• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $550. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

Climate Change(d)?

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Sarcasm. however the issue is no climate change iself it is the rapifity of chnage. We are seeing it in real time. The correlation is clear, the current chnages trace back ro the beinnings of industrialization.


So, you are saying our current situation with climate change is no big deal, and why worry about it? Increase ccoal usage without concerns?

Again a Tucker Carlson kind of position. Climate change is a leftist fabrication.

I hate to say it, but on some level he isn't actually that wrong. Industrialization can be traced back to the agricultural revolution, and the agricultural revolution can be traced back to the beginning of the holocene (after the last ice age). On some level it was climactic conditions that allowed us to flourish and produce man made changes to the biosphere. By the time we even had the tools to understand climate, the damage was already largely done.

Where TSwizzle's logic fails is that it still makes sense to try to mitigate our own impact on climate. Just because we aren't wholly the cause, doesn't mean we should ignore imminent danger. Let's not jump out of the way of the car barrelling toward us?

People get hit by cars all the time. It's truly bizarre that you think you can prevent road deaths. Jumping out of the way is probably communism anyway.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
There are two very different things here.
1. There is a serious scientific study of climate that is predicting rising temperatures.
2. There is a hell of a lot of political hyperbolic fearmongering. A good example Al Gores' "An Inconvenient Truth" movie according to which we should now have no polar bears and lower parts of New York city should already be underwater.
Well, heck if there isn't a bit of drama added, people won't give a damn... take Covid-19 for instance. It ain't killing tens of millions, therefore, meh.

My problem with anti-climate change folk is they always assume the predictions are wrong... but always in their favor. If the fresh water dump from Greenland did screw with the Gulf Stream, the consequences could be devastating. There are thresholds out there we don't know of. Greenland all melting might not make the gulfstream budge, but it could. And we can't undo that. Currently the Earth is warming... and even if we stop excess emissions of CO2, it is going to continue to warm as we aren't even at the static point where the CO2 level is today, and the impact on the ocean and oceanic ecology is again another one of those thresholds.
Quite a quandary, ain't it? It is the immediate crisis, hyperbolic, fearmongering claims that continually turn out to be wrong that feed (in some cases create) the rejection of global warming.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Climate change occurs naturally no matter what. Putting in a few bicycle lanes along Santa Monica Blvd does nothing for the climate but screws up traffic. It's idiotic virtue signaling.

<Shoots TSwizzle>

Why do you say I did anything wrong? Death is natural!

I will agree with you on bicycle lanes, though--almost all of them are in places where it isn't viable. Long ago living in a 50k town I rode my bike frequently. I haven't ridden it since we moved to the city--the only place I feel safe biking to is where I frequently pass it anyway. I don't think I've made a trip only to there other than to the pharmacy.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Where TSwizzle's logic fails is that it still makes sense to try to mitigate our own impact on climate. Just because we aren't wholly the cause, doesn't mean we should ignore imminent danger. Let's not jump out of the way of the car barrelling toward us?

"our own impact" on the climate I believe to be negligible either way. This obsession with "carbon" pollution also needs to stop. And what "imminent danger" are you on about? I've been hearing about the coming catastrophes for decades and none have materialized. Every apocalyptic prediction has been spectacularly wrong. Monbiot: "our children are not going to know what snow is in a few years." What utter nonsense.

You said this before--and you never addressed the fact that all of those failed "predictions" were not from climate scientists. The scientists aren't suggesting severe consequences to happen yet. The warming we have already seen is going to be an issue to some low-lying areas but there's a big lag due to the thermal mass of the oceans. The weather is also getting more severe--while you can't blame any given event on climate the number of events is another matter.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Where TSwizzle's logic fails is that it still makes sense to try to mitigate our own impact on climate. Just because we aren't wholly the cause, doesn't mean we should ignore imminent danger. Let's not jump out of the way of the car barrelling toward us?

"our own impact" on the climate I believe to be negligible either way. This obsession with "carbon" pollution also needs to stop. And what "imminent danger" are you on about? I've been hearing about the coming catastrophes for decades and none have materialized. Every apocalyptic prediction has been spectacularly wrong. Monbiot: "our children are not going to know what snow is in a few years." What utter nonsense.

You said this before--and you never addressed the fact that all of those failed "predictions" were not from climate scientists. The scientists aren't suggesting severe consequences to happen yet. The warming we have already seen is going to be an issue to some low-lying areas but there's a big lag due to the thermal mass of the oceans. The weather is also getting more severe--while you can't blame any given event on climate the number of events is another matter.
You have to remember that most people are not science geeks... even fewer have actually read many climatology science papers to learn what climate scientists have done. The overwhelming majority (almost all) get their understanding of any science finding from newscasts. Newscasts rarely ever actually present hard science but instead will have an interview with some climate activist. Imagine some non-science geek but rational person who have listened to the news for decades and been presented with activists declaring "the science says (whatever disaster) is imminent in the next ten years unless we (whatever the program is)" then ten years later the programs had not implemented and there had been no disasters. After twenty or thirty of such experiences a rational person would have to conclude that "the science" was pure bull shit.

Personally, I think the dedicated climate activists are the worse enemy of climatology since their hyperbolic claims are a major reason for rational people doubting actual climate science.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
I have a product idea sure to be a big seller.

We all know of the ostrich that puts its head in the ground when threatened leaving its but exposed.

A plastic foam 'hole in ground' that you can put over your head.

No one disputes climate change is cooccurring rapidly, that question once opposed has been settled by observation. There are some who still argue there is no change at all.

The naysayers fall back to claiming it not related to human activity. That is where science comes in.
The same modeling and simulation metods for weather forecasting and hurricane path prediction is used for simulating future climate.

