Correct. And coal is a rock.

Just read this from the denialist WSJ opinion pages, extolling the CEO of a major polluter. Laughed out loud.

Mr. Huntsman first began to entertain doubts about climate orthodoxy in the years after he saw Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” “His story was so well laid out, so precise,” Mr. Huntsman says. “At certain times, certain events would happen, certain measurements would be reached.” They didn’t and weren’t. [Actually, they have.]

It wasn’t a sudden “Aha” moment, he says, but he began to think about other dire predictions that had people panicked not long ago. “In the ’70s [here it comes…] we were going into an ice age. Then we went to acid rain—in six or seven years that was going to destroy all the oak trees and pine trees, and New England would be this deforested area. Then the ozone was going to disappear. And then we got to global warming, and we were all going to fry to death.”

Here.

:lol:

It is fossil fuels that are the problem. NOT cows. — Agree to Disagree

Livestock, including cows, are a significant contributor and significant problem. They add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Your embarrassing ignorance notwithstanding.

Point out the fault in this logic:
- Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
- Cows eat the plants.
- The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere. — Agree to Disagree

You really can’t see it, huh?

Well see if you can point out the fault in this logic (I’ll make it easier):

- “Atoms of carbon” are taken up by plants. Those plants get fossilized.

- We burn those plants.

- We release those atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.

Thus, it’s a cycle and burning fossil fuels doesn’t add any carbon to the atmosphere.

That still too hard? Alright: more cows, more land is needed to raise cows. Millions of hectares.

When are people going to realize that industry and governments will not do anything significant unless forced to do so by the people? — Janus

I think they’ll begin to realize (maybe) as they see more and more destruction. But the propaganda is strong.

It is a cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows. — Agree to Disagree

Is this serious? I’ll assume it is.

Yes, there is. There’s an increase in greenhouse gases.

“Rainforests sequester carbon. Logging releases that carbon back into the atmosphere. It’s a cycle. Thus, there is no overall gain or loss in the destruction of the rainforests.”

Your ignorance (and logic) is embarrassing. Try reading about this subject.

For those not interested in bogus climate denial websites:

Cows (primarily, of all livestock) produce 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, mostly in the form of methane.

It’s a big problem, and one many scientists (and farmers) are addressing. (Aka, People who know something about the subject.)

Not to beat a dead climate denial horse, but to go back to an earlier discussion about “carbon footprints” (the fossil fuel engineered way of shifting blame to the average citizen):

They found those who make enough income to be in the top 10 percent of American households are responsible for 40 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. The top 1 percent of households accounted for 15 to 17 percent of the nation’s emissions, with investment holdings making up 38 to 42 percent of their emissions.

Then there were “super-emitters” with extremely high overall greenhouse gas emissions, corresponding to about the top 0.1 percent of households. About 15 days of emissions from a super-emitter was equal to a lifetime of emissions for someone in the poorest 10 percent in America.

The team found that the highest emissions linked to income came from White, non-Hispanic homes, and the lowest came from Black households. Emissions peaked until age 45 to 54, and then declined.

The richest Americans account for 40 percent of U.S. climate emissions

But yeah, let’s not blame the fossil industry (“only giving people what they want”) or the wealthiest Americans/Wall Street, let’s focus our attention on individuals and their carbon footprints.

Stupidity knows no bounds on this issue.

Can a centrally planned economy democratically and logically distribute resources, wealth, and labour of the world? — an-salad

Corporations are centrally planned economies, internally. They fail miserably most of the time at distribution. But it can be done.

What are you meaning by capitalism though?

fruits of another’s labor — NOS4A2

Cherries, apples, bananas…the fruits are being stolen.

The second question is the structure of the private ownership, contrasting what we have to co-ops etc. — Judaka

This is a great point.

Good to see this is all you have left to say after a series of absurd claims.

So what’s your next climate denial trope? That the sun is hot? Maybe it’s volcanoes? Water vapor?

Anything else? Or is that the best you have— that a bunch of places on earth haven’t gotten “warm”?

One that I like is this one because each decade is shown in a different color, starting with the 1940's at the bottom and the 2020's at the top as I would expect from a claim of incessant global warming. The very top line is 2023 — magritte

Exactly. But like most climate deniers, he’ll go on believing climate scientists are “hiding” things from the public.

“Look! This place hasn’t gotten that warm this year. Why wouldn’t climate scientists tell us this??”

It’s just so transparent it’s barely worth responding to seriously anymore. But I’m glad you did.

