• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Climate Change(d)?

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,974
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Since it's not as obvious in the US, as it is in poor countries, it's understandable that a very small percentage of Americans are climate change denialists.
This is just silly. Nobody denies the earth's climate changes.

Oh my. The "propaganda" from actual scientists say that climate change is happening today.
The propaganda has been relentless that we are on the verge of apocalyptic weather, irreversible tipping points and catastrophe for years. None of these predictions have ever materialized. Most of these "actual scientists" are not scientists at all, they are activists promoting an agenda. And scientists never get anything wrong?
I know I'm probably wasting my time asking you this, but why do you reject the science after so many years of evidence?

I don't reject "the science" or "the evidence" per se. I reject that a minor, imperceptible increase in average temperature is going to cause a "climate breakdown" or "apocalypse" or whatever. "The science" (which most often is some bullshit study conducted by activists) predicts these earth shattering events on a regular basis and they have all failed to materialize.

I can sort of see why some people doubted 10 or 20 years ago, but the evidence of catastrophic changes is now beginning to become very obvious. Perhaps that's an understatement.
The hell it is. The propaganda says it is but this is false. I'll give you an often touted example, California wildfires. Every year we have wildfires, every year we are told this is because "climate change". This is false. Wildfires are a natural and necessary phenomenon that has occurred for centuries. We are told that the increase in wildfires is due to "climate change". False. Most California wildfires are down to human interaction, downed powerlines, arson etc.

Nobody is happy about what's going on. It can be easy to deny things that are difficult to accept.
Here we go, anyone that questions the narrative or the agenda is a "denialist/heretic". It really is a religion for you people.

It's just so obvious that human activity has had a negative impact on our habitat,

A "negative impact on our habitat"? So you are moving the discussion away from "climate change"? Have at it.

And, where in the world do you get the idea that the climate scientists aren't real scientists? Did you read this in some far right propaganda source?

Yes, anytime someone disagrees with you it's because they are a "right wing qanon" deviant.

Anyway.....I'm not expecting an answer, just wanted to point out how it feels to read some of your posts.

Yeah, move along.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,597
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
I think someone here is like my brother in law. Several years ago, he told my husband, "I can't believe in climate change because I have grandchildren". See how that works! If you don't believe something to be true, it isn't.

If I understand him correctly, I think your brother-in-law's attitude is fine! Remember that for 99% of us there is little or nothing we can do to stop climate change.

The science doesn't interest him. His goals are his own well-being (including his mental health) and the well-being of his family. God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. He gains serenity by ignoring climate change,
But the quote you just said is to gain serenity by "[accepting] the things I cannot change". Choosing to stick your head in the sand because you don't like the implications is not acceptance.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,311
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
But the quote you just said is to gain serenity by "[accepting] the things I cannot change". Choosing to stick your head in the sand because you don't like the implications is not acceptance.

Call it anxiety-avoidance then. I thought the salient thrust of my argument was clear even if I lacked the extra hour to write a better essay.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,150
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
don't reject "the science" or "the evidence" per se. I reject that a minor, imperceptible increase in average temperature is going to cause a "climate breakdown" or "apocalypse" or whatever. "The science" (which most often is some bullshit study conducted by activists) predicts these earth shattering events on a regular basis and they have all failed to materialize.

TSwizzle, per se that is rejecting science.

We went throufg this way back on the thread. A 1 degree increase in averge oceam temperature represents a hugw=e increase in stored energy. Oceans are a major determinate in global weather patterns.

If you live on the wetst coast as you sa,y you should be famiialr with El Nino and La nina. They are known cyclical climate variations. The cycle affects west coast weather based on ocean temperature.

La Niña (/lə ˈnin.jə/; Spanish: [la ˈniɲa]) is an oceanic and atmospheric phenomenon that is the colder counterpart of El Niño, as part of the broader El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) climate pattern. The name La Niña originates from Spanish for "the girl", by analogy to El Niño, meaning "the boy". In the past, it was also called an anti-El Niño[1] and El Viejo, meaning "the old man."[2]

During a La Niña period, the sea surface temperature across the eastern equatorial part of the central Pacific Ocean will be lower than normal by 3–5 °C (5.4–9 °F). An appearance of La Niña often persists for longer than five months. El Niño and La Niña can be indicators of weather changes across the globe. Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes can have different characteristics due to lower or higher wind shear and cooler or warmer sea surface temperatures.

