Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[k2skier112]

oh, and shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

[ron johnson]

I did not watch it. I can't stand Michael Moore and don't like his films (ok, I've only seen one I think but didn't like it).

I've now seen some reviews from people that know a lot more about climate change than any of us, and they say it is really bad journalism and very misleading. Sounds like Michael Moore.

How predictable. The film is not about climate change so why would people that "know a lot more about climate change" have such valid takes on it? Are these your same "experts" who say North America is on the path for 13' warming by 2100?

[ron johnson]

Yes, and it answers your question in full detail with references.

No, it doesn't. Your second link doesn't work, and even if it did, I don't see how it is going to answer my question. Metrics don't show the Western US as being in a megadrought, so how do these researchers come to that conclusion?

[ron johnson]

RJ thinks posting links to "hack" op-ed denier sites make him "legit"

Nope.

RJ thinks there's big walls around each country and that weather on one part of our planet doesn't effect weather anywhere else

So let me get this straight, if there is a megadrought in Australia then that means there is one in the Western US too? Because their climates are linked?

[k2skier112]

my bad scougs was the moron posting fake news realclimatescience, lmfao

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/
Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism. We also rate them Low for factual reporting due to failed fact checks and a complete rejection of the consensus of science in regards to human influenced climate change.

ps-rj, shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

[MultiVerse]

Long term exposure to ground level ozone and particulate matter is akin to continuously smoking a pack of cigarettes a day over the course of a lifetime. The result is lung damage and increased risk of emphysema. Air pollution is also associated with, among other things, a higher risk of dementia, heart disease, DNA damage, and now increased COVID-19 death risk.


In 1970 the U.S. population was around 200 million, today it is around 330 million. Fifty years ago the Clean Air Act authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and the environment. If not for the progress made many of the additional 130 million people would be creating and breathing air today similar to L.A.’s mid-century smog era.



Of course the EPA and the Clean Air Act are imperfect and have both not done enough as well as created lots of problems, lots of shortcomings to go around. But we wouldn't want to living in an American environment that hasn't seen these improvements.

[JohnnyTyndall]

No, it doesn't. Your second link doesn't work, and even if it did, I don't see how it is going to answer my question. Metrics don't show the Western US as being in a megadrought, so how do these researchers come to that conclusion?

It's all in the paper man.

[WMD]

How predictable. The film is not about climate change so why would people that "know a lot more about climate change" have such valid takes on it? Are these your same "experts" who say North America is on the path for 13' warming by 2100?

What is predictable? That I don't like Michael Moore movies?

You, and everyone else, should watch this excellent presentation from Dr Rob Davies of Utah State University: http://www.msucommunitydevelopment.o...atechange.html

Dr Davies clearly shows that we can choose our future. We can choose the merely bad (best case), or we can continue on our current path towards catastrophe. It is up to us.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Lemme guess, dickhead thinks we're overreacting to the Kung Flu too.

[ron johnson]

What is predictable? That I don't like Michael Moore movies?

You, and everyone else, should watch this excellent presentation from Dr Rob Davies of Utah State University: http://www.msucommunitydevelopment.o...atechange.html

Dr Davies clearly shows that we can choose our future. We can choose the merely bad (best case), or we can continue on our current path towards catastrophe. It is up to us.

It's predictable that you would ignore any information that competes with your world view. People with your mindset are dangerous.

Unlike you, I actually did attempt to watch your presentation because I always seek both sides of any issue. 5 minutes in and it was clear this was an ABC's of the climate change narrative, of which I am more than familiar with. I was going to skip ahead and see if there was anything useful in it, and at the 20 min mark, I find that this is the moron you were raving about who claims the US is on the path for 13'F warming by 2100. This guy has zero credibility. The most extreme emission scenario from the IPCC (and now widely accepted as impossible) projects only 4'C warming by 2100.

[ron johnson]

It's all in the paper man.

The paper is private, but either way, I doubt I'm going to be convinced of their idea that there is a megadrought when no other metrics come close to suggesting such a thing.

[Svengali]

Ron Koch, Thanks for selecting a font color that renders invisible what I would otherwise ignore.

[ron johnson]

ps-rj, shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

Can you just elaborate a bit more on the Australia/Western US climate connection? When it rains in Sydney does it rain in LA at the same time?

[ron johnson]

Lemme guess, dickhead thinks we're overreacting to the Kung Flu too.

Yes, but I know it's more dangerous to question anything other than total lockdown for COVID than global warming so I've stayed out of this one.

[ron johnson]

Wow, even one of the biggest peddlers of climate alarmism, The Guardian, gives the Michael Moore doc four stars:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...ore-jeff-gibbs

[Core Shot]

I fell asleep halfway through it but I plan to finish it.

I can’t stand Michael Moore and his fat snark.
Fortunately he didn’t narrate this film. Although you can hear his voice in the script the other actor is reading.

It’s food for thought. God forbid anyone here ever considers alternative ways of thinking. Much easier to keep your head in the sand. Or up your ass. Or up your butchers ass looking for a good cut of meat.

[ex-powderbroker]

I find that this is the moron you were raving about who claims the US is on the path for 13'F warming by 2100. This guy has zero credibility. The most extreme emission scenario from the IPCC (and now widely accepted as impossible) projects only 4'C warming by 2100.

where does he say we are on a path for 12 degrees of warming by 2100?

I think you're calling the kettle black. bravo on giving that talk a few minutes but you didn't like what he was saying and you went back to your conspiracy sites?

