Rush Limbaugh: Hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy for promoting climate change

[Leonhard]

There is no stopping or preventing climate change.

Nobody has talked about stopping global warming, but it is very much possible to prevent future rise of it. It all depends on how much we curb our CO2 production, as again, its our CO2 producting which is driving the temperature rise since the seventies.

It will always change. It has always changed.

Yes, but that's besides the point, we don't care about ten thousand year long slow variations in the climate. Its the sharp rise in temperature since the seventies, which is caused mostly by human activity which we can do something about.

[Starlight]

It will always change. It has always changed.

There's a good graph here drawn by a scientist based on the data of the changes over the last 20,000 years. From it, you can see that the kind of temperature change we're looking at this century is comparable to 10,000 years worth of natural change which went from Boston being under a mile of ice to the current temperatures.

As the author comments in the mouseover text: "[after setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before."

[Bill the Cat]

Nobody has talked about stopping global warming,

Yes they have.


Top 50 Things To Do To Stop Global Warming
How You Can Stop Global Warming
35 Easy Ways To Stop Global Warming
Top Ways to Stop Global Warming

And that's just the first 4...

but it is very much possible to prevent future rise of it.

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903

Climate change is essentially irreversible, according to a sobering new scientific study.
As carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, the world will experience more and more long-term environmental disruption. The damage will persist even when, and if, emissions are brought under control, says study author Susan Solomon, who is among the world's top climate scientists.
"We're used to thinking about pollution problems as things that we can fix," Solomon says. "Smog, we just cut back and everything will be better later. Or haze, you know, it'll go away pretty quickly."
That's the case for some of the gases that contribute to climate change, such as methane and nitrous oxide. But as Solomon and colleagues suggest in a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it is not true for the most abundant greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide. Turning off the carbon dioxide emissions won't stop global warming.

© Copyright Original Source

It all depends on how much we curb our CO2 production, as again, its our CO2 producting which is driving the temperature rise since the seventies.

Source: above

People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide that the climate would go back to normal in 100 years or 200 years. What we're showing here is that's not right. It's essentially an irreversible change that will last for more than a thousand years," Solomon says.

© Copyright Original Source

Yes, but that's besides the point, we don't care about ten thousand year long slow variations in the climate. Its the sharp rise in temperature since the seventies, which is caused mostly by human activity which we can do something about.

According to Dr Solomon, there isn't.

[Leonhard]

Yes they have.

First of all, its pretty silly to equate slogans and campaigns with a seriously qualified scientific statement. Even the ones there aren't talking about "stopping" global warming. As in, do these things, and global warming will stop. But as in curbing it, and limiting it. That would be very clear from reading those articles you cite.

What is being talked about is to limit global warming so that it doesn't go above some goal, 2.5C or 3.0C or something like that. This would be infinitely preferable to the alternative which would be unlimited growth combined with fossil fuel dominated energy infrastructure which would increase temperatures by 6.0C by the end of the Century. And is the worst case scenario. There are no scenario's being considered by the IPCC that have 0 increase in temperature. The smallest is the one where we cut our CO2 production short immediately (basically a - what if humans disappeared scenario), as a baseline to see what the lower limit would be, and its still 0.5C.

The changes will happen they're irreversible, but they're caused by us and not beyond our control.

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903

Climate change is essentially irreversible, according to a sobering new scientific study.
As carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, the world will experience more and more long-term environmental disruption. The damage will persist even when, and if, emissions are brought under control, says study author Susan Solomon, who is among the world's top climate scientists.
"We're used to thinking about pollution problems as things that we can fix," Solomon says. "Smog, we just cut back and everything will be better later. Or haze, you know, it'll go away pretty quickly."
That's the case for some of the gases that contribute to climate change, such as methane and nitrous oxide. But as Solomon and colleagues suggest in a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it is not true for the most abundant greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide. Turning off the carbon dioxide emissions won't stop global warming.

© Copyright Original Source

Again, saying precisely what I've been saying. There's nothing in that article that says that we can't curb it, what the article makes clear is that we won't be able to do anything that realistically fixes it and makes the temperatures go down again. By natural means it'll take thousands of years to sequester the CO2 again, and any artificial attempt at doing it would require engineering on a colossal scale orders of magnitude greater than anything humans have ever done. So we have to live with the consequences.

My response to the article is basically. "Yes, this is what I've been telling you."

According to Dr Solomon, there isn't.

Dr Solomon doesn't say that future growth of temperature can't be curbed. She says they can't be reversed, which is true.

[Mountain Man]

Nobody has talked about stopping global warming, but it is very much possible to prevent future rise of it. It all depends on how much we curb our CO2 production, as again, its our CO2 producting which is driving the temperature rise since the seventies.

CO2 is a trace gas that has a negligible impact on global temperatures.

Source: notrickszone.com

The increasingly corroborated atmospheric mass pressure (gravity) explanation for variances in planetary temperatures – which precludes a significant role for CO2 concentration changes – has now advanced from peer-reviewed scientific journals to university-level textbooks.

The “adiabatic theory” of the greenhouse effect (adiabatic: “the constant decline in temperature of an air parcel as it rises in the atmosphere due to pressure drop and gas expansion”) is capable of explaining the variances in temperatures on planets like Earth, Mars, and Venus using each planet’s atmospheric pressure gradient – and without reliance on the traditional greenhouse effect theory that assigns a governing role to CO2.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/10/n....qh45gRCD.dpbs

© Copyright Original Source

[Starlight]

CO2 is a trace gas that has a negligible impact on global temperatures.

