Climate Change Mega Thread

[The Green Barbarian]

and you are proposing extreme inaction. .

I don't think Rustled is, but as opposed to "extreme action" and the waste of trillions for an unproven hypothesis, I'm very prepared to listen to what Rustled has to say. And kudos to Trump for pulling out of the Paris Accord. What a disgusting and stupid agreement.

[CapitalB]

Your asking for accountability for harm done? Your trying to change the subject from the harms that have been done by using fossil fuels to the harms done trying to fix that.

We on the other hand are demanding accountability from people who refuse to acknowledge the current situation and constantly twist and make up facts doing mental gymnastics just to maintain a delusion.

I really truly feel bad for your inability to be rational on this subject, I'm sorry I can't get through your barriers and help you out the swamp of ignorance you find yourselves in. I wish I could be sympathetic enough towards your beliefs that I could meet you half way and lead you out of the cave you are in. But I cannot. I hope you all find your way to logic and reason one day. Take care.

[rustled]

and you are proposing extreme inaction. You are still unable to see the forest for the trees.
You fixate on any tiny speed bump or hurdle and act like it’s an excuse to dismiss the entire issue.

It's not unusual for you to focus on all my shortcomings, but this time you've even managed to twist proposing we take responsibility for our actions to "proposing extreme inaction". I've done nothing of the sort.

You're willing to refer to hungry people, cold people, and destroyed environments as a "tiny speed bump or hurdle". For me, this is the issue. I'm not the one who wants to dismiss it and get back to arguing about the science and just how alarmed we should be and why.

A little self-examination may be in order.

[rustled]

Your asking for accountability for harm done? Your trying to change the subject from the harms that have been done by using fossil fuels to the harms done trying to fix that.

We on the other hand are demanding accountability from people who refuse to acknowledge the current situation and constantly twist and make up facts doing mental gymnastics just to maintain a delusion.

I really truly feel bad for your inability to be rational on this subject, I'm sorry I can't get through your barriers and help you out the swamp of ignorance you find yourselves in. I wish I could be sympathetic enough towards your beliefs that I could meet you half way and lead you out of the cave you find yourself in. But I cannot. I hope you all find your way to logic and reason one day. Take care.

I'm all for fixing harms done using fossil fuels, starting with particulate pollution. I look forward to a time when we can see measurable results in our efforts to affect change on the climate. But for me, that does not excuse the messes we're making along the way.

If I'm deluded because I expect us to also be accountable for the harms we've done in the name of combating ACC, well, colour me deluded! IMO, better to be "deluded" enough to care about both than utterly ignorant of the seriousness of the mistakes we've made trying to change the climate.

[CapitalB]

Literally nobody proposing acting on climate change thinks it should be done without regard for the environment. It just seems like there are a lot of people advocating for complete inaction when it comes to dealing with harms already caused.

Additionally the 'harms' being caused trying to solve global climate change are orders of magnitude less substantial than the harms caused by fossil fuel used. Past. Present. Or future. They aren't even remotely on the same scale of measurement, and one has the long term benefit of reducing net long term pollution, while the other only increases pollution and environmental damage in all its forms.

[Snman]

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."


Okay, my mind is still open but here's a perfect example of the type of info that confuses me. It says that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW and that of those that did express a position, about 33%, 97% of those endorsed the consensus that global warming is anthropogenic. So to me the math there says that about 33% endorse the consensus of anthropogenic global warming and that about 65% express no opinion. Can someone explain to me, without telling me to read every link posted, how this means that the majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change? I'm no scientist but my math skills are adequate and I don't think I'm stupid.

[CapitalB]

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."


Okay, my mind is still open but here's a perfect example of the type of info that confuses me. It says that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW and that of those that did express a position, about 33%, 97% of those endorsed the consensus that global warming is anthropogenic. So to me the math there says that about 33% endorse the consensus of anthropogenic global warming and that about 65% express no opinion. Can someone explain to me, without telling me to read every link posted, how this means that the majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change? I'm no scientist but my math skills are adequate and I don't think I'm stupid.

