Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
#1,181
#1,183
Lloyd said:
I find this pretty laughable!!
Click to expand...
Exactly. Consider that the Cape Wind project consists of only 130 turbines and will cost something like $2.5bn -- if it ever gets built, as it has faced stiff opposition and is over seven years behind its original timeline. "Tens of thousands" of wind turbines is a complete non-starter.

- - - Updated - - -

montgom626 said:
A co-founder of Greenpeace told lawmakers there is no evidence man is contributing to climate change, and said he left the group when it became more interested in politics than the environment.


Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans are dominant cause of warming climate | Fox News


This guy is never going to find work. :)
Click to expand...
I'm sure he'll find a lot of climate skeptics who want to trot him out. Unfortunately, this guy has no credibility in my mind as someone who is better able than you, me, or my kids to assess the state of the scientific studies. He's an eco-activist, not a scientist.
 
#1,184
montgom626 said:
Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans are dominant cause of warming climate | Fox News
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

And to underscore the point, I'll provide direct links to 5 of the scientific papers on this list.

Global Warming and Marine Carbon Cycle Feedbacks on Future Atmospheric CO2
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~plattner/papers/joos99sci.pdf

Effects of elevated Co2 concentration and climate-warming on photosynthesis during winter in Lolium perenee
Effects of elevated CO2 concentration and climate-warming on photosynthesis during winter in Lolium perenne

Impact Of Global Warming On A Group Of Related Species And Their Hybrids
Impact of global warming on a group of related species and their hybrids: cherry tree (Rosaceae) flowering at Mt. Takao, Japan

Long-term Trends In Fish Recruitment In The North-east Atlantic Related To Climate Change
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/2007/publication-2636.pdf

Climate Change and Health in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Case-Based Perspective
http://blogs.ubc.ca/ecohealth449/files/2011/01/Climate-change-and-health.pdf

This my friends is a very tiny peek in the enormous amount of scientific literature available in modern science. The list I provided offered over 10,000 scientific papers containing research related to global warming over a 20 year period. And keep in mind, that's just a 20 year period. There are papers on climate that go back to the 19th century. Having such easy access to this truly stunning amount of knowledge, I would argue, is the cause of a great celebration. We are truly lucky to be in this period, so rich in knowledge when a majority of human history has been in complete darkness and confusion. I do everything I can to enlighten myself, I probably read a scientific paper I'm interested in about once a week or so. And if you don't do that, then it's fine. But don't throw stones at scientists that devote their lives at improving our understanding of the universe, and don't try to tell me that all their hard work is a part of a conspiracy or a hoax. I am truly astounded at the density of climate change deniers. I understand being a little slow, I openly admit to not being the smartest guy in the world and not even this forum. But I really don't get the neutron-star level density of climate change deniers. My God.
 
Last edited:
#1,187
Climate change one of the most serious threats we face, says David Cameron | Environment | theguardian.com

David Cameron has issued his strongest declaration that climate change is man-made when he said it was one of the most serious threats facing Britain and the rest of the world.
The prime minister, who appeared to be wary in recent weeks of drawing a direct link between the effects of industrialisation and climate change, issued his unequivocal statement after Ed Miliband suggested he was unwilling to take tough action.
Cameron replied: "I believe man-made climate change is one of the most serious threats that this country and this world faces. That is why we have the world's first green investment bank here in Britain.
"That is why, unlike 13 wasted years of Labour, we are building the first nuclear power station for 30 years in our country. That is why we have cut carbon emissions emitted by the government by 14% since we came to office.
"That is why we have set out, year after year, carbon budgets in this country. They talk a good game about it but it actually takes people to come in, govern effectively and deal with it."
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, in a study of 66 countries that make up 90% of the world's carbon emissions, 64 of them passed significant legislation in regards to energy or climate change:

Report hails international progress on climate change laws | Environment | theguardian.com
 
#1,188
A wonderfully long rant on Reddit's science section. Totally agree with this guy.