Ha— it’s from A Fish Called Wanda.

Greenwood is underrated.

Have a look at how many locations never even get "warm" — Agree to Disagree

:lol:

Climate change: refuted.

The data that I showed people was compiled by scientists/climate scientists. I didn't compile the data. — Agree to Disagree

Right right— you just discovered that they’re hiding it from the public. Excellent work.

“Why haven't climate scientists told people about this data?".

A second QUESTION: "Is this data an inconvenient truth?". — Agree to Disagree

:lol:

You cracked the case buddy.

The climate scientists aren’t telling people about the data YOU “discovered” because they’re trying to fool people into getting scared about climate change, so that China, George Soros, and the UN can implement more controls and usher in the New World Order.

Thank you for educating us with your groundbreaking work, blowing the lid off the whole thing. I’ll nominate you for a Nobel prize.

Can you link to the second quote?

@Agree to Disagree
Worth reposting, since you completely ignored it:

Global warming isn't about extremes (but could be possible consequence in certain local situations) but global averages. So that data means zilch. Use this instead: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As to your earlier comment about fears of an ice age. Here's a nice read: https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/ — Benkei

Both links are worth reading. For anyone truly interested in this topic, as you claim to be, doing so is the bare minimal.

I didn't say what I thought the data means. I just asked, "What do people think that this data means?". — Agree to Disagree

Right— says the guy who uses meat companies’ websites as an authority on methane emissions, blames young people for their “Carbon footprint,” defends oil companies as “just giving people what they demand,” and claims nothing can be done to stop climate change.

“Just asking questions.” How about this: take 10 seconds and ask the following QUESTION: “Have I just discovered something climate scientists the world over have missed, or am I just deluding myself?”

Don’t worry— I’m not arguing. I’m just asking questions.

I believe that people need to take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint. — Agree to Disagree

British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.

Underlying this is a conflict in how we imagine ourselves, as consumers or as citizens. Consumers define themselves by what they buy, own, watch – or don’t. Citizens see themselves as part of civil society, as actors in the political system (and by citizen I don’t mean people who hold citizenship status, but those who participate, as noncitizens often do quite powerfully). Too, even personal virtue is made more or less possible by the systems that surround us. If you have solar panels on your roof, it’s because there’s a market and manufacturers for solar and installers and maybe an arrangement with your power company to compensate you for energy you’re putting into the grid. — Mikie

Oil companies just supply us with what we demand. — Agree to Disagree

lol. Glad you swallow their propaganda whole. Nice job.

And neither they, nor your mention of XL and IRA counter the claim Biden was worse than Trump on the environment in any way. — Jack Rogozhin

It does exactly that, in fact.

My claim still stands true — Jack Rogozhin

No, it doesn't. It's ridiculously uninformed.

The passing of the IRA alone is better than anything Trump did on the environmental -- which was to dig more coal, pull out of the Paris Accords, and destroy hundreds of regulations. There's plenty of information on it with a google search.

I do lots of political and social work outside voting. — Jack Rogozhin

And yet you want to actively make this work harder.

Your false equivalency of Trump and Biden is your problem, really. But that's yours to solve.

Simply declaring you “showed” things is meaningless. You haven’t once showed that. You’ve made statements that it isn’t true. And I see no serious reason to believe it.
— Mikie

I have showed it and showed I did. — Jack Rogozhin

I guess that proves it.

And I see no serious reason to believe it. — Mikie

I have no reason to believe them. — Jack Rogozhin

That’s insane to me. — Mikie

Your thinking otherwise is insane to me. — Jack Rogozhin

Your assessment is just ridiculous. — Mikie

Your assessments have been ridiclous, not mine — Jack Rogozhin

Forgive me. At first I thought I was communicating with an adult.

I can see you won't last long on this forum. But nice talking to you.

Underlying this is a conflict in how we imagine ourselves, as consumers or as citizens.

It’s clear where some line up.

Of course it is as Biden has proven to be as bad, if not worse than Trump. — Jack Rogozhin

Not on the environment— which is what I was talking about.

But in the last two years, they also passed the IRA and canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, strengthened car emission standards, etc. Actions at the SEC, EPA, energy, and interior have all been much better than under Trump — by any metric.

That’s not to say it’s perfect or satisfactory— just better than the prior administration. I think that’s obvious.
— Mikie

Sorry, but none of those vague, unspecific suppositions counter what I showed above: Biden has been worse on the environment than Trump — Jack Rogozhin

Canceling the XL and passing the IRA is hardly “unspecific suppositions.” They’re facts.