Bullshit? It comes to down to basic thermodynamics all evince and engineering curriculum requires.

There are a lot of bullshit reports on science in general in the media. They pop up in news shows all te time. Anybody with a science degree can write a report or analysis and have it called science in the news. It is mostly speculation and there is hyperbole. News editors and reporters pick stories that sound interesting and can be highly speculative.

I doubt any working climate scientist says we have exactly 9 years before an apocalypse.

The obseved gact climate is rapidly cgnging with no assignable cuases other than human industrialization.

It isis no way business as usual.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,854
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Imperceptible my ass.
Obliviousness doesn’t make problems go away.
When you’re dead, no amount of temperature change is perceptible.
When you’re brain-dead (willfully or otherwise) it’s almost the same. Basing important decisions on what RW extremists are unable/unwilling to perceive, is a recipe for disaster.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,311
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
TSwizzle said:
don't reject "the science" or "the evidence" per se. I reject that a minor, imperceptible increase in average temperature is going to cause a "climate breakdown" or "apocalypse" or whatever. "The science" (which most often is some bullshit study conducted by activists)

Hunh? The relevant studies are published by SCIENTISTS. Some (not many) reporters do add hyperbole.

You are correct that there IS bullshit masquerading as science. The bullshit comes from vested interests and right-wing dupes. In this very thread we see evidence that the bullshit is sometimes effective, at least for easily-duped people.
TSwizzle said:
predicts these earth shattering events on a regular basis and they have all failed to materialize.

TSwizzle, per se that is rejecting science.

We went throufg this way back on the thread. A 1 degree increase in averge oceam temperature represents a hugw=e increase in stored energy. Oceans are a major determinate in global weather patterns.

In #985 in this thread I worked out that the energy added to the world's oceans by the current non-equilibrium warming is equivalent to about 5 Hiroshima bombs exploding per second. Does this seem like a lot? This power is equivalent to many trillions of barrels of petroleum consumption per year, far more energy than was produced by burning the C that led to the CO2 !

These numbers are derived with simple arithmetic, but I'll guess that at least one of us is able neither to follow the arithmetic, nor to believe the result confirmed by those who can.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,150
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
For TSwizzle and those like him it is probably a coping mechanism. Trivialize it so you don't have to think about it.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,571
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Move along, nothing to see here:


A ski lift that doesn't get snow anymore doesn't mean anything.

(And note that these days many ski places have to manufacture snow because there's no longer enough of the natural stuff.)
 

pood

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
1,195
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Move along, nothing to see here:


A ski lift that doesn't get snow anymore doesn't mean anything.

(And note that these days many ski places have to manufacture snow because there's no longer enough of the natural stuff.)

Never mind that, we just need to know the daily weather report from Santa Monica.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,597
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
Move along, nothing to see here:


A ski lift that doesn't get snow anymore doesn't mean anything.

(And note that these days many ski places have to manufacture snow because there's no longer enough of the natural stuff.)
The climate is always changing they say. Except in Santa Monica, of course.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Move along, nothing to see here:


A ski lift that doesn't get snow anymore doesn't mean anything.

(And note that these days many ski places have to manufacture snow because there's no longer enough of the natural stuff.)

Never mind that, we just need to know the daily weather report from Santa Monica.
It didn't snow in Santa Monica today, either.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,597
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
Move along, nothing to see here:


A ski lift that doesn't get snow anymore doesn't mean anything.

(And note that these days many ski places have to manufacture snow because there's no longer enough of the natural stuff.)

