How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[Alan Klein]

The guy isn’t nut at all.

He has been offering his services to the US faithfully for years to justify the presence of military bases in Japan and Korea.

This is perfect win win deal enabling the US to keep those bases close to China and Russia.

North Korea poses zero threat to the security of Asia Pacific.

It’s a big play.

Cheers,
Bernard

North Korea ties up American forces that could be better used to keep China directly in check.  NK is a point on one of China's spears who would be used to distract America from facing off China such as in the South China Sea islands or when China goes against Taiwan.   That puts you and your family in more danger living in Japan. I hope we can work something out with NK.  But it's not in China's interest to do so. 

[LesPalenik]

And their media appears to be giving a more balanced amount of air time to climatoseptic theories not backed up by proper science.

Btw, genuine question. How do you interpret the reason for the very different views in Europe vs the US about global warming?

Cheers,
Bernard

Good question. It seems to me that their desire to protect the nature stems in part from living in greater-density communities. Also the Europeans tend to think more about the long term benefits than for short-term, immediate pleasures.

Once, I had a visitor from Netherlands here in Ontario and I took him one day on a canoe outing not far from Toronto, and he couldn't believe how clear the water was. Actually, after he jumped into the lake, he screamed "I can see my feet".  Not something you can experience often in western Europe. As a matter of fact, in early seventies I took a week-long trip in a small sailboat in Friesland in the north part of Netherlands, and we sailed through several lakes and channels with very murky water. I don't think, we swam on that trip.

[RSL]

I am just looking at facts, not at what I am being told to think.

A different take on freedom perhaps?

Cheers,
Bernard

You haven't given any "facts." All you've listed is opinions from supposed "experts" and from "research." A "fact" is something you can demonstrate over and over after having set up the conditions under which it occurs. Weather is nothing even remotely like that. Everybody's guessing.

[Alan Klein]

Last (July 2018 est.) count,  1,384,688,986 people .

Cheers,
Bart

I know.  We've discussed this before.  So those 1,384,688,986 people produce 30% of the world's CO2 compared to the 2nd worse offender, America with 14%.  Yeah, I know.  The Chinese family who makes a dollar a day and can only afford candles, doesn;t produce as much CO2 as an American suburbanite.  Well, pretty soon, that family will be middle class and will be burning as much as the 400,000,000 Chinese who have already made middle class.  Then China's CO2 percent will be at 50% and we'll be up to our a**es in alligators and it will be too late for them to join Paris to make a difference. 

Seriously.  Do you think Xi is going to slow, down his economy because Paris thinks it's a good idea?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hope makes for a good breakfast but a lousy dinner...

I’ll have to remember that phrase, very good.

[Alan Klein]

Good question. It seems to me that their desire to protect the nature stems in part from living in greater-density communities. Also the Europeans tend to think more about the long term benefits than for short-term, immediate pleasures.

Once, I had a visitor from Netherlands here in Ontario and I took him one day on a canoe outing not far from Toronto, and he couldn't believe how clear the water was. Actually, after he jumped into the lake, he screamed "I can see my feet".  Not something you can experience often in western Europe. As a matter of fact, in early seventies I took a week-long trip in a small sailboat in Friesland in the north part of Netherlands, and we sailed through several lakes and channels with very murky water. I don't think, we swam on that trip.

Les, Canada has few people compared to its geographic size.  So you're right that Europe is more crowded.  But I don't think that America gives short shrift to pollution control and environmental regulations.  Yesterday, I had to bring in my car for it's required annual free inspection at the Department of Motor Vehicles here in New Jersey.  They checked for proper fuel and pollution control.  Meanwhile, in Germany, you have their entire auto industry fraudulently producing diesels sent in German cars around the world that pollute the air 50 times what is allowed.  Reminder:  It was America that imposed better pollution controls for cars that moved the worldwide industry to better standards.  We've also cleaned up our air and water.  Tesla is an American company.  European companies are only now starting to produce electric cars.  Americans breathe and drink water and want clean air and environment too.  The issue with Paris is that America was being punished by having to meet standards that others like China and India did not have to meet.  America is at the forefront of pollution control.  But we're not going to cut our nose off to spite our face.  We expect to be treated fairly by China whether its protection of our intellectual property, unfair trade practices, or in equalizing costs for pollution and environmental control. 

[Alan Klein]

I’ll have to remember that phrase, very good.

Thanks. I stole it from someone else. 

[BernardLanguillier]

You haven't given any "facts." All you've listed is opinions from supposed "experts" and from "research." A "fact" is something you can demonstrate over and over after having set up the conditions under which it occurs. Weather is nothing even remotely like that. Everybody's guessing.

I was talking about North Korea, but I agree, let's get back to global warming.

The supposed experts are the recognized experts. There are no other experts and no other way to decide who the experts are.