As far as the actions of the departments I mentioned— I can get into that more.

They exactly counter the claim that Biden is worse than Trump on the environment.

Because you just said too much is made about it. And now you are making too much about it, actually worrying about my vote, even — Jack Rogozhin

In the sense that it’s not our only political move. I’ve now repeated that three times. Why is it not clear?

Voting is important. But it’s not the only thing we have.

And as I showed, votes going to West simply do not give a better chance to either Biden or Trump. — Jack Rogozhin

Simply declaring you “showed” things is meaningless. You haven’t once showed that. You’ve made statements that it isn’t true. And I see no serious reason to believe it.

even more anti-progressive than Trump. — Jack Rogozhin

So you’re actually arguing that the Biden administration is worse than the Trump administration in terms of progressive values.

That’s insane to me.

Sorry — I prefer Michael Regan as EPA administrator, not Scott Pruitt. Call me crazy. But you do you.

You clearly don't care enough about the environment as you are fine with Bidens' terrible environmental record, which is worse than Trump's — Jack Rogozhin

You really should educate yourself on the environmental record of the Trump administration. Your assessment is just ridiculous, I’m afraid.

Anyone pretending to care should progressive goals has the minimal moral responsibility to examine the real world impacts of government policy.

Sure, but we also have the choice to vote against both, work towards building a progressive third party — Jack Rogozhin

At the cost of electing Trump, I’m not sure it’s worth it. There’s ways to build a progressive movement beyond just voting. It starts in each state, and builds from there.

While Biden as a man might be repugnant and unacceptable, his appointments aren’t. In fact some are quite good.

We went backwards with Biden as he drilled more than trump, gave out more drilling licenses than Trump, pushed the horrendous Willow Project, and committed the worst act of eco-terrorism by OKing the sabotaging of the Nordstream pipeline — Jack Rogozhin

But in the last two years, they also passed the IRA and canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, strengthened car emission standards, etc. Actions at the SEC, EPA, energy, and interior have all been much better than under Trump — by any metric.

That’s not to say it’s perfect or satisfactory— just better than the prior administration. I think that’s obvious.

If this is true, then you shouldn't worrry about people voting their conscience. — Jack Rogozhin

Why? I didn’t say it isn’t important. It’s just not our sole political action. We should make sure we’re voting against the worst, ensuring the greatest impediment to our goals isn’t in office—then continue on with our work.

It doesn't give Trump a better chance as neither Biden nor Trump own West voters' votes, — Jack Rogozhin

Not owned, but most voting for West will have values and goals that will be much more likely to be obstructed (and in fact actively fought against) under a Trump administration than a Biden one. If we had ranked choice voting, I think Biden would come before Trump, in most cases.

That being said, these votes going to West (or staying home) simply gives Trump a better chance to win — at least in swing states. In Mass, it doesn’t matter much. In NH, it matters a great deal.

So I care about climate change. The IRA will help my neighbors and I get solar panels and heat pumps. That’s a good thing. Trump and the Republicans are literally running on dismantling all of that. If my voting for West just because it makes me feel better, ignoring the reality of a two-party system, comes at the real cost of electing Trump— I’ve shot myself in the foot.

It is Big Oil's fault, not mine. — Agree to Disagree

Correct.

Now go shill for oil companies elsewhere— and take your climate denial with you.

British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.

Underlying this is a conflict in how we imagine ourselves, as consumers or as citizens. Consumers define themselves by what they buy, own, watch – or don’t. Citizens see themselves as part of civil society, as actors in the political system (and by citizen I don’t mean people who hold citizenship status, but those who participate, as noncitizens often do quite powerfully). Too, even personal virtue is made more or less possible by the systems that surround us. If you have solar panels on your roof, it’s because there’s a market and manufacturers for solar and installers and maybe an arrangement with your power company to compensate you for energy you’re putting into the grid.

right now that best option is the Green party and Cornel West — Jack Rogozhin

I like Cornell West too. Of all the candidates so far, he's my favorite.

In the sad state of American political duopoly, it's going to be a Biden/Trump rematch. Those, unfortunately, are most likely going to be the choices. I prefer Biden in office -- not because I like Biden, but because I like a lot of his administrators and more of his policies than Trump's.

The environment is a good example: would we have the IRA with Trump in office? Of course not. That's not to say it was what it should have been -- we needed much more than that. But it's better than going backwards.