Never mind that, we just need to know the daily weather report from Santa Monica.
It didn't snow in Santa Monica today, either.
Western New York got six feet of snow. So it’s not like it’s gone, just finding new digs. Maybe the French kids just need to go NY to learn to ski.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,483
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Since it's not as obvious in the US, as it is in poor countries, it's understandable that a very small percentage of Americans are climate change denialists.
This is just silly. Nobody denies the earth's climate changes.
Nobody? Really? Maybe that argument has evaporated, but it certainly was one of them. Typically the arguments regarding the warming Earth go as such:

1) The Earth isn't warming
2) The Earth is slowly warming, but that is normal
3) The Earth is warming, but we aren't the cause
4) We are responsible for the warming but the warming isn't catastrophic.
5) There ain't nuthin' we can do.
Oh my. The "propaganda" from actual scientists say that climate change is happening today.
The propaganda has been relentless that we are on the verge of apocalyptic weather, irreversible tipping points and catastrophe for years.
There was catastrophic flooding on 3 continents in 2022.
None of these predictions have ever materialized.
You misspelled "recognized". You really don't even understand the predictions, forget have the capacity to observe them. Catastrophic weather isn't supposed to be happening everywhere at all times.
Most of these "actual scientists" are not scientists at all, they are activists promoting an agenda. And scientists never get anything wrong?
You are the one with the agenda. And a pretty shitty one too. Who dedicates themselves to Denialism?
 

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,974
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Since it's not as obvious in the US, as it is in poor countries, it's understandable that a very small percentage of Americans are climate change denialists.
This is just silly. Nobody denies the earth's climate changes.
Nobody?
Correct, nobody.

The propaganda has been relentless that we are on the verge of apocalyptic weather, irreversible tipping points and catastrophe for years.
There was catastrophic flooding on 3 continents in 2022.

Floods in some regions is normal.

None of these predictions have ever materialized.
You misspelled "recognized". You really don't even understand the predictions, forget have the capacity to observe them. Catastrophic weather isn't supposed to be happening everywhere at all times.

I don't think so.

Most of these "actual scientists" are not scientists at all, they are activists promoting an agenda. And scientists never get anything wrong?
You are the one with the agenda. And a pretty shitty one too.

What is my agenda?

Who dedicates themselves to Denialism?

LOL.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
7,030
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Oh look. The scientists at NASA have concluded that the earth is warming due to human activity. Of course, some of us know that NASA only has fake scientists so perhaps we shouldn't accept their conclusions. On the other hand, NASA claims that it bases it's conclusions on evidence, not opinions. So, who do we believe, NASA or one poster who claims that the changes in the climate are all normal. Hmmmm. such a hard choice. /s

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

So, we now have over a century worth of evidence that human activity is the cause of global warming. How much evidence will it take to convince those in denial? And, it's not just NASA that's making this claim. There's a list of other science groups who have also agreed that the climate is changing due to human activity. Of course, I'm mostly preaching to the choir, but there are one or two who need to look at the evidence and accept it as valid. Plus, there may be lurkers who need to learn more, so click on the link and educate yourself.

t’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.

NASA Global Climate Change presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change while highlighting the role NASA plays in better understanding our home planet. This effort includes citing multiple peer-reviewed studies from research groups across the world,1 illustrating the accuracy and consensus of research results (in this case, the scientific consensus on climate change) consistent with NASA’s scientific research portfolio.

With that said, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,150
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Oh look. The scientists at NASA have concluded that the earth is warming due to human activity. Of course, some of us know that NASA only has fake scientists so perhaps we shouldn't accept their conclusions. On the other hand, NASA claims that it bases it's conclusions on evidence, not opinions. So, who do we believe, NASA or one poster who claims that the changes in the climate are all normal. Hmmmm. such a hard choice. /s

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

So, we now have over a century worth of evidence that human activity is the cause of global warming. How much evidence will it take to convince those in denial? And, it's not just NASA that's making this claim. There's a list of other science groups who have also agreed that the climate is changing due to human activity. Of course, I'm mostly preaching to the choir, but there are one or two who need to look at the evidence and accept it as valid. Plus, there may be lurkers who need to learn more, so click on the link and educate yourself.

t’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.