I hope you're getting paid a lot to promote this nuttery and you aren't just making a fool of yourself for the sake of it.

[One Bad Pig]

I hope you're getting paid a lot to promote this nuttery and you aren't just making a fool of yourself for the sake of it.

I'll wait with bated breath for Charles to nanny you about substanceless ad hominem responses.

[Tassman]

Government grants seem to flow almost exclusively to those universities and organizations who promote climate change, and to those industries ostensibly combating it. Then, of course, there are the snake oil salesman like Gore, and he's far being the only one. And that's not even looking at the political capital.

To pretend that the climate change scam is somehow altruistic is naive at best.

Here we go. When in doubt invoke a conspiracy theory: “They’re just in it for the money”. So funny!

An overwhelming scientific consensus maintains that climate change is due primarily to the human use of fossil fuels. These release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air. These gases trap heat within the atmosphere, which can have a range of effects on ecosystems, including rising sea levels, severe weather events, and droughts that render landscapes more susceptible to wildfires. All of which we are seeing now.

[Starlight]

I'll wait with bated breath for Charles to nanny you about substanceless ad hominem responses.

It reaches a certain point of YECism / Climate Change denial / fake news conspiracies where it's reasonable to no longer give a troll like MM the benefit of the doubt in terms of him acting in good faith or presenting ideas that are substantive. He can claim the earth is flat/young/whatever, that CNN fakes hurricane rescues, that Trump doesn't lie, or that Breitbarf is accurate until the cows come home if he likes.

But the actual scientists here don't have to take him seriously while he does it. Leonhard and SoR do seem to have more patience than me to sit down with people like him and painstakingly explain the errors. I'm not sure if they think they'll get anywhere with MM and his misinformation, I suspect they see it more in the way of a public service to try and ensure readers of this site don't fall for his crazy.

[Mountain Man]

An overwhelming scientific consensus...

Source: "Aliens Cause Global Warming" by Michael Crichton

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. [...] The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf"

© Copyright Original Source

[Bill the Cat]

First of all, its pretty silly to equate slogans and campaigns with a seriously qualified scientific statement. Even the ones there aren't talking about "stopping" global warming. As in, do these things, and global warming will stop. But as in curbing it, and limiting it. That would be very clear from reading those articles you cite.

Then they need to stop using deceptive language. The word "PREVENT" does not mean "slow down"

pre·vent
prəˈvent/
verb
verb: prevent; 3rd person present: prevents; past tense: prevented; past participle: prevented; gerund or present participle: preventing
1.
keep (something) from happening or arising.
"action must be taken to prevent further accidents"
synonyms:
stop, put a stop to, avert, nip in the bud, fend off, stave off, ward off;

What is being talked about is to limit global warming so that it doesn't go above some goal, 2.5C or 3.0C or something like that.

Then say that. Francis said "PREVENT". Those articles said "STOP".

This would be infinitely preferable to the alternative which would be unlimited growth combined with fossil fuel dominated energy infrastructure which would increase temperatures by 6.0C by the end of the Century.

Again, I'm not arguing with those estimates at all. Just the ridiculous language being used to apparently scare people into action.

And is the worst case scenario. There are no scenario's being considered by the IPCC that have 0 increase in temperature. The smallest is the one where we cut our CO2 production short immediately (basically a - what if humans disappeared scenario), as a baseline to see what the lower limit would be, and its still 0.5C.

So, "prevent" and "stop" are not the right words to use then, correct? And Francis is wrong that we can "prevent" climate change, correct?

[One Bad Pig]

It reaches a certain point of YECism / Climate Change denial / fake news conspiracies where it's reasonable to no longer give a troll like MM the benefit of the doubt in terms of him acting in good faith or presenting ideas that are substantive. He can claim the earth is flat/young/whatever, that CNN fakes hurricane rescues, that Trump doesn't lie, or that Breitbarf is accurate until the cows come home if he likes.

But the actual scientists here don't have to take him seriously while he does it. Leonhard and SoR do seem to have more patience than me to sit down with people like him and painstakingly explain the errors. I'm not sure if they think they'll get anywhere with MM and his misinformation, I suspect they see it more in the way of a public service to try and ensure readers of this site don't fall for his crazy.

So, to defend your use of ad hominem, you double down with more. Sweet.

[EvoUK]

So, to defend your use of ad hominem, you double down with more. Sweet.

Is treating a YECer with derision really ad hominem? Not sure if it is- otherwise where do you draw the line?

Sure, the liberals & conservatives on here disagree a lot on political matters, which is to be expected. YEC isn't like that though, and so I don't see a problem making the distinction. What are your thoughts?

[demi-conservative]

Sure, the liberals & conservatives on here disagree a lot on political matters, which is to be expected. YEC isn't like that though, and so I don't see a problem making the distinction. What are your thoughts?

Libism is much much much more harmful than YECism.

[One Bad Pig]

Is treating a YECer with derision really ad hominem? Not sure if it is- otherwise where do you draw the line?

Sure, the liberals & conservatives on here disagree a lot on political matters, which is to be expected. YEC isn't like that though, and so I don't see a problem making the distinction. What are your thoughts?

I'm wondering what adiabatic theory has to do with YEC.