What I listen to is local climate reports directly from the University Of Washington climate science center.

Miami is moving rods back from the shore and NYC is working on preventing flooding in subways. Climate change is upon us, evidenced by measures taken for coming weather changes and increasing intensity and occurrence of storms.

We all go by comsesus of experts on thigs we know little about. When my cardiologist gives me a statistical correlation between benefit and a drug I may look up info on the net, but I take him at his word. I have no choice excepts perhaps a second opinion.

The idea that climate change is something to debate is simply a combination of stubbornness and willful ignorance.

People were concerned about long term consequences of air pollution as early as the late 19th century with the rise of colal consumption and smog.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
There was a 19th century event called 'the summer that wasn't' or something like that. A summer was unchareticalt cold in the USA and Europe. Crops failed.

In modern times it is thought to be correlated to a volcanic eruption and particulates in the atmosphere. What in the 60s was called Nuclear Winter, the rseult of large scale nuclear war.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Sarcasm. however the issue is no climate change iself it is the rapifity of chnage. We are seeing it in real time. The correlation is clear, the current chnages trace back ro the beinnings of industrialization.


So, you are saying our current situation with climate change is no big deal, and why worry about it? Increase ccoal usage without concerns?

Again a Tucker Carlson kind of position. Climate change is a leftist fabrication.

I hate to say it, but on some level he isn't actually that wrong. Industrialization can be traced back to the agricultural revolution, and the agricultural revolution can be traced back to the beginning of the holocene (after the last ice age). On some level it was climactic conditions that allowed us to flourish and produce man made changes to the biosphere. By the time we even had the tools to understand climate, the damage was already largely done.

Where TSwizzle's logic fails is that it still makes sense to try to mitigate our own impact on climate. Just because we aren't wholly the cause, doesn't mean we should ignore imminent danger. Let's not jump out of the way of the car barrelling toward us?

I suppose in a forest fire people trying to escape may exhibit cult like zombie behavior. Republcans in congress exhibit cult like zombie behavior regarding Trump as lord and master. Political parties are cults. Followers of music bands are cults.

Calling environmentalists cults is just handwaving and misdirection attempting to discredit the credible. Ad homs insteadopf debating science.

Calling the climate activists a zombie cut is the conservatives tactic by those who want to use coal because for profit. Standard fare from Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson.

Call anyone supporting social programs a communist.

Yawn.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
My mention of 'redneck' Americans was misleading. There are plenty of non-rural Californians who fit the stereotype and millions in Flyover-Land who do not. I added the 'redneck' because the correlation, however weak, might help clarify.

A simple reason why not to add the 'd' to Climate Change and form a past tense:
It's not over yet! Expect climate to continue changing. (Where's the :gak: emoticon? )

Not long ago, ignorant redneck Americans had a standard punchline: Whenever the weather turned cold, or there was snow, they'd say "More of that global warming, chortle chortle!"

My guess is that most of them have stopped that chortling by now.

Do ypu really want to get into cultural stereotypes?

Ignorance is word wide.

Indeed it is. But there's a certain kind of smugly confident ignorance that's almost uniquely American. It's not really a geographical thing though, it's a fundamentalist Christian thing - you needn't be American to have it, though most who have it are. You needn't even be a Christian, but you do need to have been strongly influenced by the type in your formative years. That level of childhood exposure pretty much ceased in the developed world in the middle of the twentieth century. But it persists in the USA.

Those Americans who suffer it are as oblivious to this brand of ignorance as fish are to water, and for the same reasons.

It leads to all kinds of denial of reality, from denial of climate change and pandemic diseases, to denial of Donald Trump's imbecility. Denial of personal privilege is another common symptom, as is denial of all familial, societal and infrastructural assistance in personal success.

Indeed. Americans who seldom or never leave America may be unaware of it, but an American stereotype is visible when traveling abroad. (I'm thinking of characters unrelated to religion, though.)

Correlation isn't perfect: Most Americans lack this "Americanishness" and some non-Americans have it. Some Brits also tend to be insufferable, but the details differ from the American characters! :)

Cultural stereotypes exist for a reason. They may be caricatures, but there's frequently a grain of truth in them.
Indeed. No more examples from me; no need to be accused of bigotry. :)
There are many people in India who are as ignorant as a rock...that is my point. Same with any culture. Stereotypes serve no purpose. I cold go into American stereotypes of India and Asians in general, but there is no point to it.

On some level using the word redneck can be as racist as nigger.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Don’t be daft.

Not the Guardian, but I do listen to BBC reporting on how climate is affecting the poorer parts of the world amd first world as well

Oh ffs, the BBC is just as bad, possibly worse. Propaganda.

Trolling?

Accusing someone of trolling is against the rules. But no, not trolling, the BBC is probably worse than Teh Gruaniad.
Again drop the handwaving nd misdirection. Do you have any idea of the physics behind weather forecasting and simulation methods? If the report is next weekend it is going to be heavy snow do you plan on raking a drive in the back country on dirt road?

If you live on our east coast and the hurricane track is predicted to hit where you live do you go to the beach for a barbecue?

The irony is you rely o the same science for climate change as is used in weather prediction.

You say most people are not 'sceince heels' and get their information from the news.

Where do you get information to base your views on climate change? I seriously doubt you can articulate. You probably have some fuzzy ill formed non scientific ideas from listening to people you selectively listen to. Tunnel vision.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
People say the talk of 'future' catastrophe s not warranted or exaggerated.

It is not like a disater movie where everything happens in a few hours.

The catastrophe is beginning. Governments and local municipalities are reacting to changes. like rising ocean levels. Depending on where you live on the planet food insecurity previously going down is on the rise from rising temperatures.