Two of the world’s most prestigious science academies say there’s clear evidence that humans are causing the climate to change. The time for talk is over, says the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, the national science academy of the UK. : science

[–]tired_of_nonsense 3509 points 2 days ago*x14
Throwaway for a real scientist here. I'd make my name, research area, and organization openly available, but the fact of the matter is that I don't like getting death threats.
I'm a perpetual lurker, but I'm tired of looking through the nonsense that gets posted by a subset of the community on these types of posts. It's extremely predictable. Ten years ago, you were telling us that the climate wasn't changing. Five years ago, you were telling us that climate change wasn't anthropogenic in origin. Now, you're telling us that anthropogenic climate change might be real, but it's certainly not a bad thing. I'm pretty sure that five years from now you'll be admitting it's a bad thing, but saying that you have no obligation to mitigate the effects.
You know why you're changing your story so often? It's because you guys are armchair quarterbacks scientists. You took some science classes in high school twenty years ago and you're pretty sure it must be mostly the same now. I mean, chemical reactions follow static laws and stuff, or something, right? Okay, you're rusty, but you read a few dozen blog posts each year. Maybe a book or two if you're feeling motivated. Certainly, you listen to the radio and that's plenty good enough.
I'm sorry, but it's needs to be said: you're full of it.
I'm at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in Honolulu, sponsored by ASLO, TOS, and AGU. I was just at a tutorial session on the IPCC AR5 report a few days ago. The most recent IPCC report was prepared by ~300 scientists with the help of ~50 editors. These people reviewed over 9000 climate change articles to prepare their report, and their report received over 50,000 comments to improve it's quality and accuracy. I know you'll jump all over me for guesstimating these numbers, but I'm not going to waste more of my time looking it up. You can find the exact numbers if you really want them, and I know you argue just to be contrary.
Let's be honest here. These climate change scientists do climate science for a living. Surprise! Articles. Presentations. Workshops. Conferences. Staying late for science. Working on the weekends for science. All of those crappy holidays like Presidents' Day? The ones you look forward to for that day off of work? Those aren't holidays. Those are the days when the undergrads stay home and the scientists can work without distractions.
Now take a second before you drop your knowledge bomb on this page and remind me again... What's your day job? When was the last time you read through an entire scholarly article on climate change? How many climate change journals can you name? How many conferences have you attended? Have you ever had coffee or a beer with a group of colleagues who study climate change? Are you sick of these inane questions yet?
I'm a scientist that studies how ecological systems respond to climate change. I would never presume to tell a climate scientist that their models are crap. I just don't have the depth of knowledge to critically assess their work and point out their flaws. And that's fair, because they don't have the depth of knowledge in my area to point out my flaws. Yet, here we are, with deniers and apologists with orders of magnitude less scientific expertise, attempting to argue about climate change.
I mean, there's so much nonsense here just from the ecology side of things:
User /u/nixonrichard writes:
Using the word "degradation" implies a value judgement on the condition of an environment. Is there any scientific proof that the existence of a mountaintop is superior to the absence of a mountain top? Your comment and sentiment smacks of naturalistic preference which is a value judgement on your part, and not any fundamental scientific principle.
​
You know, like /u/nixonrichard thinks that's a profound thought or something. But it's nonsense, because there are scientists who do exactly that. Search "mountain ecosystem services" on Google Scholar and that won't even be the tip of the iceberg. Search "ecosystem services" if you want more of the iceberg. It's like /u/nixonrichard doesn't know that people study mountain ecosystems... or how to value ecosystems... or how to balance environmental and economic concerns... Yet, here /u/nixonrichard is, arguing about climate change.
Another example. Look at /u/el__duderino with this pearl of wisdom:
Climate change isn't inherently degradation. It is change. Change hurts some species, helps others, and over time creates new species.
​
Again, someone who knows just enough about the climate debate to say something vaguely intelligent-sounding, but not enough to actually say something useful. One could search for review papers on the effects of climate change on ecological systems via Google Scholar, but it would be hard work actually reading one. TLDRs: 1) rapid environmental change hurts most species and that's why biodiversity is crashing; 2) rapid environmental change helps some species, but I didn't know you liked toxic algal blooms that much; 3) evolution can occur on rapid timescales, but it'll take millions of years for meaningful speciation to replace what we're losing in a matter of decades.
But you know, I really pity people like /u/nixonrichard and /u/el__duderino. It must be hard taking your car to 100 mechanics before you get to one that tells you your brakes are working just fine. It must be hard going to 100 doctors before you find the one that tells you your cholesterol level is healthy. No, I'm just kidding. People like /u/nixonrichard and /u/el__duderino treat scientific disciplines as one of the few occupations where an advanced degree, decades of training, mathematical and statistical expertise, and terabytes of data are equivalent with a passing familiarity with right-wing or industry talking points.
I'd like to leave you with two final thoughts.
First, I know that many in this community are going to think, "okay, you might be right, but why do you need to be such an ******** about it?" This isn't about intellectual elitism. This isn't about silencing dissent. This is about being fed up. The human race is on a long road trip and the deniers and apologists are the backseat drivers. They don't like how the road trip is going but, rather than help navigating, they're stuck kicking the driver's seat and complaining about how long things are taking. I'd kick them out of the car, but we're all locked in together. The best I can do is give them a whack on the side of the head.
Second, I hope that anyone with a sincere interest in learning about climate change continues to ask questions. Asking critical questions is an important part of the learning process and the scientific endeavor and should always be encouraged. Just remember that "do mountaintops provide essential ecosystem services?" is a question and "mountaintop ecosystem services are not a fundamental scientific principle" is a ridiculous and uninformed statement. Questions are good, especially when they're critical. Statements of fact without citations or expertise is intellectual masturbation - just without the intellect.
Toodles. I'm going to bed now so that I can listen to, look at, and talk about science for another 12 hours tomorrow. Have fun at the office.
Edit: I checked back in to see whether the nonsense comments had been downvoted and was surprised to see my post up here. Feel free to use or adapt this if you want. Thanks for the editing suggestions as well. I just wanted to follow up to a few general comments and I'm sorry that I don't have the time to discuss this in more detail.
"What can I do if I'm not a scientist?"
You can make changes in your lifestyle - no matter how small - if you want to feel morally absolved, as long as you recognize that large societal changes are necessary to combat the problem in meaningful ways. You can work, volunteer, or donate to organizations that are fighting the good fight while you and I are busy at our day jobs. You can remind your friends and family that they're doctors, librarians, or bartenders in the friendliest of ways. You can foster curiosity in your children, nieces, and nephews - encourage them to study STEM disciplines, even if it's just for the sake of scientific literacy.
The one major addition I would add to the standard responses is that scientists need political and economic support. We have a general consensus on the trajectory of the planet, but we're still working out the details in several areas. We're trying to downscale models to regions. We're trying to build management and mitigation plans. We're trying to study how to balance environmental and economic services. Personally, part of what I do is look at how global, regional, and local coral reef patterns of biodiversity and environmental conditions may lead to coral reefs persisting in the future. Help us by voting for, donating to, and volunteering for politicians that can provide the cover to pursue this topic in greater detail. We don't have all of the answers yet and we freely admit that, but we need your help to do so.
Importantly, don't feel like you can't be a part of the solution because you don't understand the science. I've forgotten everything I've learned about economics in undergrad, but that doesn't stop me from 1) voting for politicians that support policies that appear to have statistical backing aligning with my personal values, 2) making microloans that help sustainable development in developing countries, or 3) voting with my wallet by being careful about the food, clothing, and household goods I purchase. I don't begrudge the fact that I'm not doing significant economics research, or working at the World Bank, or for the US Federal Reserve. We've all chosen our career paths and have the opportunity to contribute to society professionally and personally in unique ways. With respect to climate change - I only work on the ecological aspect of climate change, which means I rely on atmospheric and ocean scientists for models and engineers and social scientists for solutions. We need everyone!
Just try your best to ensure that your corner of the world is in better shape for the next generation when you're done borrowing it.
Click to expand...
 
