a "Reputation Beyond Repute" when Zippy, for all his faults, has the highest neg rep on this board?

Even when he is wrong, Zippy is not crude, harsh and insulting.

 

[Anti Federalist]

What science, exactly, is he denying? The sad thing is, low-IQ people like you and the majority of this forum think there is more evidence for bronze age superstitions than the incontrovertible reality of human-caused climate change.

-rep

 

[Influenza]

How in the hell do you have a "Reputation Beyond Repute" when Zippy, for all his faults, has the highest neg rep on this board?

Even when he is wrong, Zippy is not crude, harsh and insulting.

How does an overt racist like you have one? How did those Taliban-Christan types like Christian_Liberty, hells_unicorn, etc have them? How do <85 IQ people like Swordsmyth and NCL have them? It's a mystery I tell you, a mystery!

 

[Anti Federalist]

How does an overt racist like you have one?

Because even if I disagree with somebody, I try to remain civil and polite and understanding, in an effort to reach consensus and understanding.

Not be a condescending jackass.

So, moving on...lets assume you are correct about AGW.

What do you propose be done?

 

[Influenza]

OK? I was trying to tell u that u release more CO2 from the oceans int the atmosphere when temp increases. Do you not believe it?

More CO2 being present in the atmosphere will increase the temperature, which causes CO2 to be released more quickly from the ocean

 

[Influenza]

Because even if I disagree with somebody, I try to remain civil and polite and understanding, in an effort to reach consensus and understanding.

Not be a condescending jackass.

So, moving on...lets assume you are correct about AGW.

What do you propose be done?

What countries around the world have already been starting to do - limiting their CO2 emissions by investing in alternative forms of energy and heavily reducing their reliance on fossil fuels for electricity, etc.

 

[Swordsmyth]

More CO2 being present in the atmosphere will increase the temperature, which causes CO2 to be released more quickly from the ocean

Or maybe the warming comes first and releases the CO2, that is what the data shows.

 

[Anti Federalist]

What countries around the world have already been starting to do - limiting their CO2 emissions by investing in alternative forms of energy and heavily reducing their reliance on fossil fuels for electricity, etc.

Uh huh...but from what I've read, from the same sources you are quoting, is that those efforts are no where near enough, that massive and radical reductions are required, that the small baby steps being taken now are not nearly enough, in fact, are merely a drop in the bucket.

Is it your contention that the severity of the problem is overstated?

That the measures being done now are enough?

ETA - And let me ask this: why is it OK within your worldview that a "country" can act in a collective manner in its own self interest to preserve itself to combat something like AGW, but not act collectively in its own self interest to preserve itself when the source of danger is say, uncontrolled immigration?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a "no borders, no walls, no countries at all" kind of guy?

 

[Swordsmyth]

What countries around the world have already been starting to do - limiting their CO2 emissions by investing in alternative forms of energy and heavily reducing their reliance on fossil fuels for electricity, etc.

So basically you want government to steal more money and waste it on inefficient projects while forcing everyone to have a lower standard of living.

Just why do you come to this site again?

 

[Influenza]

Uh huh...but from what I've read, from the same sources you are quoting, is that those efforts are no where near enough, that massive and radical reductions are required, that the small baby steps being taken now are not nearly enough, in fact, are merely a drop in the bucket.

Is it your contention that the severity of the problem is overstated?

That the measures being done now are enough?

I think it's obvious that some of the "doomsday" predictions have been overstated. People that have exaggerated such predictions have done a disservice to the greater issue, because it causes people like you, (and me until a few years ago) to completely reject the idea of climate change and pretend it's nothing to worry about, when it certainly is. Those exaggerators are almost as bad as the politicians and "scientists" who get paid millions by oil companies to ensure that people remain ignorant and apathetic about the very real issue

 

[Influenza]

So basically you want government to steal more money and waste it on inefficient projects while forcing everyone to have a lower standard of living.

Just why do you come to this site again?