NASA Global Climate Change presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change while highlighting the role NASA plays in better understanding our home planet. This effort includes citing multiple peer-reviewed studies from research groups across the world,1 illustrating the accuracy and consensus of research results (in this case, the scientific consensus on climate change) consistent with NASA’s scientific research portfolio.

With that said, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Not all scientists always and all the time.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,150
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
TSwizzle is not responding to my posts. Gosh, was it something I said?
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
7,030
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Oh look. The scientists at NASA have concluded that the earth is warming due to human activity. Of course, some of us know that NASA only has fake scientists so perhaps we shouldn't accept their conclusions. On the other hand, NASA claims that it bases it's conclusions on evidence, not opinions. So, who do we believe, NASA or one poster who claims that the changes in the climate are all normal. Hmmmm. such a hard choice. /s

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

So, we now have over a century worth of evidence that human activity is the cause of global warming. How much evidence will it take to convince those in denial? And, it's not just NASA that's making this claim. There's a list of other science groups who have also agreed that the climate is changing due to human activity. Of course, I'm mostly preaching to the choir, but there are one or two who need to look at the evidence and accept it as valid. Plus, there may be lurkers who need to learn more, so click on the link and educate yourself.

t’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.

NASA Global Climate Change presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change while highlighting the role NASA plays in better understanding our home planet. This effort includes citing multiple peer-reviewed studies from research groups across the world,1 illustrating the accuracy and consensus of research results (in this case, the scientific consensus on climate change) consistent with NASA’s scientific research portfolio.

With that said, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Not all scientists always and all the time.
I think we've reached the point where almost all of them agree. Only an actual fake scientist would disagree. Do you know of any fake scientists?

There is also a list of over 200 of scientific organizations around the world who have agreed that human activity is impacting the climate in a bad way.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,150
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
I don't know the numbers. There are credentialed scientists who reject human causes. There are credentialed scientists who reject evolution.

By credentialed I mean PHDs from credible science programs.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Since it's not as obvious in the US, as it is in poor countries, it's understandable that a very small percentage of Americans are climate change denialists.
This is just silly. Nobody denies the earth's climate changes.

This is just silly: Nobody denies the earth's climate changes.
FTFY


A small percentage of Americans are 2020 election denialists. It would be monumentally silly to respond to that fact with "Nobody denies that there was an election in 2020".

A small percentage of Americans are 9-11 denialists. It would be monumentally silly to respond to that fact with "Nobody denies that the Twin Towers collapsed on 9-11".

A climate change denialist isn't someone who denies that climate is changing; He is someone who denies that this change is problematic, or denies that it is the result of human activity.

That I need to spell this out (having obviously been too subtle with my earlier comment) is hugely disappointing, but sadly, not surprising.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,854
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
That I need to spell this out (having obviously been too subtle with my earlier comment) is hugely disappointing, but sadly, not surprising.
:shrug:
If RW propaganda guzzlers couldn't respond by putting words in your mouth, they wouldn't be able to respond at all.
You don't want to deny them their freeeeee! speech do you?
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
7,030
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

READ MORE
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
7,030
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Better yet.....

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

88,125 studies agree. That's a lot of studies, compared to one person who keeps referring to climate change as part of a cult, without offering one piece of evidence.

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.

“It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy,” said Benjamin Houlton, the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and a co-author of the study,“Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature,” which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
88,125 studies agree. That's a lot of studies, compared to one person who keeps referring to climate change as part of a cult, without offering one piece of evidence.
Now that's not entirely fair. He has offered a random sample of daytime temperatures in Santa Monica. It's not a particularly useful piece of evidence, but it is one piece of evidence.

;)
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,150
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Santa Monica


Looking at the two tables I'd say Santa Monica is trending up in temperature.

2010-2019 averages versus 1919-2020.

 

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,974
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
No surprise that the cultists feel emboldened to air their anti human grievances;

It should not be controversial to say a population of 8 billion will have a grave impact on the climate.

The author doesn’t beat about the bush;
the wealthiest 10% consume about 20 times more energy overall than the bottom 10%. So of course the rich must change their behaviour. But making climate breakdown all about consumption has become an excuse for countries to do nowhere near enough to reduce their populations.

