How do you deal with the fact of climate change/greenhouse effect?

[UpaLoompa]

In the 70's the scam was global cooling lmao you people will believe anything.

Except that wasn't the case. Hansen was testifying before congress about climate change in the 70's. There were sensational headlines about cooling based on particulate pollutants but there was not any sort of consensus or even broad research on the topic.

 

[UpaLoompa]

i remember studying this issue back in the 90s and early 2000s. the big deal at the time was how to deal with it; i don't recall any republicans saying it was fake or a hoax, they were proposing cap and trade.

It's frustrating to see much of the rhetoric about cap and trade that has come from republicans. Cap and trade was a republican idea and used--with some success--by republicans for other environmental issue. There are some legitimate issues with cap and trade but usually we just hear how it's just Obama being anti-american and trying to destroy industry.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Posts like this do more harm than good and are the reason we have this debate. People having been alarmist about global warming since the late 80s and using it to sell papers and push politcal agendas. Seems to me it got to a point where countries werent getting wiped off the map and people actually started coming skeptical of it. Apparently that is an anti intellectual movement, when I would categorize it more as the era of critical thinking. Seeing is believing right, and after so many false prophecy or just straight lies used for purposes other than helping the planet people begin getting wise to it.

Model predictions have actually been upheld pretty well.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I specifically wrote "without drawing any conclusions".
I specifically wrote that.
Right at the beginning of the spoiler piece.

Yeah, which to me read like a half-assed cya attempt.

 

[TSO]

It means our contribution is minimal and the earth can easily handle whatever happens. Just one volcano could blot out the sun and kill the planet. Even if we launched all nuclear weapons we could not achieve this.

Are you even concerned at all about being correct?

 

[Forkfoot]

I repeat which of Al Gore's predictions have come true?

You mean like arctic ice plummeting and creating a positive warming feedback loop due to the albedo effect? 2012 was a record summer low of arctic ice, and last month was a new record low for January.

 

[Halge]

Yeah, which to me read like a half-assed cya attempt.

It was an interesting side note that occurred to me because you mentioned changes in animal and plant life.
I even put it in spoilers because it wasn't pertinent to the thread subject, or our conversation up to that point. I don't know what my ass has to do with anything, or why I should need to cover it.
What the hell is your problem? Are your parents biologists or something? Are you acutely allergic to even the smallest tidbits of information that contradict the green party line? Unbelievable obnoxiousness on display - again. I'll still keep an open mind to AGW, but by god you people are making it hard to not become hostile to your point of view.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Are your parents biologists or something?

Actually I'm a biologist. Your aside is irrelevant but could be read as implying more. Given the blatant dishonesty that's already been posted in this thread that's how I read it. If I over interpreted that, I'm sorry.

There's very strong evidence of phenological changes due to climate change, changes that do have broader implications via ecological services. At this point the evidence that human activities are affecting the climate is overwhelming and those effects on the climate can be seen all over. It is frustrating to read people dismiss what is incredibly compelling evidence.

 

[Halge]

Actually I'm a biologist. Your aside is irrelevant but could be read as implying more. Given the blatant dishonesty that's already been posted in this thread that's how I read it. If I over interpreted that, I'm sorry.

There's very strong evidence of phenological changes due to climate change, changes that do have broader implications via ecological services. At this point the evidence that human activities are affecting the climate is overwhelming and those effects on the climate can be seen all over. It is frustrating to read people dismiss what is incredibly compelling evidence.

*mumble grumble* Well alright then.

 

[UpaLoompa]

As an aside, I'm still waiting to see all this big money researchers get to push the "climate change agenda". I know several people that do work with clear connection to climate change and demonstrale negative ecological effects. These are people that do very good work. None of them are wealthy. Most drive old cars.

 

[StrikerKing]

Climate change term is now used because they aren't lying, the climate will change. Global warming term is gone because studies found the opposite.
Through history climate and seasons have changed. But man has very little to do with it.
1st there are fires around the world that have been burning for years. In Pennsylvania a coal mine has been on fire for decades. Spewing a lot of co2 and other chemicals in the air.
2nd it would take humans too long to make an impact. The time it would take humans to do damage, natural volcanoes produce more smoke and co2 then humans ever could. One volcano eruption can change the atmosphere in 1 shot.
So as countries like America bankrupt themselves with ridiculous epa standards. It's more likely a natural disaster will come and change things.

Yea, no way in hell Humans can have a substantial impact on the atmosphere and climate.

 

[StrikerKing]

While the focus on Greenhouse gases typically revolves around c02, an enormous factor are emissions of any fluronated gases that have a much much higher ability to absorb heat than c02. This is measured as "global warming potential (GWP)" the standard unitis 1.0 that is the equivalent to the GWP of1 ton of c02.

My company, for instance, emits fairly large amounts of sulfur hexafluoride. Its GWP is 22,000; meaning 1 ton of emissions is equivalent to 22,000 tons of co2. Point being, it is more complicated than just reducing carbon emissions.

 

[Snackbar]

I will post long winded tirades on facebook and make partisan threads on mma forums, all while continuing to consume like a MFing boss. Oh wait, I put an LED bulb in my office lamp. You are welcome earth.

 

[Mike]

I will post long winded tirades on facebook and make partisan threads on mma forums, all while continuing to consume like a MFing boss. Oh wait, I put an LED bulb in my office lamp. You are welcome earth.

So nobody can point out the issue unless they live in a mud hut?

 

[Snackbar]

So nobody can point out the issue unless they live in a mud hut?

Exactttllllyyyy.

 

[Mike]

Exactttllllyyyy.

Well that's certainly a reasonable and rational perspective. Carry on.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

I try to hold my farts in more now.

 

[IDL]

I try to hold my farts in more now.

If you light them on fire less of the gas reaches the atmosphere

 

[Bloody Pulp]

If you light them on fire less of the gas reaches the atmosphere

I saw what happened to Matt Damon in The Martian. No thank you.

 

[sloppypie]

Posts like this do more harm than good and are the reason we have this debate. People having been alarmist about global warming since the late 80s and using it to sell papers and push politcal agendas. Seems to me it got to a point where countries werent getting wiped off the map and people actually started coming skeptical of it. Apparently that is an anti intellectual movement, when I would categorize it more as the era of critical thinking. Seeing is believing right, and after so many false prophecy or just straight lies used for purposes other than helping the planet people begin getting wise to it.

i think that's the dangerous statement - "seeing is believing right." no, it's really not. understanding is believing - in fact, a lot of the difficulties in many discussions and whacky world views come from people "seeing" something and not either having a proper knowledge foundation to know what they are looking at.

flat earthers - you'd think such a thing wouldn't exist in 2016, but they do. and they exist b/c they "see" things and are making incorrect conclusions based on what they see. 9/11 conspiracy theorists cite what building 7 "looks" like to their eyes - again, they don't comprehend the truths of what they are looking at.

i could go on and on. and what many "skeptics" who have no science foundation in the slightest do is more of a defense attorney tactic of trying to destroy credibility with doubt. any time there is a hole, you don't just point it out - you try to define the entire discussion around it. which, quite frankly, is so unbelievably disingenuous and intellectually dishonest that it's shocking to the conscience to even witness, let alone be taken seriously in the world.