“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change!” says Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Really? 12 years?
John Stossel recently moderated a debate held by The Heartland Institute. Well, not a debate … because climate alarmists who were invited didn’t show.
“Please … let’s have a discussion!” begs astrophysicist Willie Soon. Stossel says the panel convincingly debunked four myths. One is the new claim: “we only have 12 years to act.”
Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, says, “It’s warmed up around one degree Celsius since 1900, and life expectancy DOUBLED … yet [if] that temperature ticks up another half a degree … the entire system crashes? That’s the most absurd belief.”
Climatology Professor David Legates adds, “In twelve years it’ll be 12 more years.” The 3 scientists argue that even if the planet warms by 5 degrees, humans can adjust. We already have. People in Holland did. Holland is a low-lying country. Much of it is below sea-level. So many years ago, the Dutch built dikes to prevent flooding. Michaels says, “Are you telling me that the people in Miami are so dumb that they’re just going to sit there and drown?” “You acknowledge though the water is rising?” asks Stossel. Legates interjects, “Yes, the water has been rising for approximately 20,000 years.”
Another myth they bust: government action today will save us. “The Obama’s administration’s model projects that the amount of global warming that would be saved [by the US] going to ZERO emissions tomorrow … would be 14 hundredths of a degree Celsius,” says Michaels. It wouldn’t stop global warming but: “You’ll sure have an impoverished dark country.” he continues. “Global warming is why hurricanes are getting worse” and the idea that “carbon dioxide is a pollutant that just does harm” are two other myths the scientists debunk. Stossel concludes by asking, “Are they right?
It’s hard to believe they are when so many serious people are so worried. I wish there were a real debate! Why won’t the other side debate?”
The audiance is not educated . California gas leak raised earth temp accurately .start their. If you care about fact and preventing the excerbated demise of humans from self exterminations from greed based short terminology.
Huh?
I am trying to understand your comment.
Thanks
Not much to understand, it’s just the mindless ravings of a know-nothing internet troll.
or a badly written bot script….
Judging from the poorly craft post, I suspect that the one that is “not educated” is you Steven Lonien.
California gas leak raised earth temp accurately
Care to elaborate on what you mean here. What gas leak are you referring to (a single link to a reliable news source will do)? and accurately to what? I assume you mean to some kind of prediction, please cite the source of said prediction.
start their
start their what? their engines? their marathon? Oh, you mean start there. Well, you need to give more details (see above) before anyone can hope to “start there”.
If you care about fact
we do, clearly you don’t considering what you said next:
and preventing the excerbated (sic) demise of humans from self exterminations from greed based short terminology
Sorry that’s just nonsense. The only thing that will cause the “exacerbated demise of humans” is the abandoning of the cheap, reliable energy that has made human life longer, safer and overall more pleasant.
Mankind accounts for 5-6 Gt of CO2 emissions per year. Natural sources account for 190-225 Gt per year. Just the natural variability of 35 Gt (225-190) is 6 to 7 times as large as the total anthropogenic emissions.
If we are going to combat Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere can anyone please tell me, further to sorting out the anthropogenic emissions, HOW we can reduce the 190-225 Gt produced from Natural Sources if we wish to Save the Earth from an unknown disaster (?) in 12 years?
Hi JoHo (robot?)
Humans are not in charge of the atmospheric CO2 level, nature and the biosphere is.
If pCO2 rises then the oceans (at whatever temperature they are at) may increase it’s take-up of CO2, if CO2 falls then the oceans (at whatever temperature they are at) may increase it’s venting of CO2.
Either way puny humans are NOT in charge of CO2 levels, the biosphere maintains atmospheric CO2 levels.
Also note CO2 can not and does not warm the oceans, the sun and geothermal effects does that.
I’m sure this “debate” was online, the good folks here at WUWT made sure the links were available in the end, and I watched a good bit of it too, esp. the presentations by Moore and Mann.
However, for whatever the reasons it wasn’t a debate, it was separate presentations. I particularly liked the bit where the Hockey fellow strutted around bragging about the 8 or so scientists whose papers slavishly follow up in such a way as to just confirm his conclusions, his “hockey team’ he calls them ..
The reason life expectancy has doubled is the availability of cheap reliable energy. Turn the power off and in 6 months we are all hunter gatherers again and our life expectancy will start dropping like a stone.
I blame the Internet !
And the ability of thinking folk to be able to explore contentious topics, or sacred cows, with the merest slide of a mouse. It meant that folk who had doubts about all sorts of received wisdoms got to see that there were others who had the same doubts. Worse still it enabled perusal of information that was not conducive to the prevailing story. Remember the hole in the ozone gig ? that popped up just before the age of the WWW, and its fascinating to wonder how the debate and conclusions may have been affected had it been open to much more input.
The No Debate gig started with the topic of the Holocaust, and things like Billy Wilders shrunken heads and soap, which once exposed to critical gaze, proved to be a source of embarrassment to the High Priests (money makers) of the narrative. The same topic also spawned the use of the word ‘Denier’ to smear not only the flat-earthers, but those with no malicious intent who asked inconvenient questions. In such an atmosphere it doesn’t take long for the mass of enquiring minds to realise that such doubts as they may have, are best kept to themselves.
The whole modus operandi of non debate has now been applied to any subject that has the potential for a caste of priests to become earners. Climate Change, Donald Trump is bad, doubts about gender fluidity, think outside the box, and once the Denier tag gets pinned on you, see the potential for far reaching effects on your everyday life.
As Orwell had it, ‘In a time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth becomes a revolutionary act’ 🙂
There is no debate because honest discussion is not part of their strateegery.
Guess what that leaves?
Andrew
Debate can be healthy and good even when it’s contentious..however, when you’re able to feed the public a steady diet of misinformation, debate ceases..The same goes for schools. Our children are inundated every day with the following trope, CO2 and carbon emissions are evil, the seas are rising and our coasts will soon be flooded, storms are getting stronger, we only have 20 years to do something(or insert other random # here), droughts are worse, temperature extremes are the norm (and caused by climate change).
While I don’t hold a degree in science or math, I’m quite capable of reading and formulating my own opinions. The non-skeptic’s main goal is to prevent that while at the same time playing on the most base of human emotions, fear..Think about the last 15 to 20 years, if you went back and looked at the number of articles or news stories related to weather events, i,e storms or temp records broken, you’d probably see a 10-fold increase in the number of them even though there hasn’t been any statistically significant increase in either..That should tell you all you need to know..
Why alarmists won’t debate? Easy just point them on a simple scientific fact with a scientific fact: the end of the young dryas.
Once you point them to how the young dryas ended, they are clueless and can’t debunk it
The end of the young dryas is an abrupt climate change at a speed that is 4-10 times faster than the worse case rcp 8.5 scenario of the ipcc and is almost double their predicted rise. There was no co2 back then.
All they can do then is try to ridicule instead of using science
Why won’t they actually debate?
To suppress opposing ideas. To control information. They only want their ideas to be known. They want opposing ideas to be silenced or presented as “nutso”.
Way back when the Founding Fathers of the US knew Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Religions were important.
Today, in the context of CAGW and with the internet, we have blogs such as WUWT to counter “Control of the Press” and zero MSM debate.
(Meant as a “PS” to my previous comment)
As far as “Freedom of Religion” goes, I’d like and would prefer to lead a quite and peaceable life in that regard, but persecution has never stopped the Good News before.
‘Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists’
I’m old enough to remember when states had meteorologists. Who were trustworthy. ‘Climatologist’ is political.