Teh Gruaniad

p.s. it’s kinda funny how warning level draws one’s eyes to “Let’s Go Brandon”
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,150
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
From the mouth of a decadent hot tubbing wine swilling beer guzzling Claifornian.

In the words of TSwizzle a notd Californian, 'You'll have to pry my guns, wime and hot tub from my cold dead hands'.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,150
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
No surprise that the cultists feel emboldened to air their anti human grievances;

It should not be controversial to say a population of 8 billion will have a grave impact on the climate.

The author doesn’t beat about the bush;
the wealthiest 10% consume about 20 times more energy overall than the bottom 10%. So of course the rich must change their behaviour. But making climate breakdown all about consumption has become an excuse for countries to do nowhere near enough to reduce their populations.

Teh Gruaniad

p.s. it’s kinda funny how warning level draws one’s eyes to “Let’s Go Brandon”
Yes Fizzle, it is not controversial.
 

IIDB Staff

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Messages
59
Location
Virual Space
Basic Beliefs
N/a
:staffwarn:


Address the argument, not the person.

If you have information to add to the discussion, add it to the topic.
Don’t just display that you have nothing to add by attacking other posters. It’s embarassing for you and it’s a violation of the TOU.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,483
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
No surprise that the cultists feel emboldened to air their anti human grievances;

It should not be controversial to say a population of 8 billion will have a grave impact on the climate.

The author doesn’t beat about the bush;
the wealthiest 10% consume about 20 times more energy overall than the bottom 10%. So of course the rich must change their behaviour. But making climate breakdown all about consumption has become an excuse for countries to do nowhere near enough to reduce their populations.

Teh Gruaniad

p.s. it’s kinda funny how warning level draws one’s eyes to “Let’s Go Brandon”
But you are the "Let's Go Brandon" crowd.

And you are often attracted to the most radical of arguments regarding climate change. You post links to them and broad brush it to everyone that thinks sustainability is important, both via consumption and production. Or that they can recognize a trend. As noted in the OP, climate change is past tense, or at least, we are witnessing the impacts it has had on our environment already. The Earth is still trying to reach an equilibrium with the CO2 already in the atmosphere... CO2 that we continue to increase in emissions.

The impact is real, island nations are seeing serious sustainability issues regarding being flooded. High intensity storm events are increasing in frequency. Intensities our infrastructure (and even geology) isn't quite designed for.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,571
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
All the discussion of local weather made me realize something:

Back when His Flatulence was elected it rained. I posted a pic from the front entryway showing the rain and labeling it about god crying.

Someone noticed some "dead" plants in pots in our yard--actually, only the top dies and I hadn't gotten the dead stuff cut off yet when I took the picture. Since that time it's always been well into November before they die, sometimes even later.

There, proof of global warming.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,150
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Four things I heard in the 90s.

Bird watchers have records of migrations going back to the 19th century. Birds are arriving up north earlier.

Cold weather trees up north are slowly moving north. No conscious choice. I imagine seeds that take root where it is a little colder do better

From U Wash. Globally lakes are warming. In Lake Washington salmon runs are timed to temperature. At a certain temperature an algae bloom occurs in Lake Washington. The bloom feeds prey fish for the salmon. As the lake warms the bloom occurs a little earlier. Salmon arrive past peak rey fish.

Pacific shallow water coast marine life are migrating north to keep in their optimum water temperature.

A lot of plant and animal life are tied to temperature.

Some fresh water lake fishermen drop a thermometer down to see temperature versus depth. Some fish tend to feed at a certain temperture.

A lot of litte things that can add up to a serious impact on our ocean food supply.

Big fish eat the small fish. Bigger fish eat the big fish. We eat the bigger fish. The small fish dies and bo bigger fish for us to eat.

It is not rocket science.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,597
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
Four things I heard in the 90s.

Bird watchers have records of migrations going back to the 19th century. Birds are arriving up north earlier.

