Climate Change Mega Thread

[CapitalB]

Good point, I gender neutralized my sentence.

Climate change: how exactly are we currently set up to measure the direct results of our emissions reduction strategies, and how will we know these strategies are affecting positive change?

I imagine that similar to how we handle the economy we'll have to act on the advice of experts, continue to track the data trends and just wait and see how our actions effect the data over time. The key points there are acting on the advice of experts and waiting. Since this is one of those long term slow results kind of things, there isn't currently a way to get usable data from even a single year of climate reduction. The climate is a slow beast effects take years to manifest, the amount of years is debated and very likely a variable figure, that however doesn't mean the change doesn't happen and that we shouldn't act on our current understanding of the situation.

PS you username is pretty gender neutral. That was a fact that I wasn't then and am still not clear on since no evidence of your gender has been provided. That aside I decided to make it gender neutral because my response is more or less open to the rest of the people that have misinterpreted my intention.

[rustled]

Good point, I gender neutralized my sentence.

Climate change: how exactly are we currently set up to measure the direct results of our emissions reduction strategies, and how will we know these strategies are affecting positive change?

I imagine that similar to how we handle the economy we'll have to act on the advice of experts, continue to track the data trends and just wait and see how our actions effect the data over time. The key points there are acting on the advice of experts and waiting. Since this is one of those long term slow results kind of things, there isn't currently a way to get usable data from even a single year of climate reduction. The climate is a slow beast effects take years to manifest, the amount of years is debated and very likely a variable figure, that however doesn't mean the change doesn't happen and that we shouldn't act on our current understanding of the situation.

That was not my point. It was simply the point you thought it ought to be.

You seem unable go show how we are currently set up to measure the direct results of our emissions reduction strategies, is this correct?

While we wait and see, perhaps we can discuss this: who should be held accountable for the negative consequences of current policy? We could use ethanol as an example. Oxfam documented the human cost, and scientists have since shown there was no positive effect.

Do you feel those hurt should be able to engage in a class action lawsuit?

[rustled]

...PS you username is pretty gender neutral. That was a fact that I wasn't then and am still not clear on since no evidence of your gender has been provided. That aside I decided to make it gender neutral because my response is more or less open to the rest of the people that have misinterpreted my intention.

The reason I mention this at all is simply to ask you to consider how easy it is to make incorrect assumptions.

For example, you often quote Cook because you assume the information he has provided is scientific. And you assume his motivation was to promote good science. Years ago, you would have been able to find his motivation on the internet. He himself stated why he did what he did: alarmed (a.k.a. fearful) that the politicians were not doing enough to respond to the initial alarmism around climate change meant for his children's future, he set out with the intention of directing policy to save the world from what he feared, and what he believed we all should fear. Unless you're good with the wayback thingy on the internet, you'll only find a tempered version of that admission, because unsurprisingly he's not as proud of it as he used to be.

This policy-based motivation is why he has worked so hard to discredit people like Curry and others (including one of the early scientists to suggest there was reason for alarm and realized, like cholesterol, the early findings were only part of the story. His name escapes me at the moment.) Like Inigo Montoya, these scientists were very politely pointing out that people like Gore and Cook and Mann were misusing some of the science around climate change. It's terribly unscientific to tell people to shut up, but there you have it: there's a clear reason you've been convinced they are "deniers" and not "skeptics", that the outliers ought to be silenced with the biting, scathing epithet used for those who pretend the holocaust didn't happen, rather than the respectful and more accurate term we'd use for any scientist in any other circumstance saying "hold on, let's take another look at this".

It seems important to some of us to examine the cause-effect relationship here, particularly when we consider the vast resources dedicated and the negative consequences of action taken. We ought to be willing to acknowledge some of our assumptions may be wrong.

But back to what really matters to me: we ought to be sure that when we are doing damage and causing hardship, we truly are doing so because our policy is science-based. And we ought to recognize the need for accountability here, just as we would with any other public policy, instead of accepting excuses and "wait and see" platitudes. (And this is where, inevitably, those who do not ever want to talk about the negative consequences of climate policy will swing us back to the "denier/alarmist" argument instead.)

[The Green Barbarian]

Denialism

Stupidity

[The Green Barbarian]

Is there a more polite term for people denying mans involvement in unnaturally changing climate?

first you have to prove that there is in fact an "unnaturally changing climate". Then you have to prove mankind's involvement. Then you have to justify stealing billions of dollars to "fight" this "unnaturally changing climate". Then, and only then, can you stupidly insult people who may object to you reaching for their wallet to enact horribly flawed and doomed to fail schemes that won't work and were never going to work. Maybe. RIght now, you have no right to call anyone anything.

[Omnitheo]

Or you could go back and actually read the first post in this thread.

[Glacier]

Or you could go back and actually read the first post in this thread.

The first post in this thread is mostly political mumbo jumbo about consensus this and that. No science was presented. There is nothing in it showing the "unnatural warming" or how we do deal with this warming if it's dangerous, etc.

[Because_They_Lie]

*removed*

[Snman]

*removed*

[Because_They_Lie]

*removed*

[Snman]

^^^ Very interesting, thanx for the 411. ^^^

[Because_They_Lie]

^^^ Very interesting, thanx for the 411. ^^^

You're welcome Snman.

[Snman]

*removed*

[Jlabute]

The UK has had their worst winter in 47 years, leading to 48,000 deaths, which is almost twice as what it typically is. Most of the reason is due to expensive energy.


https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/694368/flu-winter-death-cold-fatalities

[bob vernon]

If it's cold here, it must be cold everywhere. Right?