I watch a serious news report on climate. When done the adult reporters move on to stories about movies and ice cream giggling like kids.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
There was a 19th century event called 'the summer that wasn't' or something like that. A summer was unchareticalt cold in the USA and Europe. Crops failed.

In modern times it is thought to be correlated to a volcanic eruption and particulates in the atmosphere. What in the 60s was called Nuclear Winter, the rseult of large scale nuclear war.

Nuclear winter would have been far worse, but it is the same principle at work.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.
What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.
What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..
Yesterday or the day before. There were Kuwaiti scientists and citizens.

I don't know if this is the entire segment.



Sigh... I know what climate change means. Where did I day that where YOU are will be scorching hot? If you have not been following te news increasing temperature here on the west cost s resulting in more forest fires. The fire seasons are getting longer.

Where you re may get wetter. Or colder. Local weather is in large due to global air and ocean currents in part due to Coriolis effects. Oceans heat up and overall temperature distribution goes up. Currents shifts slightly and drought occurs in one place and rain in another.

Here on the west coast El Nino and El Nina. I hear heavy rain outside right now. An 'atmospheric river' has formed ruining from Ca to alaska dumping rain.

We have seen for a long time local climate effects based on ocean temperature swings. The climate change problem is a long term steady state rise in ocean temperature. Differences in temperature form a 'heat engine'. Higher ocean temps are like higher voltages on a battery. Potential energy.

Jul 01, 2015 · An El Niño condition occurs when surface water in the equatorial Pacific becomes warmer than average and east winds blow weaker than normal. The opposite condition is called La Niña. During this phase of ENSO, the water is cooler than normal and the east winds are stronger. El Niños typically occur every 3 to 5 years.

El Nino tends to make atmospheric rivers stronger: they carry and deposit higher precipitation amounts to coastal areas. That enhances rainfall characteristics to the western coast of the U.S. It remains to be seen whether this winter’s El Nino can be a ‘drought-buster’ for California after four years of drought.
 
Last edited:

TSwizzle

Contributor
In California we had some heavy rain over the weekend which eventually made its way down to the LA area on Monday. The moron Newsom says, and I paraphrase, "If you don't believe the science, believe your own eyes. The wets are getting wetter." He's a idiot and he thinks everyone else is an idiot. Rain is now climate change, what a moron.

It really is a religion, a rapture like-cult.

Meanwhile, it is a catastrophic 63f on the West Side.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Yes. A single weather event neither proves nor disproves climate change. A cold winter doesn’t disprove global warming, for example, no matter how many politicians bring snowballs into Congress.

However, the ensemble of weather events, especially when viewed in a historical context, can indicate the impact of climate change.

I’m sure no climate scientist is writing a paper about climate change and including only one weekend of rain as their dataset.

The science cheerleaders can be just as bad as the science deniers. But I’d bet that if real scientists were trotted out to explain the real science they’d be greeted by the detractors just like Fauci has been on covid.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.
What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..


That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".
 

TSwizzle

Contributor
That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".

The BBC is dreadful. In that segment we are treated to the insightfulness of Ascia Alshammiri a "social media influencer".

It really is a religion, a-rapture like cult.
 
A simple reason why not to add the 'd' to Climate Change and form a past tense:
It's not over yet! Expect climate to continue changing. (Where's the :gak: emoticon? )

Not long ago, ignorant redneck Americans had a standard punchline: Whenever the weather turned cold, or there was snow, they'd say "More of that global warming, chortle chortle!"

My guess is that most of them have stopped that chortling by now.
These same people are still mocking the Pandemic that killed over 600,000 Americans.
The Green New Deal Is a Dead Man's Hand

The Lethal Lockdown reduced auto emissions to the only level at which viruses can survive. "Pollution," a dishonest word taken from an ancient superstition, had prevented all pandemics for 100 years. Primitive degenerate nature-worshipers are responsible for all these deaths. For corona, they deserve a crown of thorns.
 
I’ll rephrase:

I find it intellectually dishonest argumentation for people to claim that climate scientists are wrong in saying anthropogenic climate change is real by pointing out that climate scientists say that the climate has been variable in the past.

Either you believe climate scientists or you do not. You don’t get to only believe in the science that supports your political position.

The climate "scientists" (most are actually activists) cannot be trusted. They too have been politicized and corrupted. Gavin Newson is yet again banging on about wildfires, drought and climate change. He's a fucking moron.

Your state is a tinderbox. You've already had one town basically burned down.

Farmers are ripping out almond trees because they don't have enough water for them.

You think that's a nothing?
But the climate scientists that can’t be trusted tell us that climate always changes so that explains the current situation. They can be trusted to get that part right but can’t be trusted to get the part right that goes against the right’s current political climate. How about them cherries?
With Your Confused Logic, You Can't Handle Anyone Who Thinks the Greens Are Deadlier Than the Unabomber

You're not being logical or realistic at all. In what fantasy does someone have to be right about everything he claims to know? Or else, through some twisted thought process, we have to reject everything he says? No wonder these people hedge everything they say if they have your irrational case-closed aggression to contend with.

Besides, there are some scientists who agree that there's nothing to worry about and others who worry about everything, especially their funding from a government that wants to control our lives through this scheme. An anti-GreenParty government might take its place. They worry about that more than they worry about the future of life on this planet. It's not just the oil companies who write propaganda in their own self-interest.

Your trick logic groups the two opposing groups together. So, somehow, if we agree with one side we have to agree with the other, since they are both officially called "climate scientists."
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.
What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..


That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".
More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.
What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..


