Alexandria ocasio Cortez is a breath of fresh air

[DarrinS]

Sure it will, but that's not what we're talking. We're talking about the impact climate change will have on humans. The scientific consensus is that it's an imperative to address it. Are they wrong?

What is the impact?

[midnightpulp]

What is the impact?

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in 2015 there were 10 weather and climate disaster events in the United States—including severe storms, floods, drought, and wildfires—that caused at least $1 billion in losses. For context, each year from 1980 to 2015 averaged $5.2 billion in disasters (adjusted for inflation). If you zero in on the years between 2011 and 2015, you see an annual average cost of $10.8 billion.

By 2100, it's estimated our oceans will be one to four feet higher, threatening coastal systems and low-lying areas, including entire island nations and the world's largest cities, including New York, Los Angeles, and Miami as well as Mumbai, Sydney, and Rio de Janeiro.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/are-eff...ing-really-bad

You keep dodging the question, though. Scientists agree that it's an imperative to address it. Are they wrong?

[DMC]

Solar forcing of climate:


The Sun may have contributed as much as 66% of the observed 20th century warming, and perhaps more.

-Willie Soon


"There is a much stronger correlation with total solar irradiance (sunshine) and the temperature curve than there is for CO2 and the temperature curve."

I called that like in 20BC

[DarrinS]

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/are-eff...ing-really-bad

You keep dodging the question, though. Scientists agree that it's an imperative to address it. Are they wrong?

By controlling a single variable? Yes

[DMC]

Climate model no good for predicting 50 years into the future.
Climate model good for guessing what happened 450 million years ago.

https://www.providencejournal.com/op...ng-deniers.ece

I don't understand the debate regarding climate change or why there is a debate. It's like evolution, I think, in that it doesn't matter if you believe it or not, it's a name of a process that's happening.

I would have to accept the findings of the scientific community but based on the model, I don't know if I could justify a hard policy shift to attempt to counter it. I can see though how panic could ensue, or again how denial could ensue based on, in part, lack of education and a feeling of helplessness to do anything about it.

Whether or not humans are causing it, if it's happening then there needs to be a system in place to account for what is going to happen. Doesn't mean everything can be kept how it is globally, but at least locally we can put our homes on stilts and get bigger beer coolers.

[midnightpulp]

By controlling a single variable? Yes

So the experts in the field don't know what they're doing, but you got it figured out? I'm also not sure what you mean by them controlling a single variable? Are you suggesting they're focused too much on carbon emissions and not accounting for other variables that could also be influencing climate change? Yeah, I'm sure they did that. The scientific method demands it. So again, you're basically implying the world's experts on climate science don't know what they're doing. Maybe you can change their minds with a paper and win a Nobel.

[Chris]

So which American phone are you buying?

Maybe a Moto...idk yet.

[Pavlov]

Maybe a Moto...idk yet.

Well, keep an eye out for det country of origin.

[spurraider21]

The Earth is warming. Fact.

The Earth will cool down at some point. Fact.

These are natural weather patterns, but doom and gloom is profitable $$$.

The earth has plenty of warming and cooling cycles. The major ones are cycles that go for hundreds of thousands of years or longer (most notably wobble of earths axis). Those aren’t going to “save” us in the next 50-150 years. There is the shorter “solar cycle” which fluctuates but the impact of that is measurable and doesn’t account for the warming we’ve had in the last 100 years.

Saying “we have cycles and it will cool eventually” is akin to dealing with 125 degree weather in July and saying you don’t need an air conditioner because we have season cycles and eventually we’ll have winter.

[midnightpulp]

The earth has plenty of warming and cooling cycles. The major ones are cycles that go for hundreds of thousands of years or longer (most notably wobble of earths axis). Those aren’t going to “save” us in the next 50-150 years. There is the shorter “solar cycle” which fluctuates but the impact of that is measurable and doesn’t account for the warming we’ve had in the last 100 years.

Saying “we have cycles and it will cool eventually” is akin to dealing with 125 degree weather in July and saying you don’t need an air conditioner because we have season cycles and eventually we’ll have winter.

Nice analogy.

[RandomGuy]

Solar forcing of climate:


The Sun may have contributed as much as 66% of the observed 20th century warming, and perhaps more.