#1,192
I have not a medical background but I believe that the following paragraph took from the above linked article maybe true:

Ranson elaborated that there were various reasons why the warmer temperatures would foment more crime, alleging that "warmer temperatures increase the frequency of social interactions, some small percentage of which result in violence," and people become more aggressive in increased heat.
 
#1,193
montgom626, instead of pointlessly mocking a study without even reading it, let's actually try to track down the study and see if we can learn something. This seems to fall more under the field of sociology instead of physics. chemistry or biology. So maybe there is a learning opportunity here.

I believe I found the study that MJ is citing: "Crime, Weather and Climate Change"
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centers-programs/centers/mrcbg/publications/awp/ranson_2012-8.FINAL.pdf

The paper seems to put forward a correlation between higher temperature and crime. It's basically talking about hotter weather creating more opportunities for crime to take place, as there are more social interactions in warm weather than in cold weather. That does make sense to me. Again, this is not really my field of expertise, so I am not going to argue against something I know little about (unlike some people).
 
#1,195
No, Tiger is correct, if you are going to post something to try and make a point you should understand what you are posting, or if you don't understand it then say so and ask for an explanation. Don't present it as some sort of proof of your point when that support does not exist. The reason for this is so we can avoid having to wade through a pile of nonsense and stick to factual discussion.
 
#1,196
Raffy.Roma said:
@tigerade

IMO let's leave people free to say what they want. This thread is open to everybody.
Click to expand...