That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".
More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?
It is hardly "hand waving". Have you ever actually read any science journal papers on climatology? If so, it doesn't show in your posts.

Reasonable people can distinguish between news reports and advocacy journalism... just as they can distinguish the difference between the content of the op-ed page of a newspaper and news.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member

So, somehow, if we agree with one side we have to agree with the other, since they are both officially called "climate scientists."
You don't get my point, I guess. My point is that the detractors agree with climate scientists who say that the climate has varied over the past thousands of years and use that as their evidence that the current change of climate is consistent with this past history and therefore there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change.

There are another group of climate scientists who say that the current usage of fossil fuels is leading to a change in climate that is inconsistent with this past history. Yes, they may not be the same exact group of scientists -- though it has not been presented by their detractors that they are not the same group or have some amount of overlap.

But the foundational science, the physics and chemistry, between the study of historical and current climate change is not different. If the detractors were willing to come forward with actual scientific arguments against anthropogenic climate change it might be worthy of debate. But when they say "the climate has always been changing" as their evidence that doesn't meet the mark.

Perhaps I tried making my point too succinctly and you couldn't follow the logic. I just find it interesting that the detractors seem to have no problem with the physics and chemistry that lead to a conclusion they agree with politically but then have a big problem with the very same physics and chemistry when it leads to a conclusion that they find politically inconvenient.

So, no you don't have to automatically agree with "two sides" of climate scientists, but you do have to have a good reason for disagreeing with one side while agreeing with the other. It can't just be political expedience. That's not how science works.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.
What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..


That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".
More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?
It is hardly "hand waving". Have you ever actually read any science journal papers on climatology? If so, it doesn't show in your posts.

Reasonable people can distinguish between news reports and advocacy journalism... just as they can distinguish the difference between the content of the op-ed page of a newspaper and news.
It is painfully obvious 'reasonable people' can not distinguish fact from falsehood.

Witness the anti-vaccine falsehoods that are believed by many.

The reasonable person argument is just another common tactic to attack scince i genral when one chooses to avoid an objective conclusion.

Again. do you know how the ocean currents which have large scale effects on climate are formed? Invoking 'have you read scientific journals' is just more handwaving and misdirection. I sent my life in a science based competitive environment and have seen most if not all of the tactics that are used in place of a lack of technical knowledge. You are not using any tactic I have not seen before.

To understand climate change all's I need is fundamental science in the form of thermodynamics and mechanics which I applied for around 30 years. I do nor need low level details like the chemistry of greenhouse gasses to reach a conclusion.

When a technical or science issue comes up outside my experience I will go with the majority of scientists and respected institutions.

Be specific, on what are you basing your assertions and thinking? The Guardian OP eds?

I do not read popular news reporting on climate on ether side of the issue.
 

steve_bank

Contributor

So, somehow, if we agree with one side we have to agree with the other, since they are both officially called "climate scientists."
You don't get my point, I guess. My point is that the detractors agree with climate scientists who say that the climate has varied over the past thousands of years and use that as their evidence that the current change of climate is consistent with this past history and therefore there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change.

There are another group of climate scientists who say that the current usage of fossil fuels is leading to a change in climate that is inconsistent with this past history. Yes, they may not be the same exact group of scientists -- though it has not been presented by their detractors that they are not the same group or have some amount of overlap.

But the foundational science, the physics and chemistry, between the study of historical and current climate change is not different. If the detractors were willing to come forward with actual scientific arguments against anthropogenic climate change it might be worthy of debate. But when they say "the climate has always been changing" as their evidence that doesn't meet the mark.

Perhaps I tried making my point too succinctly and you couldn't follow the logic. I just find it interesting that the detractors seem to have no problem with the physics and chemistry that lead to a conclusion they agree with politically but then have a big problem with the very same physics and chemistry when it leads to a conclusion that they find politically inconvenient.

So, no you don't have to automatically agree with "two sides" of climate scientists, but you do have to have a good reason for disagreeing with one side while agreeing with the other. It can't just be political expedience. That's not how science works.

Nicely put.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.
What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..


That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".
More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?
It is hardly "hand waving". Have you ever actually read any science journal papers on climatology? If so, it doesn't show in your posts.

Reasonable people can distinguish between news reports and advocacy journalism... just as they can distinguish the difference between the content of the op-ed page of a newspaper and news.
It is painfully obvious 'reasonable people' can not distinguish fact from falsehood.

Witness the anti-vaccine falsehoods that are believed by many.

The reasonable person argument is just another common tactic to attack scince i genral when one chooses to avoid an objective conclusion.

Again. do you know how the ocean currents which have large scale effects on climate are formed? Invoking 'have you read scientific journals' is just more handwaving and misdirection. I sent my life in a science based competitive environment and have seen most if not all of the tactics that are used in place of a lack of technical knowledge. You are not using any tactic I have not seen before.

To understand climate change all's I need is fundamental science in the form of thermodynamics and mechanics which I applied for around 30 years. I do nor need low level details like the chemistry of greenhouse gasses to reach a conclusion.

When a technical or science issue comes up outside my experience I will go with the majority of scientists and respected institutions.

Be specific, on what are you basing your assertions and thinking? The Guardian OP eds?

I do not read popular news reporting on climate on ether side of the issue.
I am not attacking science. I am defending science by pointing out that the advocacy journalists are not talking about the science but their misunderstanding of it and their fear. My assertions of what climatology actually says is based on decades of reading scientific journal papers on climatology research. I first became interested in climatology in about 1980 when the "crisis" (in the popular media) was "THE COMING ICE AGE". A friend gave me a copy of the book by that title (which stressed how bad the crisis was) he had read because of the media panic mongering over the "issue". The "expose" read like nonsense to me so I began reading actual science papers to find what the science actually said.

