Global warming

[ImWaitingForTheDay]

Today's conservatives imagine the Rapture occurring, so saving anything is a moot point. Or they will say God gave us the planet to ruin. Or they will say God would not allow 'his only children' to be harmed by Climate Change. Or they will say the bad stuff will all be on their grandchildren's heads, so why worry about it?
The GOP has no religion - it is a cult.

 

[Catatonic]

Today's conservatives imagine the Rapture occurring, so saving anything is a moot point. Or they will say God gave us the planet to ruin. Or they will say God would not allow 'his only children' to be harmed by Climate Change. Or they will say the bad stuff will all be on their grandchildren's heads, so why worry about it?
The GOP has no religion - it is a cult.

Definition -- Cult - a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

 

[BrownArmy]

Today's conservatives imagine the Rapture occurring, so saving anything is a moot point. Or they will say God gave us the planet to ruin. Or they will say God would not allow 'his only children' to be harmed by Climate Change. Or they will say the bad stuff will all be on their grandchildren's heads, so why worry about it?
The GOP has no religion - it is a cult.

That seems reductionist...

I think it's more complex than that.

There's not a single person that hates our planet, liberal, conservative, democrat or republican.

However, the media in this country does us all a disservice.

We are the only country in the world that is conflicted about 'climate change'.

it's 100% real, and the vast majority of scientists around the world agree.

The climate is changing: not in dispute.

What is in dispute is what percentage of human influence alters the calculus.

That's a great conversation, except that it's more or less been settled.

Scientists agree that us humans are tipping the scales with our CO2 burning, but there's 'a lot of dissenters'...um, no, there actually aren't, this is settled science.

The US media does us all a disservice by trying to present a 'balanced-view', i.e. let's give 'equal-weight' to both sides of this argument.

(It's not 50-50, it's 90-10, just saying).

Our completely dysfunctional government system in the US has led to a complete and total paralysis in terms of dealing with this issue, which, IMHO is bigger than any terrorist threat.

In a previous post, I said that it's likely too late.

I think that's true, in the sense that we're not going to be able, as a global community, to get our collective 'chit' together and address this problem head-on.

But, again, don't worry, the scientists are obviously wrong!

 

[ImWaitingForTheDay]

Definition -- Cult - a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[upschuck]

If those scientists are so accurate, how come 35(?) years ago they thought we were all going to freeze to death? Were they wrong then? They very well could be wrong again. Normal oscillations of temperatures, nothing to see here.

 

[MAKAVELI]

If those scientists are so accurate, how come 35(?) years ago they thought we were all going to freeze to death? Were they wrong then? They very well could be wrong again. Normal oscillations of temperatures, nothing to see here.

A 6th grade science project can prove you wrong. Increasing greenhouse gases increase temperatures. That's a fact Jack.

 

[oldngray]

10 Ways To Tell Tuesday’s UN Climate Summit Isn’t About Climate
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/09/10-ways-to-tell-tuesdays-un-climate-summit-isnt-about-climate/

 

[upschuck]

A 6th grade science project can prove you wrong. Increasing greenhouse gases increase temperatures. That's a fact Jack.

So, still no explanation why they are so right now, and not a few years ago. Scientist back then thought they were right too.

 

[Panin]

So, still no explanation why they are so right now, and not a few years ago. Scientist back then thought they were right too.

Sometimes people get a better understanding the longer they study and as more data becomes available.

 

[upschuck]

Sometimes people get a better understanding the longer they study and as more data becomes available.

So what you are saying is that they could even learn more and come to even a different conclusion? Or is THIS their final conclusion. Data can be interpreted many different ways to suit whatever interest the predetermined interpreter wants.

They were as confident then, as they are now. Fool me once, shame on them, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[oldngray]

Sometimes people get a better understanding the longer they study and as more data becomes available.

Very good point. Which is why it is foolish to jump to any conclusions over the short time period with data available. Climate change deals with geologic time spans, not decades. Or the global warming people would just be talking about weather wouldn't they?

 

[Panin]

So what you are saying is that they could even learn more and come to even a different conclusion? Or is THIS their final conclusion. Data can be interpreted many different ways to suit whatever interest the predetermined interpreter wants.

They were as confident then, as they are now. Fool me once, shame on them, fool me twice, shame on me.

Very good point. Which is why it is foolish to jump to any conclusions over the short time period with data available. Climate change deals with geologic time spans, not decades. Or the global warming people would just be talking about weather wouldn't they?

It is also foolish to ignore fact. Though the earth has gone through many more drastic climate changes, it hasn't since human civilization came on the scene. To ignore the changes since the late 19th century is not only foolish, it's reckless.