Montgom or anybody else can say whatever they want on here. And I am just responding.

Montgom is processing the same information in a different way than me.

Both Montgom and I are not familiar with the social impact of temperature. We both have that initial reaction of bewilderment, we are not familiar with any link between higher temperatures and more violence.

The key difference is our reaction to the new information is different. Montgom just went straight to the "oh they are blaming everything on global warming now" style of argument.

My reaction was to read the MJ article, search Google Scholar for the study, and read the actual study. I can guarantee you that I definitely learned more about sociology today than Montgom did.

My criticism is not of Montgom as a person. My criticism is his style of processing information (or lack or processing information). I dig deeper into it and seek out the facts. I am willing to argue all day that this is the best way to handle new information.

- - - Updated - - -

To roughly paraphrase Lawrence Krauss, education is not seeking to validate one's ignorance, but having the will to overcome it.

There are many times I have been wrong. It's just that when I get evidence that contradicts my personal view, I change my personal view to conform to the evidence. There are too many people out there that say "I'm going to stick with my personal beliefs, no matter what the evidence against them is". I consider this stance to be immature and arrogant. The greatest humility comes from gaining new knowledge, and science offers plenty.
 
#1,197
Regarding correlating temperature to social impact, believe it or not, I vividly recall my 8th grade social studies text book in India associating large populations and high population densities in South Asia and other parts of South East Asia to the tropical temperatures there. Go figure :rolleyes:
 
#1,198
I think we do the environmental movement a disservice when we try to link any possible ill to global warming. It makes it seem like we are grasping at straws. There are enough real problems to come with global warming, I for one try to stick with the major issues.
 
#1,199
dhrivnak said:
I think we do the environmental movement a disservice when we try to link any possible ill to global warming. It makes it seem like we are grasping at straws. There are enough real problems to come with global warming, I for one try to stick with the major issues.
Click to expand...
I have not looked at the Mother Jones article or the paper they’re referencing, but even so, I don’t think I’m too far off, since tigerade has posted what appears to be a really good summary.

So… There are more scientific disciplines at the world’s academies than climate science. There are for instance also the social sciences. And as the climate scientists have been telling us for decades now, the planet is getting warmer. And the sea-level is rising. So, I for one am not surprised that folks in the social sciences are looking at what consequences a warmer planet may lead to in their respective scientific fields.

And as hard as it is to comprehend – rape, as well as other forms of violence perpetrated by men against women, is a gigantic problem. As an example one would think it wouldn’t be a problem within something like the U.S. military…

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2013

Pentagon Study Finds 26,000 Military Sexual Assaults Last Year, Over 70 Sex Crimes Per Day

A shocking new report by the Pentagon has found that 70 sexual assaults may be taking place within the U.S. military every day. The report estimates there were 26,000 sex crimes committed in 2012, a jump of 37 percent since 2010. Most of the incidents were never reported. The findings were released two days after the head of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention unit, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, was arrested for sexual assault. [...

Source: Pentagon Study Finds 26,000 Military Sexual Assaults Last Year, Over 70 Sex Crimes Per Day | Democracy Now!
Click to expand...

Additional links:

Addressing the Epidemic of Military Sexual Assault | Democracy Now!

Senate Faces Historic Vote on Handling Military Sexually Assault Epidemic Outside Chain of Command | Democracy Now!


So again: The study referenced in Mother Jones is not climate science. Instead it is social science. Two completely different things.
 
Last edited:
#1,200
Moderator's Note:
Let's adopt a standard that, if you post an something like a link, blurb, headline, etc., that you also provide some discussion about it. If you don't say something about the article, the TMC community has no idea what point you intended to make or why it should be worth our while to read the link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tps5352
TV Show Recommendation: "Electric Cars - Pros and Cons" (PBS)
Replies
19
Views
1K
Energy, Environment, and Policy
SO16
S
wipster
Climate change
Replies
48
Views
4K
TSLA Investor Discussions
Dikkie Dik
Dikkie Dik
vitesse
CO2/warming correlation - how to respond?
Replies
64
Views
4K
Energy, Environment, and Policy
Raffy.Roma
Raffy.Roma
MountainPass
Vendor Tesla Model 3 Tires – Choosing the Right Tires for Your Needs
Replies
52
Views
33K
Model 3
canasion35
canasion35
TheDriveway
Vendor A Tire Guide for Model 3 Owners
Replies
4
Views
12K
California
mpgxsvcd
M
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu