-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wow, see Trumps Climate and Energy Policy just put up on the White House Site
- Thread starter florida2017
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Hard for people in the US to believe in global warming while going through freeze spells worse than before (e.g. meet Seattle is having one of the colder winters in a while, CA Silicon Valley is also colder than typical winters). That's the problem with naming something "Global warming" - everyone expects the weather to get warmer.
Second, world climate historically has changed in the past, way before first combustion engine or even before human population explosion (maybe dinosaurs were farting too much). The issue is that all the studies show correlations, but fall short of proving causation. You could correlate the global warming to lower average murder rate in the western world, yet nobody claims we should be murdering more people to reverse climate change.
*sigh*................
ok......
WE HAVE A MECHANISM!!!!!
Sure, we've only known about it for...... 120 YEARS!!
It's not like we noticed that things were getting warmer and said, 'Hey look... CO2 levels are rising... that must be the cause' NO! For decades scientists had said that rising CO2 levels could cause temperatures to rise. Long before there was any rise in temperature. Even early predictions where dismissed since, 'Surely humanity wouldn't be so idiotic as to add ~40B tons/yr of CO2 to the atmosphere'....
Report after report after literarily HUNDREDS of studies. ALL.... POINTING.... TO.... THE... SAME.... CONCLUSION!
Even prehistoric temperature swings.... the only forcing that anyone has ever found that can explain the dramatic change from ice age to interglacial is CO2. Triggered by orbital shifts but ALWAYS driven by CO2.
Last edited:
The only problem with the science is when it doesn't predict a consequence dire enough...and everyone hears sea levels will rise 5 cm...and Indonesia will be under water, etc. The public goes meh.
Then, something really terrible happens, and instead of science and objective study, we get advocacy.
People who don't subscribe to the sky is falling mentality don't reject science, they just don't trust the people talking. I'm not sure why the concept of credibility is so hard to understand. The WHO has none left. When you start amping up the prediction to encourage people to react, that isn't science.
Journalists and (some) 'scientists' are getting a hard lesson these days, but I know they will find their way back...at least I sure hope so. Hype sucks.
Then, something really terrible happens, and instead of science and objective study, we get advocacy.
People who don't subscribe to the sky is falling mentality don't reject science, they just don't trust the people talking. I'm not sure why the concept of credibility is so hard to understand. The WHO has none left. When you start amping up the prediction to encourage people to react, that isn't science.
Journalists and (some) 'scientists' are getting a hard lesson these days, but I know they will find their way back...at least I sure hope so. Hype sucks.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
It's hyped because people can't see past their own nose. No one pays attention if you tell them their actions today are going to destroy the world decades from now.
People need to just acknowledge that they're ignoring the scientific consensus, for their own "beliefs," instead of beating around the bush.
We get it, you have your own thoughts on the matter, experts be damned.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Ok... then why isn't that the counter-argument? The deniers say, 'It's a hoax invented by the Chinese' not 'Sure, sucks to be my grand-kids, not my problem'.
And it's easy to cherry pick the bell curve and claim sensationalism. If there's a 1% chance X will happen you can't really point to X and accuse them of alarmism.... it probably won't happen but that doesn't mean it can't or we should ignore it. We could see a 5' rise in sea levels in 30 years. We probably won't but that possibility can't be ignored.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Straw man - Wikipedia -- but nice try with the sky is falling mentality. The sky is not falling. The climate is changing due to human activity and its consequences will have a negative effect on humans and other forms of life.
Then to say those that reject climate change "don't reject science" but it's a "trust" issue means that you do not understand science. Things like religion that are based on faith require trust. Science, by definition, does not have any "trust" element to it: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
deonb
Active Member
Oh, that's my point of view. Our grandparents left us such a messy world with religion, racism, sexism and genocide that if the worst my grandkids have to deal with is a couple of tornados and floods every now and again, I'm ok with that.
Somehow I think though, that even if the worse global warning predictions come true, this will be the least of my grandkids' worries.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Rising sea levels could displace ~700M by 2100.... not sure if you've noticed but humanity isn't especially good at welcoming refugees and immigrants... what exactly do you see as a greater future challenge?
deonb
Active Member
Religion.
(I'm not going to further qualify or debate that since that discussion doesn't belong on this board.).
GREAT EXAMPLE!
