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

[SODACKER]

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.

Comparing flat earth to some very obviously wrong and alarmist predictions that were made early on is shocking to the conscience. Those were made for politcal reasons and for the headlines. Complaining that people just aren't smart enough to know what they're looking at when a decade ago these people we're suppose to just trust said Florida wouldn't be a state anymore, is disingenuous.

Climate change people early on eroded trust and people currently attacking anyone who doesn't take new reports at face value are preventing it from being rebuilt.

 

[sloppypie]

what predictions? if anything things are looking worse than what recent predictions were indicating.

if you are talking by predictions made by al gore or some news article from the 70s, then i don't know what to tell you but you are so embittered in a political battle with supposed "leftist agenda" that you don't really care about the issue at all. it's just a platform for you to rail against a political faction you don't like.

in fact, some quick google searching will show you climate change predictions:

http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-were-eerily-accurate/

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...odels-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought

of course, i know you will spend the next post (if you even bother to post again) trying to attack the credibility of the sources, b/c that's all you really have on your side. if you had the science on your side, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

but the fact i even have to say "science isn't on your side" is a testament to how conservatives have really eroded this entire issue into a petty and rather misinformed political agenda.

 

[no fat chicks]

I Love how in these threads some crazy partisan hack like hallelujah comes in spouts contrarian bull, gets proven wrong and then just wait till the next thread to start over.

 

[Fawlty]

So 95% (or more) of the world's scientists believe that humans have a large input to global warming, and every other country in the world also believes global warming is real. Why is it that only conservatives in USA and Canada don't believe it?

Because Al Gore and Obama ?

Oil companies preying on scientific illiteracy and the hostile political environment. Well, at least in the USA. In Canada it's slightly more baffling.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

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.

This is why policy and political action is so important.

Individual action will get nothing done. Even if you personally consume very little you're making no difference. But policy that- for example- requires LED light bulbs in all buildings, creates denser cities and more public transportation, makes solar and wind energy viable alternatives, etc., will create effects.

 

[My2Cents]

I am trying to eat as much meat as possible before its gone...

 

[Snackbar]

This is why policy and political action is so important.

Individual action will get nothing done. Even if you personally consume very little you're making no difference. But policy that- for example- requires LED light bulbs in all buildings, creates denser cities and more public transportation, makes solar and wind energy viable alternatives, etc., will create effects.

Except TS didn't ask how government deals with climate change, he asked how you, (individual democrates) deal with the inevitable Mad Max reality knocking at our door.

No gubment is gunna tell me how to light my trailer you filthy commie.

 

[Bloodworth]

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

How many square miles is that compared to the world landmass???

Earthquakes, typhoons, hurricanes do the same, but do more damage per square mile and more often.

 

[mike sherry]

So 95% (or more) of the world's scientists believe that humans have a large input to global warming, and every other country in the world also believes global warming is real. Why is it that only conservatives in USA and Canada don't believe it?

Because Al Gore and Obama ?

Obviously you are saying 95% because it's based on a polling or study. Can you show me where this number comes from?

 

[SODACKER]

what predictions? if anything things are looking worse than what recent predictions were indicating.

if you are talking by predictions made by al gore or some news article from the 70s, then i don't know what to tell you but you are so embittered in a political battle with supposed "leftist agenda" that you don't really care about the issue at all. it's just a platform for you to rail against a political faction you don't like.

in fact, some quick google searching will show you climate change predictions:

http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-were-eerily-accurate/

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...odels-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought

of course, i know you will spend the next post (if you even bother to post again) trying to attack the credibility of the sources, b/c that's all you really have on your side. if you had the science on your side, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

but the fact i even have to say "science isn't on your side" is a testament to how conservatives have really eroded this entire issue into a petty and rather misinformed political agenda.

I never said science was or wasn't on one side or the other. I agree that more Co2 will change the atmosphere just like I posted on page 1. But that's not the issue. People like you want to turn it to this silly you hate science issue, which like everything is more complicated than that. The fact that you can't understand that this issue has been highly politicized by both sides is not surprising but still dissapointing. Any disagreement over cap and trade or solutions, which you have few real ones, turns into this base you hate science discussion.

Trying to convince yourself that people haven't used this to push other agendas, sell papers, and belittle others is disingenuous at best. Now tell me again how I hate science and you are so enlightened because you read a guardian article.

 

[Throttlehead]

Obviously you are saying 95% because it's based on a polling or study. Can you show me where this number comes from?

Here is one source....

A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.
http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

 

[Throttlehead]

I never said science was or wasn't on one side or the other. I agree that more Co2 will change the atmosphere just like I posted on page 1. But that's not the issue. People like you want to turn it to this silly you hate science issue, which like everything is more complicated than that. The fact that you can't understand that this issue has been highly politicized by both sides is not surprising but still dissapointing. Any disagreement over cap and trade or solutions, which you have few real ones, turns into this base you hate science discussion.

Trying to convince yourself that people haven't used this to push other agendas, sell papers, and belittle others is disingenuous at best. Now tell me again how I hate science and you are so enlightened because you read a guardian article.

Its almost 100% that if you're conservative in USA you won't believe in climate change, just look at the conservative posters on here, its exactly on par. When you have a senator standing on the floor of the senate holding a snowball and says the earth is not warming because you know,,he had a snowball. After seeing that, why get your fur up when you are called anti science? You are disagreeing with the huge majority of science professionals for no other reason than your political beliefs, the anti science label seems to have merit.

This is chairman of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, science at its best.

 

[mike sherry]

Here is one source....

A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.
http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

Have you cared to review this methodology?
12,000 articles reviewed, of that 34 are deemed to take a stance on if global warming was human induced. They determined 33 to be in support (despite some authors of the studies they were using to support their cause coming out and saying their studies were not used appropriately).

So, you have a questionable study at best. At worst, academically dishonest.

Where is your evidence of 95% of climate scientists being in agreement?

 

[Throttlehead]

Have you cared to review this methodology?
12,000 articles reviewed, of that 34 are deemed to take a stance on if global warming was human induced. They determined 33 to be in support (despite some authors of the studies they were using to support their cause coming out and saying their studies were not used appropriately).

So, you have a questionable study at best. At worst, academically dishonest.

Where is your evidence of 95% of climate scientists being in agreement?

Believe what you wish, the guy (with snowball) I posted above seems to be more scientific.

Its always "dishonest" or "questionable" yet every other country in the world agrees with the scientists.

 

[SODACKER]

Its almost 100% that if you're conservative in USA you won't believe in climate change, just look at the conservative posters on here, its exactly on par. When you have a senator standing on the floor of the senate holding a snowball and says the earth is not warming because you know,,he had a snowball. After seeing that, why get your fur up when you are called anti science? You are disagreeing with the huge majority of science professionals for no other reason than your political beliefs, the anti science label seems to have merit.

This is chairman of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, science at its best.

Another sterling example of it being used as a politcal tool and to mock the other side. Very productive.

 

[Throttlehead]

Another sterling example of it being used as a politcal tool and to mock the other side. Very productive.

This isn't Sara Palin flapping crap, this is the chairman of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. How do you start a legit conversation about climate change with that guy?

 

[sloppypie]

I never said science was or wasn't on one side or the other. I agree that more Co2 will change the atmosphere just like I posted on page 1. But that's not the issue. People like you want to turn it to this silly you hate science issue, which like everything is more complicated than that. The fact that you can't understand that this issue has been highly politicized by both sides is not surprising but still dissapointing. Any disagreement over cap and trade or solutions, which you have few real ones, turns into this base you hate science discussion.

Trying to convince yourself that people haven't used this to push other agendas, sell papers, and belittle others is disingenuous at best. Now tell me again how I hate science and you are so enlightened because you read a guardian article.

i mean really, your position is nothing but silly. you can insult me all you want, but i'm not the one that has the support of a screwball bringing snowballs onto the senate floor, or psychos proclaiming that it's all a hoax by world powers to create a NWO through carbon taxes.

and if you want to talk about who's making the money, it's gullible yuppy conservative slack jaws that buy all the shit republicans are selling. books, radio, blogs, you name it. inhoef literally wrote a book about global warming being a hoax - and you have the balls to sit there behind your fuckin computer and think i'm the one confusing the facts.

get a fucking grip. seriously, find one and hold onto it and come back to reality.

 

[IGIT]

I don't let it bother me because I won't be around when the shit gets serious.

hiya LucasWithLidOff,

that's kind of where i come down on things.

i feel that species extinction is an extreme bummer - but as far as the tides rising and the land being rendered uninhabitable...it just seems abstract to me and very difficult to get my hands around.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

This is a thread mostly for Democrats or people who have some knowledge and respect for climate science/NASA.

Republicans/Conservatives - I already know how you deal with it, you bury your head in the sand and pretend it's all fake, that talking about climate science is some kind of bizarre conspiracy to try and take your money and give to the blacks, gays and PC college students.

To people who realize it's over (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719), how do you deal with the fact that the prospects for decent human existence on this planet are basically finished, and that it's only a matter of time before the coming field of brutal consequences leave us in a devastated state?

I tend to think of it like a flower. It is a rare gift to see it at it's peak. The Earth produced a species that blossomed and now is in full bloom, covering the planet with billions of people. We couldn't last forever and lasting is not what made us beautiful. The human race crawled from the oceans and the muck to become something that was both destructive and wonderful. We created language and experienced consciousness. We spread into the stars beyond our planet. We were something special that existed for a cosmic blink of an eye and then disappeared.

It is true that the Earth will be an extremely hostile place for the people who manage to survive, and for thousands of future generations, but it was a high honour to have born witness to whatever it is we were. I believe it is ontologically sound to state that, in all the universe, as far as we know, there is no better or rarer arrangement of atoms than the arrangement that leads to beings who can love and know they love, that can deal in abstracts and subtleties. I am sad that the human race will be reduced and probably wiped out or, at best, forced to eke out some kind of existence in a dystopian nightmare, but we can still look back with some level of wonder and pride at our history. I am especially sad to know that we had the potential to spread life to other planets but will now fail to even seriously attempt to do so; consciousness is a wonderful component of the universe and to see it stamped out when it did not have to be is tragic - and yet tragedies are not altogether awful. If you take what someone like Harold Bloom says seriously, they're the highest form of art.

hiya EgonSpengler,

a heartfelt post, and i understand your angst over the way we treat our one planet as kind of port-o-john.

i see this as the last generation or two that gets to enjoy the current reality - and its a definite bummer...but i'm like most people (even folks who list the environment as a top concern), its just very hard to get too alarmed at something cataclysmic that will occur after we're all dead.

*ponders*

a little under half of this forum will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, but most (if not all) of us are currently healthy. if we could perhaps taste a day of chemotherapy, along with the horror that comes with the immediate fear that your life is going to come to a painful and final end - we'd probably start living a different, far more healthy lifestyle starting tomorrow...

...but without conclusive proof that disrupts our lives, none of us is wired that way.

its hard to grasp the horror of the picture you're painting unless something tremendous and acute happened in the near future like a sudden spike in ocean acidification rendering all water born life dead.

absent that, there's life to be lived and money to be made. that's how people are, Egon.

- IGIT

 

[Renard]

I wonder how much CO2 we would get rid of if the governments of all western countries supplied saplings to their citizens and randomly ordered them to plant trees all over their front and back yards. Same with industrial estate, make them plant them all around their buildings unless they're using the land for something. Let the municipalities handle the finer details of what type of tree, how many trees, etc. I think we would literally get rid the problem overnight. Our yards would be kind of ugly and inconvenient but that's about it. It would never happen because people would scream tree facism. But... it's literally that simple, plant trees.