Who said I want to the government to steal more money? They are wasting trillions of dollars on the military and other shit every year, certainly there is a lot of money that can be diverted to actually useful causes (not inefficient projects like you HAVE to pretend they are because your fundamentalist religion of "small government when it suits me" demands it of you)

 

[Anti Federalist]

I think it's obvious that some of the "doomsday" predictions have been overstated. People that have exaggerated such predictions have done a disservice to the greater issue, because it causes people like you, (and me until a few years ago) to completely reject the idea of climate change and pretend it's nothing to worry about, when it certainly is. Those exaggerators are almost as bad as the politicians and "scientists" who get paid millions by oil companies to ensure that people remain ignorant and apathetic about the very real issue

How would anybody have known that those predictions were "overstated", if the AGW proponents had their way, and had effectively silenced all opposition, criticism and critical analysis?

 

[fisharmor]

So basically you want government to steal more money and waste it on inefficient projects while forcing everyone to have a lower standard of living.

I believe I called it in post 53, and that this proves my other earlier assertion that agw cultists can't keep up.

 

[fisharmor]

Who said I want to the government to steal more money? They are wasting trillions of dollars on the military and other shit every year, certainly there is a lot of money that can be diverted to actually useful causes (not inefficient projects like you HAVE to pretend they are because your fundamentalist religion of "small government when it suits me" demands it of you)

Translation: it's ok to waste trillions, as long as it's wasted on what ***Influenza*** wants to waste it on.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Who said I want to the government to steal more money? They are wasting trillions of dollars on the military and other $#@! every year, certainly there is a lot of money that can be diverted to actually useful causes (not inefficient projects like you HAVE to pretend they are because your fundamentalist religion of "small government when it suits me" demands it of you)

The military budget may be far too large but it is nowhere near as large as the money demanded to fix a nonexistent problem and the projects are inefficient or they wouldn't need the government to force people to invest in them.

 

[kpitcher]

If our 20-year internet argumentation history on this topic is any guide, you're not even going to understand, despite the fact that I am clearly pointing it out to you here and now, that we are simply years ahead of you on this topic.

You are years ahead... and I'm too dim to understand... hrm, alright. I'll let the pompous attitude slide if I'm to be a grasshopper learning from the master.

What do you consider sources of valid knowledge? Obviously you don't follow with the peer review scientific method. That removes the IPCC reports, NASA, NOAA, almost all the various scientific organizations in the US and worldwide, the usual multi discipline journals like Nature, Science, let alone all the specialized earth and climate journals. Ok, I shall learn from new founts of wisdom.

What is the years ahead enlightened methodology of education on a complex topic like worldwide climate? I went through an engineering school if you're worried about my mental ability for comprehension.

If I'm to truly understand how AGW is a myth, I can't simply parrot every climate change is not real website that lists the same things like natural CO2, sun cycles, models from decades ago didn't get everything perfect, fake temp recordings, and all those others. I want to get to the real science that somehow is overlooked by oh 90% of scientists. This supplicant is after the source of apparently hidden knowledge.

I'm eager to start my journey, please point me in the right direction.

 

[kpitcher]

Let's assume you are correct.

What do you suggest be done about it?

Actually that is the most interesting question and is what will cause the biggest impact on our lives. Regardless of the reason behind climate change, everyone from the pentagon to insurance agencies are preparing for changes. We will have people try to spin this to their agenda and in our pre-dominate crony capitalism system many will try to profit hugely from it at the cost to citizens.

Most things to do boil down to find a way to stop polluting as much. Very libertarian ideal, none of us want someone else using our personal resources (Clean air, clean water, non polluted ground to grow our food, shared resources like the ocean shouldn't be destroyed, etc). Doing this in a way that doesn't increase government oversight will be hard, we'll have to find the right battles.

- Move to an increase in Nuclear power. Another thread shows that Bill Gates invested with some MIT grads for a new reactor design but is trying to put them in China. We have so much waste stored around the country we have energy just waiting to be utilized. We have unwarranted fears about nuclear power, new tech can make it even safer. I have 2 plants within 40 miles of me, one is being decommissioned in the next few years. Good time for a new plant.

- The US stopped their own research into fusion and joined ITER. We're over a decade away, at least, with ITER. China and Lockheed Martin is supposedly working on it. If we could crack fusion, clean power would solve a lot of pollution issues. However I'm not sure that any government funded big science ends up helping any more than it hurts. That could be an worthy discussion there, if big science could help, and how to fund it besides tax payer money.