I think the problem is that too much is made about voting, as if that's our sole political power. So people, understandably, want to vote their conscience. I used to think along these lines myself. But once I saw the real, everyday impacts of having, for example, a reasonable and sympathetic secretary of labor, or a competent NLRB, or a head of the EPA that isn't an oil lobbyist -- to say nothing of the money allocated for state and local site cleanups, solar and wind subsidies, etc., I think being pragmatic is more important.

Yes, Cornell West is the best candidate. I wish he would become president and I hope he gains momentum. But if it comes to a Biden/Trump rematch, I don't see how voting for Cornell, however noble, doesn't simply give Trump (by far the worst of all three) a better chance at winning.

Young people seem to blame everyone except themselves (e.g. oil companies and older people). They refuse to take responsibility for their own carbon footprint and blame it all on the oil companies. — Agree to Disagree

lol. "Carbon footprint."

Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed.

Insulting me makes me less likely to do anything about climate change. — Agree to Disagree

You mean the blatant climate denier who pretends to care/know anything about the subject -- and repeatedly says that nothing can be done about it -- won't do anything if he's insulted?! Oh no!

Here are the parts of this news story that stand out to me: — Agree to Disagree

As you go on to quote the ultra right-wing government officials. That just happens to "stand out" to you. How predictably pathetic.

Go shill for the oil companies somewhere else.

trial in Montana going on right now. — Mikie

Posted this about two months ago.

Well, the result is in:

Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youths in a Landmark Climate Case

A bit of good news. Figured I’d share.

I read this too. Front page of the Sunday Times.

It’s a little misleading, I think. Emissions are still rising, oil drilling projects are still being done, transmission lines aren’t being built, solar and wind farms are being blocked or delayed— to say nothing about the Republicans grotesque game plan to reverse every regulation and incentive on the books and further accelerate fossil fuel use

That being said— this article does highlight some areas of hope.

Maybe you can pull up some of those articles from those eras, warning of global warming. I'm curious. — jgill

Here’s a reference:

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson, who was also a contributor to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1

Even Exxon knew about climate change as early as 1977– from their own scientists.

Also worth googling Syukuro Manabe. His research is from the 60s. He’s also a Nobel prize winner.

Why don't you comment on what they say, rather than who they are? — Agree to Disagree

Because it’s cherry picked nonsense, of the Bjorn Lomborg variety.

—

So it’s just worth summarizing/repeating: Climate change is happening, and rapidly. We’re the cause. It’s an existential threat. The solutions are available; the obstacles are time and political will.

Scientists raised the issue of a possible pending ice age around about the mid 70's. — Agree to Disagree

Care you cite some articles?

Most scientists, even back then, were far more concerned about global warming — the effects of which were known and understood decades prior.

The consensus was hardly suggesting an ice age was imminent. There was speculation, among some scientists, about the cooling effect of aerosols. That’s all it was.

Odd that you don’t remember the warnings about global warming from back then. Talk about selective memory.

Read the link that I gave earlier about the Biogenic Carbon Cycle. — Agree to Disagree

So you literally quote from a MEAT COMPANY. No conflict of interest there, I’m sure.

Good lord.

His response: New ice age comes in the next 50 000 years, climate change happening now.

But that was decades ago. — ssu

Right. Yet that won’t stop ignoramuses from discussing it at length. “Scientists were screaming we were all gonna freeze to death in 10 years!”

It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic— and dangerous.

Oh, cool. Glad you knew that all along.

So you also know that the “coming ice age” you mentioned in your list of doom hysteria — not-so-subtly implying that climate change is (could be?) hysteria as well — is utter bullshit? Basically taken from one Newsweek article that did not once suggest this was a consensus among scientists anywhere CLOSE to AGW?

I’m sure you know that too.

The previous link that I gave you shows that cattle don't contribute much to the problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions. — Agree to Disagree

Cattle are the No. 1 agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustainable

They contribute a good deal to global warming. Try learning about the subject.

THE MYTH OF ThE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

For anyone who wants to learn about this very common, very tired, very stupid denialist trope.

Also, this is funny (and accurate):

It reminds me of the old trope "I'm not a racist, but..." where whatever follows the 'but' is bound to be something racist. — unenlightened

Right. No one is a climate denier these days — at least according to climate deniers.

Just like racism is a thing of the past — according to Fox News.

The cow fart angle is still a current concern. — Agree to Disagree

It’s not “cow farts.” Try reading about the subject.