I'll ask you again, have you ever actually read any science journal papers concerning climatology? Or are your opinions based on videos like you linked by a "social media influencer"?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
In California we had some heavy rain over the weekend which eventually made its way down to the LA area on Monday. The moron Newsom says, and I paraphrase, "If you don't believe the science, believe your own eyes. The wets are getting wetter." He's a idiot and he thinks everyone else is an idiot. Rain is now climate change, what a moron.

It really is a religion, a rapture like-cult.

Meanwhile, it is a catastrophic 63f on the West Side.

The warmer the climate the more energy driving weather and the more extreme it will get.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.
What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..


That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".
More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?
It is hardly "hand waving". Have you ever actually read any science journal papers on climatology? If so, it doesn't show in your posts.

Reasonable people can distinguish between news reports and advocacy journalism... just as they can distinguish the difference between the content of the op-ed page of a newspaper and news.
It is painfully obvious 'reasonable people' can not distinguish fact from falsehood.

Witness the anti-vaccine falsehoods that are believed by many.

The reasonable person argument is just another common tactic to attack scince i genral when one chooses to avoid an objective conclusion.

Again. do you know how the ocean currents which have large scale effects on climate are formed? Invoking 'have you read scientific journals' is just more handwaving and misdirection. I sent my life in a science based competitive environment and have seen most if not all of the tactics that are used in place of a lack of technical knowledge. You are not using any tactic I have not seen before.

To understand climate change all's I need is fundamental science in the form of thermodynamics and mechanics which I applied for around 30 years. I do nor need low level details like the chemistry of greenhouse gasses to reach a conclusion.

When a technical or science issue comes up outside my experience I will go with the majority of scientists and respected institutions.

Be specific, on what are you basing your assertions and thinking? The Guardian OP eds?

I do not read popular news reporting on climate on ether side of the issue.
I am not attacking science. I am defending science by pointing out that the advocacy journalists are not talking about the science but their misunderstanding of it and their fear. My assertions of what climatology actually says is based on decades of reading scientific journal papers on climatology research. I first became interested in climatology in about 1980 when the "crisis" (in the popular media) was "THE COMING ICE AGE". A friend gave me a copy of the book by that title (which stressed how bad the crisis was) he had read because of the media panic mongering over the "issue". The "expose" read like nonsense to me so I began reading actual science papers to find what the science actually said.

I'll ask you again, have you ever actually read any science journal papers concerning climatology? Or are your opinions based on videos like you linked by a "social media influencer"?

Opinionated people interpret 'climatology' as they please.

One of the things the Univ Wash is predicting among other things the Columbia River drawing down due to reduced snow packs and spring melts. Eastern Wash and Oregon agriculture depends on it.

You are ignoring what is being said, climate change is upon us. From a report today loss of glaciers on Kilimanjaro is affecting food production. Here in the PNW higher river temperatures is killing salmon. They suffocate from low O2. Salmon is a major source of pertain. Rising water temperatures are killing coral reefs, the nurseries at the bottom of the ocean food chain.. Heavy rains suppress bee pollination and crop yields, also recent reporting. Everything is connected. There is a growing list of small things. But hey, everything appears fine in my neighborhood and there is food in the stores, so what is the big deal? Right?

Do you know where the O2 you breathe comes from?

And again exactly what science and how are they misinterpreting and misrepresenting? If you do not understand the basis of ocean currents you can read all the 'journals' you please. Be specific.

The COVID crisis has clearly shwn te fragility if our food supply chain.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.
What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..


That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".
More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?
It is hardly "hand waving". Have you ever actually read any science journal papers on climatology? If so, it doesn't show in your posts.

Reasonable people can distinguish between news reports and advocacy journalism... just as they can distinguish the difference between the content of the op-ed page of a newspaper and news.
It is painfully obvious 'reasonable people' can not distinguish fact from falsehood.

Witness the anti-vaccine falsehoods that are believed by many.

The reasonable person argument is just another common tactic to attack scince i genral when one chooses to avoid an objective conclusion.

Again. do you know how the ocean currents which have large scale effects on climate are formed? Invoking 'have you read scientific journals' is just more handwaving and misdirection. I sent my life in a science based competitive environment and have seen most if not all of the tactics that are used in place of a lack of technical knowledge. You are not using any tactic I have not seen before.

To understand climate change all's I need is fundamental science in the form of thermodynamics and mechanics which I applied for around 30 years. I do nor need low level details like the chemistry of greenhouse gasses to reach a conclusion.

When a technical or science issue comes up outside my experience I will go with the majority of scientists and respected institutions.

Be specific, on what are you basing your assertions and thinking? The Guardian OP eds?

I do not read popular news reporting on climate on ether side of the issue.
I am not attacking science. I am defending science by pointing out that the advocacy journalists are not talking about the science but their misunderstanding of it and their fear. My assertions of what climatology actually says is based on decades of reading scientific journal papers on climatology research. I first became interested in climatology in about 1980 when the "crisis" (in the popular media) was "THE COMING ICE AGE". A friend gave me a copy of the book by that title (which stressed how bad the crisis was) he had read because of the media panic mongering over the "issue". The "expose" read like nonsense to me so I began reading actual science papers to find what the science actually said.

I'll ask you again, have you ever actually read any science journal papers concerning climatology? Or are your opinions based on videos like you linked by a "social media influencer"?
How many papers need to be read to observe the climate has warmed, has become a bit more unpredictable, with higher magnitudes of severe storms. Didn't we reach record high temps for continents in Europe and North America this summer? Previously unrecorded levels of flooding occurring in Europe, North America, and Asia. Nearly exhausted the alphabet with Hurricanes in the Atlantic again this year.