BTW: A michael moore film that doesn't put his mug in front of the camera? you can sign me up for that. His best work may be far behind him [Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine] but he's an interesting guy. I haven't read any reviews so it'll be interesting to see it with a fresh perspective.

[stuckathuntermtn]

I fell asleep halfway through it but I plan to finish it.

I can’t stand Michael Moore and his fat snark.
Fortunately he didn’t narrate this film. Although you can hear his voice in the script the other actor is reading.

It’s food for thought. God forbid anyone here ever considers alternative ways of thinking. Much easier to keep your head in the sand. Or up your ass. Or up your butchers ass looking for a good cut of meat.

I consider alternatives when actual evidence demonstrates them.
What are you trying to say?

[ron johnson]

where does he say we are on a path for 12 degrees of warming by 2100?

I think you're calling the kettle black. bravo on giving that talk a few minutes but you didn't like what he was saying and you went back to your conspiracy sites?

BTW: A michael moore film that doesn't put his mug in front of the camera? you can sign me up for that. His best work may be far behind him [Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine] but he's an interesting guy. I haven't read any reviews so it'll be interesting to see it with a fresh perspective.

19 minute mark.

It's not that I didn't like what he was saying, it's that what he was saying was totally unsupportable by even the most extreme carbon emission scenarios. I'm not going to to waste 3 hours of my time with someone as out of touch with reality as that.

[Adolf Allerbush]

19 minute mark.

It's not that I didn't like what he was saying, it's that what he was saying was totally unsupportable by even the most extreme carbon emission scenarios. I'm not going to to waste 3 hours of my time with someone as out of touch with reality as that.

So you've latched onto one thing he said about a high carbon scenario, that he admits is unlikely, and said that is what he's predicting for a temperature change in the future, or in other words the path that we're on. Then you neglect to mention the low carbon scenario he talks about (4 degree F change in NA). He didn't say we're on either path.

tough concept here, but he's giving you a range of possibilities +4 degrees F to +13 degrees F. also note he starts his comparison back in 2010 and using a business as usual for the high carbon estimate.

That was a good lecture to listen to. Unfortunately you didn't allow yourself enough time on it.

[WMD]

19 minute mark.

It's not that I didn't like what he was saying, it's that what he was saying was totally unsupportable by even the most extreme carbon emission scenarios. I'm not going to to waste 3 hours of my time with someone as out of touch with reality as that.

I'm a danger to society for not watching a Michael Moore movie? Hahahahaha

And you admit you didn't watch this, but I'm the dangerous one(oh yeah, I forgot you and the Koch's are the good guys haha [emoji23]).

Dr Davies is highly regarded and presented this to the Mountain Towns 2030 conference last fall in Park City and has been invited to speak at Vail, Bozeman, Missoula, and many other mountain towns in the west. I'm glad you know more than all of them. In Bozeman, he was invited by MSU. Guess you know more than all of their scientists too. Ignore this talk at all of our peril.

[JohnnyTyndall]

The paper is private, but either way, I doubt I'm going to be convinced of their idea that there is a megadrought when no other metrics come close to suggesting such a thing.

Google "Where is Scihub now?" and you can easily get full text for any papers. They describe exactly what they mean by megadrought and where they got the data.

[WMD]

Also, note that at the 19' mark Dr Davies said a high carbon scenario, ie worst case scenario, has temperatures increasing an average of 13 degrees across North America, with by far the largest change in the far north, which brings the average up for the rest of the continent. This is not out of line with other projections out there. Disprove this.

[ron johnson]

So you've latched onto one thing he said about a high carbon scenario, that he admits is unlikely, and said that is what he's predicting for a temperature change in the future, or in other words the path that we're on. Then you neglect to mention the low carbon scenario he talks about (4 degree F change in NA). He didn't say we're on either path.

tough concept here, but he's giving you a range of possibilities +4 degrees F to +13 degrees F. also note he starts his comparison back in 2010 and using a business as usual for the high carbon estimate.

That was a good lecture to listen to. Unfortunately you didn't allow yourself enough time on it.

Are we watching the same thing? He says nothing about the high carbon scenario being unlikely, and claims that the high carbon scenario IS our current path. This couldn't be further from the truth. IPCC emissions pathway 8.5 was their "worst case" scenario, and only projected 4'C of warming by 2100. At the time, RCP 8.5 was considered unlikely because it relied on unrealisitic energy policies like increased coal burning. It is now becoming clear the RCP 8.5 is an impossibility: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worst-climate-scenarios-may-no-longer-be-the-most-likely/

Where in the world is this guy getting 13'F of warming from?

[ron johnson]

I'm a danger to society for not watching a Michael Moore movie? Hahahahaha

And you admit you didn't watch this, but I'm the dangerous one(oh yeah, I forgot you and the Koch's are the good guys haha [emoji23]).

Dr Davies is highly regarded and presented this to the Mountain Towns 2030 conference last fall in Park City and has been invited to speak at Vail, Bozeman, Missoula, and many other mountain towns in the west. I'm glad you know more than all of them. In Bozeman, he was invited by MSU. Guess you know more than all of their scientists too. Ignore this talk at all of our peril.

No, you are a danger to society because you won't listen to any perspective that differs from your own.

I did watch it, but I stopped after it was clear the guy was clueless.

I don't care what credentials he has. If he doesn't know what he's talking about then he doesn't know what he is talking about.