I have already answered the other objections several times in this thread. In short, the world is probabilistic in essence. Nothing is ever certain. But you have high odds and those are what policies need to be based on. You have lived your life that way, so have I. There is absolutely no reason why you should have a different take on global warming.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Les, Canada has few people compared to its geographic size.  So you're right that Europe is more crowded.  But I don't think that America gives short shrift to pollution control and environmental regulations.  Yesterday, I had to bring in my car for it's required annual free inspection at the Department of Motor Vehicles here in New Jersey.  They checked for proper fuel and pollution control.  Meanwhile, in Germany, you have their entire auto industry fraudulently producing diesels sent in German cars around the world that pollute the air 50 times what is allowed.  Reminder:  It was America that imposed better pollution controls for cars that moved the worldwide industry to better standards.  We've also cleaned up our air and water.  Tesla is an American company.  European companies are only now starting to produce electric cars.  Americans breathe and drink water and want clean air and environment too.  The issue with Paris is that America was being punished by having to meet standards that others like China and India did not have to meet.  America is at the forefront of pollution control.  But we're not going to cut our nose off to spite our face.  We expect to be treated fairly by China whether its protection of our intellectual property, unfair trade practices, or in equalizing costs for pollution and environmental control.

As if there were one America... The America that has achieved most of what you are talking about is pretty much California, Massassuchets, Oregon and Washington states...

I am obviously over simplifying, but had the guys who are unwilling to face the situation about global warming today been in charge, little of that would have happened...

And, once again, China and India have both ratified the Paris agreement. Only the US hasn't and you know as well as I do that a very large part of the population in the US is strongly unhappy about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Paris_Agreement

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... There is absolutely no reason why you should have a different take on global warming...

Oh, but there is: your take is absolutely laughable.

[BernardLanguillier]

Oh, but there is: your take is absolutely laughable.

Then so is 90+% of the civilized world. I have chosen to trust the views of the world's best scientists on this topic. That may be laughable, but the same approach makes me believe in gravity, fluid mechanics, nuclear physics,...

As some point you have to wonder, what are the odds you are right when such a large part of the world thinks differently? And, more importantly, on what information do you base your opinion on?

But I guess that the ability to stick to whatever belief is part of that great freedom you are boasting about?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Then so is 90+% of the civilized world...

Once again, that is a false number. the 97% has been debunked.

But you never answered my question: are you ready to give up everything we derive from fossil fuels? Your Nikon? Your meat? Car? Plane?

OMG! I totally forget the #1 moronic "remedial solution"

- do not have kids!!!

[BernardLanguillier]

Once again, that is a false number. the 97% has been debunked.

No, it hasn't. Read again please. You have apparently not understood the discussion.

Besides, I am not just talking about the scientific community. I am talking about the citizens of the world who, in large majorities, have understood what we are facing.

But you never answered my question: are you ready to give up everything we derive from fossil fuels? Your Nikon? Your meat? Car? Plane?

I have answered as clearly as I could that the belief that admitting the contribution of human kind to global warming is going to result in the need to give on everything you are listing, that belief is a misconception. Its a manipulative exaggeration that is not helping the debate progress. I would definitely not trust the information sources who have led you to believe this is the case.
 
Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... that belief is a misconception...

Then what is your "remedial solution"? "Do something"? Like what? You keep avoiding answering my question with sidetracking, but you have not offered a single answer.

[BernardLanguillier]

Then what is your "remedial solution"? "Do something"? Like what? You keep avoiding answering my question with sidetracking, but you have not offered a single answer.

That is no true.

I have answered clearly that the way forward is a combination of reasonable individual effort as well as corporate measures that will result from change in legislation. That has to start from a decision from elected representatives to adopt measures in order to comply to the Paris agreement.

I have provided concrete examples of the measures I have started to take. They are far from perfect but are steps in the right direction. If you are genuinely interested you will easily find a list of concrete things you can start tomorrow without chaninging your life style dramatically. I have mentioned the examples of Sweden, a leader in terms of environmental developments, with one of the highest standards of living and most happy populations on earth.

On the public policy/corporate side I have pointed at what California has been doing in terms of emission control. Tesla, a possible future leader in electric mobility, was born as a result of these policies. Their market cap was once larger than GM. Eco friendly policies do generate business opportunities.

Of course that works better in a free market not hindered by too much tariffs.

But everything has to start from, just like Alan has done, admitting the possibility that man has an impact on global warming.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Then what is your "remedial solution"? "Do something"? Like what?

Reducing Greenhouse gas emissions will help.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Reducing Greenhouse gas emissions will help.

Again... If I told you I am hungry, and your "remedial solution" is "well, you should eat something" is completely correct, yet utterly useless. How do we reduce greenhouse gasses without severely affecting our way of life?

[faberryman]

How do we reduce greenhouse gasses without severely affecting our way of life?

I would phrase the question differently: How do we not reduce greenhouse gasses without severely affecting our way of life? July 2019 was the hottest July on record, edging out July 2016. Fact courtesy of NOAA (government scientists).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... July 2019 was the hottest July on record, edging out July 2016...

How far back the records go? 100 years? 200 years? Versus 5 billion years of the planet's existence? A grain of sand in the ocean of time.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I would phrase the question differently...

Rephrase it all you want, but you are just avoiding answering it.