As the OP title indicates, this isn't Change, it is past tense. We just aren't sure where this is leading, what thresholds or tipping points might be passed. It could be quite bad or it could just be a pain in the ass. Yes, looking at news articles about science is dumb. The media is comprised of liberal arts majors who are not that knowledgeable about what they right about and are pressured for clicks.
 

TSwizzle

Contributor
Absolute nonsense driven by climate fear propaganda churned out by the likes Teh Grauniad and the BBC. The earth's climate is not static, it fluctuates over time. There has been an imperceptible warming trend that has shown little impact. Every single major weather event is blamed on "the climate crisis".

It's a religion.

Speaking of which, here's a well known and highly respected spokesperson in religious matter lecturing on the "climate crisis";

[quote
Pope Francis has urged world leaders to take “radical decisions” at next week’s global environmental summit in a special message recorded for BBC Radio 4’s Thought for the Day.

Leaders attending the Cop26 conference in Glasgow must offer “concrete hope to future generations”, the pontiff said.[/quote]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/29/pope-francis-world-leaders-climate-action-cop26

A rapture_like cult.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.
What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..


That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".
More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?
It is hardly "hand waving". Have you ever actually read any science journal papers on climatology? If so, it doesn't show in your posts.

Reasonable people can distinguish between news reports and advocacy journalism... just as they can distinguish the difference between the content of the op-ed page of a newspaper and news.
It is painfully obvious 'reasonable people' can not distinguish fact from falsehood.

Witness the anti-vaccine falsehoods that are believed by many.

The reasonable person argument is just another common tactic to attack scince i genral when one chooses to avoid an objective conclusion.

Again. do you know how the ocean currents which have large scale effects on climate are formed? Invoking 'have you read scientific journals' is just more handwaving and misdirection. I sent my life in a science based competitive environment and have seen most if not all of the tactics that are used in place of a lack of technical knowledge. You are not using any tactic I have not seen before.

To understand climate change all's I need is fundamental science in the form of thermodynamics and mechanics which I applied for around 30 years. I do nor need low level details like the chemistry of greenhouse gasses to reach a conclusion.

When a technical or science issue comes up outside my experience I will go with the majority of scientists and respected institutions.

Be specific, on what are you basing your assertions and thinking? The Guardian OP eds?

I do not read popular news reporting on climate on ether side of the issue.
I am not attacking science. I am defending science by pointing out that the advocacy journalists are not talking about the science but their misunderstanding of it and their fear. My assertions of what climatology actually says is based on decades of reading scientific journal papers on climatology research. I first became interested in climatology in about 1980 when the "crisis" (in the popular media) was "THE COMING ICE AGE". A friend gave me a copy of the book by that title (which stressed how bad the crisis was) he had read because of the media panic mongering over the "issue". The "expose" read like nonsense to me so I began reading actual science papers to find what the science actually said.

I'll ask you again, have you ever actually read any science journal papers concerning climatology? Or are your opinions based on videos like you linked by a "social media influencer"?
How many papers need to be read to observe the climate has warmed, has become a bit more unpredictable, with higher magnitudes of severe storms. Didn't we reach record high temps for continents in Europe and North America this summer? Previously unrecorded levels of flooding occurring in Europe, North America, and Asia. Nearly exhausted the alphabet with Hurricanes in the Atlantic again this year.

As the OP title indicates, this isn't Change, it is past tense. We just aren't sure where this is leading, what thresholds or tipping points might be passed. It could be quite bad or it could just be a pain in the ass. Yes, looking at news articles about science is dumb. The media is comprised of liberal arts majors who are not that knowledgeable about what they right about and are pressured for clicks.
You apparently haven't actually read my posts. Yes, global temperatures have risen and the science of climatology is working hard at trying to develop ever more reliable modeling to better understand. Currently there are a few dozen different models, all successful to a degree but don't give the same long term predictions;. There are still unknowns, evidenced by the fact that the models vary and all the models have predicted greater warming than actual measurements.... but there is warming.

What I am ranting against is all the hyperbolic bull-shit presented as "science" like, for one example, SB linking a video by a social media "influencer".
 

So, somehow, if we agree with one side we have to agree with the other, since they are both officially called "climate scientists."
You don't get my point, I guess. My point is that the detractors agree with climate scientists who say that the climate has varied over the past thousands of years and use that as their evidence that the current change of climate is consistent with this past history and therefore there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change.

There are another group of climate scientists who say that the current usage of fossil fuels is leading to a change in climate that is inconsistent with this past history. Yes, they may not be the same exact group of scientists -- though it has not been presented by their detractors that they are not the same group or have some amount of overlap.

But the foundational science, the physics and chemistry, between the study of historical and current climate change is not different. If the detractors were willing to come forward with actual scientific arguments against anthropogenic climate change it might be worthy of debate. But when they say "the climate has always been changing" as their evidence that doesn't meet the mark.

Perhaps I tried making my point too succinctly and you couldn't follow the logic. I just find it interesting that the detractors seem to have no problem with the physics and chemistry that lead to a conclusion they agree with politically but then have a big problem with the very same physics and chemistry when it leads to a conclusion that they find politically inconvenient.

So, no you don't have to automatically agree with "two sides" of climate scientists, but you do have to have a good reason for disagreeing with one side while agreeing with the other. It can't just be political expedience. That's not how science works.
Nature Is a Crime Against Humanity; It Has No Eminent Domain

You're so desperate to belong to the Little Green Men's cult that your loneliness outside it makes you slide into more slippery logic in defending your security blanket.

