Climate Change(d)?

[TSwizzle]

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]

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]

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]

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 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Move along, nothing to see here:

Village in French Alps demolishes its ski lift because there's no snow left | CNN

Global warming blamed as French Alpine village of Saint-Firmin permanently dismantles its lift that has stood on an increasingly snowless mountainside for more than half a century.

www.cnn.com

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]

Move along, nothing to see here:

Village in French Alps demolishes its ski lift because there's no snow left | CNN

Global warming blamed as French Alpine village of Saint-Firmin permanently dismantles its lift that has stood on an increasingly snowless mountainside for more than half a century.

www.cnn.com

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]

Move along, nothing to see here:

Village in French Alps demolishes its ski lift because there's no snow left | CNN

Global warming blamed as French Alpine village of Saint-Firmin permanently dismantles its lift that has stood on an increasingly snowless mountainside for more than half a century.

www.cnn.com

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]

Move along, nothing to see here:

Village in French Alps demolishes its ski lift because there's no snow left | CNN

Global warming blamed as French Alpine village of Saint-Firmin permanently dismantles its lift that has stood on an increasingly snowless mountainside for more than half a century.

www.cnn.com

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]

Move along, nothing to see here:

Village in French Alps demolishes its ski lift because there's no snow left | CNN

Global warming blamed as French Alpine village of Saint-Firmin permanently dismantles its lift that has stood on an increasingly snowless mountainside for more than half a century.

www.cnn.com

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

TSwizzle is not responding to my posts. Gosh, was it something I said?

 

[southernhybrid]

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]

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]

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.