Thank goodness most people in power recognize that.

All of this isn't to say that a super volcanic eruption or an asteroid strike wouldn't change that in a flash, but those events can't be predicted.

I will say that this discussion has led me to actually read the scientific articles, where available, and try to learn as much as I can.

 

[oldngray]

It is also foolish to ignore fact. Though the earth has gone through many more drastic climate changes, it hasn't since human civilization came on the scene. To ignore the changes since the late 19th century is not only foolish, it's reckless.

Thank goodness most people in power recognize that.

All of this isn't to say that a super volcanic eruption or an asteroid strike wouldn't change that in a flash, but those events can't be predicted.

I will say that this discussion has led me to actually read the scientific articles, where available, and try to learn as much as I can.

Reading and even better comprehending the scientific articles is a good idea.

 

[upschuck]

All of this isn't to say that a super volcanic eruption or an asteroid strike wouldn't change that in a flash, but those events can't be predicted.

They can't be predicted because we don't have all the knowledge, and the data to predict them, just like the weather.

 

[Panin]

This says it well

 

[beentheredonethat]

We are the only country in the world that is conflicted about 'climate change'.
it's 100% real, and the vast majority of scientists around the world agree.

I love it when people "make things up" So per what you said, not one country is conflicted about climate change.

Check out this link. The countries are all over the board on climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country.

For awareness, from a low of 15 to a high of 99%
For "caused by human activity" from a low of 15 to a high of 92
For Perceived as threat. From a low of 13 to a high of 85.

I'll give you that this is from 2007-08 sampling. But I couldn't find anything newer. If you have something newer, other then it's a FACT. I'd like to see an updated poll.

 

[beentheredonethat]

Also, to be clear on my viewpoint. I follow the 3 R's (Reduce, reuse, recycle). I've gone to selectman in our town to have our town recycle even more material then we currently do. I have a car that gets good gas mileage and I maintain it so it stays good. I think that we should worry about polluting the environment and do a better job in cleaning it up. I'm all for alternate fuels. In fact, I believe that going back to at least Nixon (probably further) that all the President's have done us a disservice by not working on ways of reducing reliance on oil. I think the government should spend money (and a lot of money) on educating our children in STEM related majors (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math). Help in paying for college for those students pursuing those majors. Offer block grants (more then current) to colleges like MIT, Cal Tech etc to have them study alternate fuels. (Solar\Wind\Tidal\Geothermal\Nuclear\Hydro\Fuel Cells etc etc). I don't want the govt to help out companies (like Solyndra) rather to educate our children so that they can come up with ideas that will allow us to not rely on oil (esp oil from the middle east). Can you imagine if oil was not really needed and was not worth much. That would mean we wouldn't worry about the middle east. Those people wouldn't have money to buy guns\bombs etc etc so they wouldn't really be a threat like they have been.

My issue is that the weatherman can't get tomorrow's weather right (or even today's weather right) Yet we are supposed to believe with 100% certainty they know what will happen in 10 or 100 years in the future. Get tomorrow's weather right all the time and then we can start talking.

Also, in the 70's it was fact about global cooling, then in the 90's it was fact about global warming. Now it's a fact about climate change. Obviously the fact of the 70's was wrong in the 90's. The facts of the 90's was wrong today. Now the label is so vague anything that happens they prove it's climate change. It's raining..climate change. It's snowing climate change. It's cold climate change, it's warm climate change. Then of course people saying facts. 2+2 =4 is a fact. Climate change as in man causing it is not. (Although, I do believe we do influence it...but it's a belief, not a fact).

The funny part is that in the 1970's the environmentalists were protesting nuclear even though nuclear is great in terms of climate change. Even today we have people complaining about windmills due to noise or killing birds. ALso the people who like it don't want it in their back yard to ruin the view (Thanks Ted Kennedy).

We have to decide first. Do we want to walk into a room and turn on the lights? If the answer is YES (which i think it's true for 99.9% of us). Then we have to decide how to do it. (Nuclear, coal, oil, gas, wind, solar, hydro). Keep in mind,it's dark half the day, it's also not always windy.

 

[tourists24]

Sent using BrownCafe App

 

[BrownArmy]

The global warming controversy concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring, how much has occurred in modern times, what has caused it, what its effects will be, whether any action should be taken to curb it, and if so what that action should be. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few organizations with members in extractive industries hold non-committal positions. Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more in the United States than globally.

LINK (wikipedia)

Worth a read.

 

[BrownArmy]

Global Warming myths...