- Plan better for handling issues that a warming climate brings. Plan for once a century floods as they turn into once a decade. This should be local and state issues mostly. We are bad as a county for any long term goals, can't hurt to start now.

I'm sure there are a lot more. The worse thing we can do is nothing and the Dems and Reps put climate change as a party plank with lobbyists telling them what to do.

 

[dannno]

You are years ahead... and I'm too dim to understand... hrm, alright. I'll let the pompous attitude slide if I'm to be a grasshopper learning from the master.

What do you consider sources of valid knowledge? Obviously you don't follow with the peer review scientific method. That removes the IPCC reports, NASA, NOAA, almost all the various scientific organizations in the US and worldwide, the usual multi discipline journals like Nature, Science, let alone all the specialized earth and climate journals. Ok, I shall learn from new founts of wisdom.

What is the years ahead enlightened methodology of education on a complex topic like worldwide climate? I went through an engineering school if you're worried about my mental ability for comprehension.

If I'm to truly understand how AGW is a myth, I can't simply parrot every climate change is not real website that lists the same things like natural CO2, sun cycles, models from decades ago didn't get everything perfect, fake temp recordings, and all those others. I want to get to the real science that somehow is overlooked by oh 90% of scientists. This supplicant is after the source of apparently hidden knowledge.

I'm eager to start my journey, please point me in the right direction.

Where did you get your 90% of scientists figure? Seems like you are back-peddling, you know your 97% figure was thoroughly debunked.. doesn't that make you weary of their other figures if they are willing to fudge on something like that? I mean, they really pushed that 97% consensus hard.. and it's totally bunk.

 

[dannno]

Actually that is the most interesting question and is what will cause the biggest impact on our lives. Regardless of the reason behind climate change, everyone from the pentagon to insurance agencies are preparing for changes. We will have people try to spin this to their agenda and in our pre-dominate crony capitalism system many will try to profit hugely from it at the cost to citizens.

Most things to do boil down to find a way to stop polluting as much. Very libertarian ideal, none of us want someone else using our personal resources (Clean air, clean water, non polluted ground to grow our food, shared resources like the ocean shouldn't be destroyed, etc). Doing this in a way that doesn't increase government oversight will be hard, we'll have to find the right battles.

- Move to an increase in Nuclear power. Another thread shows that Bill Gates invested with some MIT grads for a new reactor design but is trying to put them in China. We have so much waste stored around the country we have energy just waiting to be utilized. We have unwarranted fears about nuclear power, new tech can make it even safer. I have 2 plants within 40 miles of me, one is being decommissioned in the next few years. Good time for a new plant.

- The US stopped their own research into fusion and joined ITER. We're over a decade away, at least, with ITER. China and Lockheed Martin is supposedly working on it. If we could crack fusion, clean power would solve a lot of pollution issues. However I'm not sure that any government funded big science ends up helping any more than it hurts. That could be an worthy discussion there, if big science could help, and how to fund it besides tax payer money.

- Plan better for handling issues that a warming climate brings. Plan for once a century floods as they turn into once a decade. This should be local and state issues mostly. We are bad as a county for any long term goals, can't hurt to start now.

I'm sure there are a lot more. The worse thing we can do is nothing and the Dems and Reps put climate change as a party plank with lobbyists telling them what to do.

Not a bad post - pollutants are bad..

Here's the problem.

You and most enviros presume CO2 is a pollutant.

Let's say you have two project plans:

A) More harmful pollutants, less CO2

B) Less harmful pollutants, more CO2

Which option do you choose? Based on your post I would hope you would choose B.. but with the legislation and the environmental movement going the way it is, option A will be chosen.

How does that further your goals?

Brian has been trying to make this point several times throughout the thread.

 

[kpitcher]

Where did you get your 90% of scientists figure? Seems like you are back-peddling, you know your 97% figure was thoroughly debunked.. doesn't that make you weary of their other figures if they are willing to fudge on something like that? I mean, they really pushed that 97% consensus hard.. and it's totally bunk.

There are a number of meta analysis of support for AGW, they range from 90-100, most are in the high 90s. In this case I went with the lowest number, I figure if there is other information out there then perhaps that explains how the worse meta analysis was 90%