Science works against nature, so any group that is offended by the fact that auto emissions don't naturally occur in our atmosphere feel that it is some sacrilege to their Gaia goddess, who will punish us severely for that.
 
Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.
What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..


That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".
More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?
It is hardly "hand waving". Have you ever actually read any science journal papers on climatology? If so, it doesn't show in your posts.

Reasonable people can distinguish between news reports and advocacy journalism... just as they can distinguish the difference between the content of the op-ed page of a newspaper and news.
It is painfully obvious 'reasonable people' can not distinguish fact from falsehood.

Witness the anti-vaccine falsehoods that are believed by many.

The reasonable person argument is just another common tactic to attack scince i genral when one chooses to avoid an objective conclusion.

Again. do you know how the ocean currents which have large scale effects on climate are formed? Invoking 'have you read scientific journals' is just more handwaving and misdirection. I sent my life in a science based competitive environment and have seen most if not all of the tactics that are used in place of a lack of technical knowledge. You are not using any tactic I have not seen before.

To understand climate change all's I need is fundamental science in the form of thermodynamics and mechanics which I applied for around 30 years. I do nor need low level details like the chemistry of greenhouse gasses to reach a conclusion.

When a technical or science issue comes up outside my experience I will go with the majority of scientists and respected institutions.

Be specific, on what are you basing your assertions and thinking? The Guardian OP eds?

I do not read popular news reporting on climate on ether side of the issue.
I am not attacking science. I am defending science by pointing out that the advocacy journalists are not talking about the science but their misunderstanding of it and their fear. My assertions of what climatology actually says is based on decades of reading scientific journal papers on climatology research. I first became interested in climatology in about 1980 when the "crisis" (in the popular media) was "THE COMING ICE AGE". A friend gave me a copy of the book by that title (which stressed how bad the crisis was) he had read because of the media panic mongering over the "issue". The "expose" read like nonsense to me so I began reading actual science papers to find what the science actually said.

I'll ask you again, have you ever actually read any science journal papers concerning climatology? Or are your opinions based on videos like you linked by a "social media influencer"?
How many papers need to be read to observe the climate has warmed, has become a bit more unpredictable, with higher magnitudes of severe storms. Didn't we reach record high temps for continents in Europe and North America this summer? Previously unrecorded levels of flooding occurring in Europe, North America, and Asia. Nearly exhausted the alphabet with Hurricanes in the Atlantic again this year.

As the OP title indicates, this isn't Change, it is past tense. We just aren't sure where this is leading, what thresholds or tipping points might be passed. It could be quite bad or it could just be a pain in the ass. Yes, looking at news articles about science is dumb. The media is comprised of liberal arts majors who are not that knowledgeable about what they right about and are pressured for clicks.
You are being both incorrect and dishonest. A typical example of the Trustfundie Treehuggers Kaczynskian cult's overblowing the significance of an event is the recent New York hurricane. The purposely omitted background is that it also happened in the 1930s. when the level of civilization's byproducts weren't enough to qualify for scare-story material. It also happened in the 1700s, when there were fewer people and no scary gases. Back then, I'm sure that the Puritan alarmists, your kind of guys, called it the wages of sin or the work of the devil:

Sermon of a God (or Gaia) Salesman

Pray
Then pay
That's the way
To make my day
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Absolute nonsense driven by climate fear propaganda churned out by the likes Teh Grauniad and the BBC. The earth's climate is not static, it fluctuates over time. There has been an imperceptible warming trend that has shown little impact. Every single major weather event is blamed on "the climate crisis".

It's a religion.

Just because there are natural fluctuations doesn't mean all fluctuations are natural. And what has happened naturally doesn't mean it's harmless--the hottest times in Earth's history would be catastrophic to humanity, the coldest we just might be able to survive with technology, otherwise it's certain extinction.
 

Politesse

Sapere aude
A simple reason why not to add the 'd' to Climate Change and form a past tense:
It's not over yet! Expect climate to continue changing. (Where's the :gak: emoticon? )
That was my first thought as well, but you beat me to it. There's nothing past tense about this situation, except perhaps that the changes already experienced are irreparable.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Nature Is a Crime Against Humanity; It Has No Eminent Domain

You're so desperate to belong to the Little Green Men's cult that your loneliness outside it makes you slide into more slippery logic in defending your security blanket.

Science works against nature, so any group that is offended by the fact that auto emissions don't naturally occur in our atmosphere feel that it is some sacrilege to their Gaia goddess, who will punish us severely for that.
Please let me know when you have a reply with content.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Absolute nonsense driven by climate fear propaganda churned out by the likes Teh Grauniad and the BBC. The earth's climate is not static, it fluctuates over time. There has been an imperceptible warming trend that has shown little impact. Every single major weather event is blamed on "the climate crisis".

It's a religion.

Speaking of which, here's a well known and highly respected spokesperson in religious matter lecturing on the "climate crisis";

[quote
Pope Francis has urged world leaders to take “radical decisions” at next week’s global environmental summit in a special message recorded for BBC Radio 4’s Thought for the Day.

Leaders attending the Cop26 conference in Glasgow must offer “concrete hope to future generations”, the pontiff said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/29/pope-francis-world-leaders-climate-action-cop26

A rapture_like cult.
[/QUOTE]

A Twizzle fizzle.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
More claptrap from the BBC;

Eco-friendly sex: What is it and how does it impact on climate change?​


BBC
The existence of absurd claims about climate change is not evidence that climate change is not a real issue.

In the same way that if your crazy neighbour tells you that the traffic signals were installed by aliens to track our movements, the absurdity of his claim doesn't justify you not stopping at the red light.