I am glad you asked: This bloomberg article does a really good job of explaining whats going on with those numbers. It even cites some studies that looked into the issue your asking about, which were able to gather more information from the scientists who published the no position papers. Its a good article thats well sourced. :)

[The Green Barbarian]

Literally nobody proposing acting on climate change thinks it should be done without regard for the environment.

What about regard for the economy? What about that?

It just seems like there are a lot of people advocating for complete inaction when it comes to dealing with harms already caused.

What harms are you talking about?

Additionally the 'harms' being caused trying to solve global climate change are orders of magnitude less substantial than the harms caused by fossil fuel used. Past. Present. Or future..

Oh good grief. This is complete crap.

[The Green Barbarian]

Can someone explain to me, without telling me to read every link posted, how this means that the majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change? I'm no scientist but my math skills are adequate and I don't think I'm stupid.

Snman - anyone pulling this 97% garbage out of their butt is just plain lying. That's all you really need to know.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstei ... 5ef73f9ff7

[CapitalB]

Increase of ocean temperatures causing massive melting of ocean ice? Increase in air temperatures causing increase frequency and strength of seasonal storms? General climate instability leading to hot and cold flashes just like we've been seeing all winter?

Do you want me to go track down sources for all those for you or have you had enough of my peer reviewed scientific studies that you think are crap? What are you countering those with? Hot air from bought politicians?

Also the economy will be fine, if its so unstable that it can't take a little energy diversification we have way bigger problems.

[CapitalB]

Snman - anyone pulling this 97% garbage out of their butt is just plain lying. That's all you really need to know.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstei ... 5ef73f9ff7

Oh yes this Alex Epstein, formerly of the Ayn Rand institute and head of the Center for Industrial Progress (who's funding list is private), with a degree in philosophy and computer science totally knows what he's talking about and is obviously an unbiased source. Especially with his articles two (one actually since one link is dead) sources that he's using to debunk 11,000 actual scientific studies.

Yes by all means believe this guy.

[rustled]

Literally nobody proposing acting on climate change thinks it should be done without regard for the environment.

What about regard for the economy? What about that?

It just seems like there are a lot of people advocating for complete inaction when it comes to dealing with harms already caused.

What harms are you talking about?

Additionally the 'harms' being caused trying to solve global climate change are orders of magnitude less substantial than the harms caused by fossil fuel used. Past. Present. Or future..

Oh good grief. This is complete crap.

Can't prove it either way, GB, since there's as yet no way to accurately measure any of it.

So instead of dealing with what we know to be true, we're to focus the vast majority of scarce resources on assumptions that what we do will make a difference, even though we cannot measure whether or not that difference is being made.It's all so very scientific, dontcha know.

Meanwhile, we are all to gloss over any mistakes made. Tiny bumps, hurdles. We don't have to do anything about any of that, and to say otherwise means you're the one advocating for complete inaction!

So once again, we see that although climate action policies have done real harm, that's not a real problem, because the harm to come is far, far greater than the sum of the harm done by these policies. How do we measure that? Look, over there! Studies that prove you're just a denier, and anyway my possible future environmental disaster is gonna be way bigger than your current preventable environmental disaster. 97%! Settled science! So there's no reason to talk about the harm done, la-la-la-la-la.

It's all soooo predictable.

[The Green Barbarian]

Yes by all means believe this guy.

Why would anyone believe you?

The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”

“Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.

There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?

In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus. Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/ ... an-tuttle/

[The Green Barbarian]

Can't prove it either way, GB, since there's as yet no way to accurately measure any of it.

So instead of dealing with what we know to be true, we're to focus the vast majority of scarce resources on assumptions that what we do will make a difference, even though we cannot measure whether or not that difference is being made.It's all so very scientific, dontcha know.
.

Exactly. The science is not "settled", and the only people pushing a consensus are the parasites suckling from the arteries of government money that want the lie to be accepted as fact. Total shysters and scumbags.

[The Green Barbarian]

Also the economy will be fine, if its so unstable that it can't take a little energy diversification we have way bigger problems.

Oh brother. The level of naivete being exhibited here is just off the charts.