Cold weather trees up north are slowly moving north. No conscious choice. I imagine seeds that take root where it is a little colder do better

From U Wash. Globally lakes are warming. In Lake Washington salmon runs are timed to temperature. At a certain temperature an algae bloom occurs in Lake Washington. The bloom feeds prey fish for the salmon. As the lake warms the bloom occurs a little earlier. Salmon arrive past peak rey fish.

Pacific shallow water coast marine life are migrating north to keep in their optimum water temperature.

A lot of plant and animal life are tied to temperature.

Some fresh water lake fishermen drop a thermometer down to see temperature versus depth. Some fish tend to feed at a certain temperture.

A lot of litte things that can add up to a serious impact on our ocean food supply.

Big fish eat the small fish. Bigger fish eat the big fish. We eat the bigger fish. The small fish dies and bo bigger fish for us to eat.

It is not rocket science.
Right. It is climate science and the deniers would have you believe that all these scientists, all around the world, are all liars, fabricating data and modeling doom in order to live off the luxurious bounty of government paychecks.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,311
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
I don't reject "the science" or "the evidence" per se. I reject that a minor, imperceptible increase in average temperature is going to cause a "climate breakdown" or "apocalypse" or whatever. "The science" (which most often is some bullshit study conducted by activists) predicts these earth shattering events on a regular basis and they have all failed to materialize.

If "the science" is usually bullshit, then why DON'T you reject it?

But more interesting is your obsession with the five-syllable word "imperceptible." That's a big word; do you even know what it means?
One degree can be a LOT! If my temperature rises 1 degree, I won't be allowed to enter many stores here in the Kingdom. Even more dramatic is a rise in the temperature of water from -0.5°C to 0.5°C. Perhaps you don't know what "imperceptible" means.

Four things I heard in the 90s.

Bird watchers have records of migrations going back to the 19th century. Birds are arriving up north earlier.

Cold weather trees up north are slowly moving north. No conscious choice. I imagine seeds that take root where it is a little colder do better

From U Wash. Globally lakes are warming. In Lake Washington salmon runs are timed to temperature. At a certain temperature an algae bloom occurs in Lake Washington. The bloom feeds prey fish for the salmon. As the lake warms the bloom occurs a little earlier. Salmon arrive past peak rey fish.

Pacific shallow water coast marine life are migrating north to keep in their optimum water temperature.

A lot of plant and animal life are tied to temperature.

Some fresh water lake fishermen drop a thermometer down to see temperature versus depth. Some fish tend to feed at a certain temperture.

A lot of litte things that can add up to a serious impact on our ocean food supply.

Big fish eat the small fish. Bigger fish eat the big fish. We eat the bigger fish. The small fish dies and bo bigger fish for us to eat.

It is not rocket science.
Right. It is climate science and the deniers would have you believe that all these scientists, all around the world, are all liars, fabricating data and modeling doom in order to live off the luxurious bounty of government paychecks.

Change IS perceptible! Total mass of all insects on the planet is declining 2.5% per year by best estimates. Is that a perceptible difference? It certainly is, since the 2.5% is just an AVERAGE, with much greater losses for some species and some locales. For example a Puerto Rico study showed a 98% fall in ground insects over 35 years. (Habitat destruction and use of pesticides contribute more to insect demise than climate change.) As insect numbers decline, so will their predators: birds, bats, frogs and reptiles.

As steve points out, changes in ocean life are very profound. Deniers slightly smarter than our own Denier will rebut with "Fishing boats should just move a little to the north to compensate for warmer temperatures," but it isn't that simple. For one thing, rising acidity has a large adverse effect on shell-fish and coral reefs.