To demonstrate your claim that climate change is a baseless fear, you need to refute the climatology, not just a bunch of hyperbolic newspaper articles.
 
Nature Is a Crime Against Humanity; It Has No Eminent Domain

You're so desperate to belong to the Little Green Men's cult that your loneliness outside it makes you slide into more slippery logic in defending your security blanket.

Science works against nature, so any group that is offended by the fact that auto emissions don't naturally occur in our atmosphere feel that it is some sacrilege to their Gaia goddess, who will punish us severely for that.
Please let me know when you have a reply with content.
The Uninhibited Development of Resources Creates Class Mobility

Since what you mean by "content" is some mantra chanted by your cult, you'll never know. But that is the normal condition of know-it-all nobodies.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Nature Is a Crime Against Humanity; It Has No Eminent Domain
You're so desperate to belong to the Little Green Men's cult that your loneliness outside it makes you slide into more slippery logic in defending your security blanket.

Science works against nature, so any group that is offended by the fact that auto emissions don't naturally occur in our atmosphere feel that it is some sacrilege to their Gaia goddess, who will punish us severely for that.
Please let me know when you have a reply with content.
The Uninhibited Development of Resources Creates Class Mobility

Since what you mean by "content" is some mantra chanted by your cult, you'll never know. But that is the normal condition of know-it-all nobodies.
No. What I mean by “content” is not just English words but words that actually relate to my points. I can barely parse your sentences let alone understand how they relate to anything I’m saying.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Nature Is a Crime Against Humanity; It Has No Eminent Domain

You're so desperate to belong to the Little Green Men's cult that your loneliness outside it makes you slide into more slippery logic in defending your security blanket.

Science works against nature, so any group that is offended by the fact that auto emissions don't naturally occur in our atmosphere feel that it is some sacrilege to their Gaia goddess, who will punish us severely for that.
Please let me know when you have a reply with content.
The Uninhibited Development of Resources Creates Class Mobility

Since what you mean by "content" is some mantra chanted by your cult, you'll never know. But that is the normal condition of know-it-all nobodies.
I fail to see how being a know-nothing nobody has improved your condition over those individuals.
 

TSwizzle

Contributor
Teh Grauniad has more doom and gloom from the jug eared twat that is Prince Charles;

Cop26 is “the last chance saloon” to save the world from runaway climate change, Prince Charles has told world leaders in Rome ahead of the crucial climate summit in Glasgow. Speaking to an audience including Boris Johnson on the sidelines of the gathering of the G20 group of industrialised nations, Charles said it was the moment to begin a green-led economic turnaround. “Ladies and gentlemen, Cop26 begins in Glasgow tomorrow,” Charles said. “Quite literally, it is the last chance saloon. We must now translate fine words into still finer actions.
Teh Grauniad

It really, really, really is literally the last chance to save the planet. They must have been kidding us on when they said that all the other times.

It really is a religion, a rapture like cult.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Teh Grauniad has more doom and gloom from the jug eared twat that is Prince Charles;

Cop26 is “the last chance saloon” to save the world from runaway climate change, Prince Charles has told world leaders in Rome ahead of the crucial climate summit in Glasgow. Speaking to an audience including Boris Johnson on the sidelines of the gathering of the G20 group of industrialised nations, Charles said it was the moment to begin a green-led economic turnaround. “Ladies and gentlemen, Cop26 begins in Glasgow tomorrow,” Charles said. “Quite literally, it is the last chance saloon. We must now translate fine words into still finer actions.
Teh Grauniad

It really, really, really is literally the last chance to save the planet. They must have been kidding us on when they said that all the other times.

It really is a religion, a rapture like cult.
Masturbatory. Emotional climax and release. Feel better now?
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Nature Is a Crime Against Humanity; It Has No Eminent Domain

You're so desperate to belong to the Little Green Men's cult that your loneliness outside it makes you slide into more slippery logic in defending your security blanket.

Science works against nature, so any group that is offended by the fact that auto emissions don't naturally occur in our atmosphere feel that it is some sacrilege to their Gaia goddess, who will punish us severely for that.
Please let me know when you have a reply with content.
The Uninhibited Development of Resources Creates Class Mobility

Since what you mean by "content" is some mantra chanted by your cult, you'll never know. But that is the normal condition of know-it-all nobodies.

Your statement has to be qualified. I believe Smith had the caveat of equal access to resources and free markets. Obviously from history that never happens. Wealth leads to control of resources and suppression of competition. Microsoft has always been predatory.

The town of Kellogg had all the surface soli scrapped up and put in a berm along the highway. Arsenic contamination from a smelter. Go into the back country and the environmental effects are evident.

Conservatives want unrestricted consumption of resources, but not in my back yard.

The idea that population and consumption can grow without limit is a conservative wet dream.

We do not give up our rights to a government, we have elections such as it is. We also do not give ourselves over to corporations and profit to do what they please with the environment.

It si our environment and we all live in it. We all have a ay in how resources are used.

There is nothing in the constitution that grants business a right to cosnume without consequence or limit.
 

TSwizzle

Contributor
Masturbatory. Emotional climax and release. Feel better now?

You're too funny. It's you that gets off on the climate catastrophe porn.

Anyway, the buffoon that is the prime minister if the United Kingdom is also a cultist.

Mr Johnson is expected to say later: 'Humanity has long since run down the clock on climate change. 'It's one minute to midnight and we need to act now. 'If we don't get serious about climate change today, it will be too late for our children to do so tomorrow.'

DailyMail

Maybe Boris should keep his dick in his pants and stop having so many children. Imagine you were a woman and that fat oaf toiling over you. Ugh.
 
Top Bottom