That is a total meh. Something will happen over the course of a century and people will have to move! The horror! It just doesn't motivate people to take the situation seriously, which (obviously) frustrates folks in this forum greatly....so, next will come some far fetched quasi prediction that humans will become extinct...
It's not science at that point. You're trying to find support for what you think is right. That's just your religion. And that's why many dismiss it. Their religion attaches meaning to their lives. You found meaning to attach to yours. Spoiler alert: your life doesn't have meaning. From over here, climate warriors and christians look identical. Mindless cults.
Anyway, I realize the futility of explaining how a bill becomes a law to the passionate of this forum. I'll see myself out...
NWDiver is correct in calling out SOx's, which upon contact with atmospheric water create H2SO4 - and thereupon dissociated forms of sulfuric acid - as the more commonly considered component of acid rain. But any elevated levels of CO / CO2 / HCO3 and other forms of carbonic acid - most definitely are the dominant cause of increased proton activity in the oceans, and the concomitant fall in pH, aka rise in acidity. From Arrhenius's time to the present, the change of pH from 8.25 to 8.14 represents the aforementioned ±35% increase in H+ levels and, because that ties up more carbonate than otherwise is active in seawater, coral-building organisms cannot access the carbonate they need to grow.
The only thing "unsettled" in the effect of a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is how every human should be feeling. Full stop.
The only thing "unsettled" in the effect of a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is how every human should be feeling. Full stop.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
The 'great' thing about climate change is that it has a way of taking existing bad problems and making them worse. Syria was a totalitarian dictatorship hanging on by a thread... then a drought turned it into a full blown humanitarian disaster.
You think religion is causing problems now... just wait until Pakistan is struggling with drinkable water since the glaciers are gone and tens of millions are homeless in Indonesia.
Really? If that's what you think you really haven't been paying attention at all the last few years. I do love the irony in the fact that the people who deny climate change AND want stricter immigration policies are very often the same people....
A sea level rise of that magnitude is more than possible. It's like smoking and lung cancer. Smoking probably won't kill you but that does't mean you should smoke. That's not religion it's statistics.
And you know what? These terrible things are possible.... and there's proactive things we can to do mitigate the risk.... so why aren't we doing them!?
Last edited:
For those who don't believe in our role in global warming forget the science for a minute and view it purely from the perspective of the risk to humanity and the planet if one's viewpoint is simply wrong. What is the downside risk if we do little or nothing versus the downside risk if we maintain or intensify our efforts to combat global warming? Do you really want to take that chance by ignoring the problem?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Exactly... as Elon has said, 'Burning fossil fuels is the dumbest experiment in history'
hockeythug
Active Member
Leftist wealth redistribution schemes like a carbon tax surely are not the answer.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
??? Gotta better idea? It's an easy tax to avoid... don't be an idiot... simple.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
You must have really good genes if your grandparents are thousands of years old. Mine were borne into a world where all these things existed, and had existed, for countless generations, and even before the Bible, which contains every thing you mention.
But CO2 levels were significantly lower when mine were borne...
Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia
Forty Creek
Member
For those who will take a moment to read it, here is a little piece of history from England. Climate science aside, there comes a cost to dumping garbage into the air. We understand that fact (mostly) where oceans and rivers are concerned. What is so different about our air?
OK, I'll bite here, because as an atheist, I take offense to the comparison.
First, science is not religion or belief. It's falsifiable and while it's not perfect, it's the best thing we have. Climate science could be overturned. There's a huge weight of evidence at this point, so it would have to be a massive discovery, but it's not impossible. Science should welcome that. Religion/faith/etc doesn't welcome it. That's the difference.
On the broader point about life's meaning, that's clearly philosophical. I think it comes down to what one thinks of humans as a species. If they think we're special, buy into the idea we're past the "Great Filter", or whatever else, they might want our species to survive. Personal actions don't matter much, but they're part of a collective. Climate responsibility will resonate if that's one's worldview.
If one doesn't think humans are special, or if they're absolutely certain of a mass extinction we cannot escape, then I can see why they wouldn't care, even given the science. There's going to be a lot of suffering, but they'll probably be gone. It's a selfish and shortsighted viewpoint, but it's not terribly surprising or indefensible.
There have been 5 mass extinctions in the history of life on earth, where 90% of all species on earth at the time went extinct. We have the ability to bring on the sixth, Simply by doing what we are doing. If the oceans die, humanity is in peril. We have the ability to change course or run the risk of being part of the next 90%. Not worth the risk.
Similar threads