Little discussed, but especially ominous IMO is the "take-over" by jellyfish which now outnumber fish in parts of the ocean. (Again, this is caused by other effects of high human population as well as warming.)
https://medcraveonline.com/JAMB/are-jellyfish-taking-over-the-world.html said:
Recent studies are now accentuating that jellyfish population’s bloom are more frequent and are continuously increasing in size and therefore has become quite problematic and are in fact a threat to the natural balance of marine ecosystems and towards human beings as a whole, with increases as large as 94,000 tons escalating to 400, 000,000 tons in wet weight over a 100 km area in just 5 years. Increased human activities such as over-fishing, global warming, eutrophication, translocation and habitat modification are shown by investigations to be the main reasons for this sudden global outbreak in jellyfish, suggesting that with the recent increase in human population continuously rising, matters are potentially worsening. The jellyfish epidemic is creating irreversible disturbances within the ecosystem, ultimately becoming the dominant species over fish within many global areas, by filling the newly provided ecological niche created by overfishing, in which due to the jellyfish’s diet, could be potentially an irreparable change, in which the fish cannot return back to dominance and the jellyfish’s rein continues to grow. Tremendous negativity surrounds the ever growing jellyfish blooms affecting costal industries in Japan, to tourism in Australia and aquaculture farming within a variety of species worldwide.

. . . As a result jellyfish, not fish, threaten to become the dominant animal group of the marine world.

Watch those zeroes! An increase from 94,000 tons to 400,000,000 is not a four-fold increase as it may seem at first glance; it is a 4000-fold increase.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Denier will rebut with "Fishing boats should just move a little to the north to compensate for warmer temperatures," but it isn't that simple. For one thing, rising acidity has a large adverse effect on shell-fish and coral reefs.
For another thing, wars have been fought over fishing boats being a little bit further North than their usual grounds. It's no trivial thing to move a fishery.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,854
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Denier will rebut with "Fishing boats should just move a little to the north to compensate for warmer temperatures," but it isn't that simple. For one thing, rising acidity has a large adverse effect on shell-fish and coral reefs.
For another thing, wars have been fought over fishing boats being a little bit further North than their usual grounds. It's no trivial thing to move a fishery.
Also…
Species don’t stand alone, they’re part of ecosystems. You can’t just move ecosystems “a little to the north“. They would move themselves if the change was sufficiently gradual, but anthropogenic climate change happens in a geologic blink of an eye. Species have no chance to move all their food sources, symbiotic organisms etc. “Move a little north” is another simple, elegant and WRONG solution to a complex problem.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,854
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Not all scientists always and all the time.
Not all scientists agree always and all the time on ANYTHING. Yet, some things are true, regardless of who disagrees.
And most scientists tend to agree most of the time on those things that can be validated via the scientific method. Like AGW for instance.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
7,030
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I know I'm probably wasting my time asking you this, but why do you reject the science after so many years of evidence?
You are making the mistake of believing that the poster's stated views are sincere, and not an elaborate piece of long-running performance art.
I've considered that, but I know some Republicans who honestly don't believe in climate change, so who really knows what goes on in someone else's head?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,483
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I know I'm probably wasting my time asking you this, but why do you reject the science after so many years of evidence?
You are making the mistake of believing that the poster's stated views are sincere, and not an elaborate piece of long-running performance art.
I've considered that, but I know some Republicans who honestly don't believe in climate change, so who really knows what goes on in someone else's head?
Inertia. People get locked into thinking that things will be as they were. For Conservatives, this is kind of "their deal", with most of their policy. The problem TSwizzle has is a lack of vision. Much like how someone who exclaims Evolution doesn't occur because we don't see a chicken give birth to a cow. They seem incapable of seeing nuance with the climate. Which is unfortunate, because these changes aren't all that nuanced now, forget in 50 years.

It is as if we aren't manning arks to save humanity, things aren't getting more difficult.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,854
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
They seem incapable of seeing nuance with the climate. Which is unfortunate, because these changes aren't all that nuanced now, forget in 50 years.
The inability to perceive isn’t a glitch, it’s a feature to allow claims of “imperceptible” change.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,150
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
As somebody posted, I think part of it is that for many it is hard to component an uncertain future.

I had several threads on politics asking n what basis do you think next year or 20 years from now things will be the same. Got no responses.

That is where Christianity comes in. Trust in god and a glorious eternal afterlife.

At some point one realizes those that think pragmatically, logically, scientifically, and mathematically are in the small minority.

Ask someine how the lights in their house works and they might say 'Turn on the switch'. It is unrealistic to expect people to respond to a scientific argument.

Consider the climate disputers in congress are most or all college grads, some from upper tier schools.
 
Top Bottom