-Willie Soon


"There is a much stronger correlation with total solar irradiance (sunshine) and the temperature curve than there is for CO2 and the temperature curve."

Ah. Dishonest quote mining. Per par. Little more than a non sequitur.

[midnightpulp]

Ah. Dishonest quote mining. Per par. Little more than a non sequitur.

Soon isn't even a climate scientist

But put "Harvard educated" aside anyone's name and people will believe anything they have to say, regardless of whether or not it's their field.

[RandomGuy]

By controlling a single variable? Yes

The planet is getting hotter, and that is no longer any question, despite the lying that the pseudoscientific hack deniers have been trying to do through misleading and dishonest cherry picking of data, quote mining, and often outright lying.

You used to try and parrot the lie and say "it isn't getting hotter" or similar.

As I predicted almost a decade ago, the data would continue to pile up. Shocker, it got hotter, so much so that there is no denying it.

The propaganda machine for the fossil fuel trillions that cynically manipulated useful idiots like you who lack the critical thinking skills to see it for what it was can't change that.

So now, you are forced into the "its not CO2 trope" or "it isn't humans".

This strong of a warming trend this fast, means that whatever it is, should have a pretty clear signal. CO2 fits that part and parcel. Humans burning fuels and cutting down forest more than adequately explains the CO2.

What is your alternative explanation? Do tell.

[RandomGuy]

Soon isn't even a climate scientist

But put "Harvard educated" aside anyone's name and people will believe anything they have to say, regardless of whether or not it's their field.

One of the more dishonest propaganda tools used was a pe ion signed by "scientists" who turned out to be dieticians, and chiropractors and so forth, who had about as much expertise in the field as my left foot.

This is simply how they lie about this subject. They can't help themselves. They don't understand the science and don't seem to care that they don't understand it.

No small part of this is owed to the poisonous effects of religion. Humans can't be messing things up because God wouldn't let that happen or similar. That is yet another way in which supers ious beliefs trample reason when it comes to something that should be a scientific question.

[midnightpulp]

The planet is getting hotter, and that is no longer any question, despite the lying that the pseudoscientific hack deniers have been trying to do through misleading and dishonest cherry picking of data, quote mining, and often outright lying.

You used to try and parrot the lie and say "it isn't getting hotter" or similar.

As I predicted almost a decade ago, the data would continue to pile up. Shocker, it got hotter, so much so that there is no denying it.

The propaganda machine for the fossil fuel trillions that cynically manipulated useful idiots like you who lack the critical thinking skills to see it for what it was can't change that.

So now, you are forced into the "its not CO2 trope" or "it isn't humans".

This strong of a warming trend this fast, means that whatever it is, should have a pretty clear signal. CO2 fits that part and parcel. Humans burning fuels and cutting down forest more than adequately explains the CO2.

What is your alternative explanation? Do tell.

I'll boil it down. Conservatives are resistant to admitting the reality of AGW because doing so would cede a "victory" to those darn libruls. That's it. There's literally no logical reason to be against addressing climate change. Don't see how it's going to "destroy the economy" when new industry will emerge. Sure, many industries will see reduced profits, but the economy won't be "destroyed." And no, air travel and dairy aren't going to be banned.

[midnightpulp]

One of the more dishonest propaganda tools used was a pe ion signed by "scientists" who turned out to be dieticians, and chiropractors and so forth, who had about as much expertise in the field as my left foot.

This is simply how they lie about this subject. They can't help themselves. They don't understand the science and don't seem to care that they don't understand it.

No small part of this is owed to the poisonous effects of religion. Humans can't be messing things up because God wouldn't let that happen or similar. That is yet another way in which supers ious beliefs trample reason when it comes to something that should be a scientific question.

Well, I'd actually like them to be more biblical since God instructed us to be good stewards of his creation. You can similarly use a person's religious beliefs to motivate toward them toward the good.

https://www.creationcare.org/witness

[RandomGuy]

I'll boil it down. Conservatives are resistant to admitting the reality of AGW because doing so would cede a "victory" to those darn libruls. That's it. There's literally no logical reason to be against addressing climate change. Don't see how it's going to "destroy the economy" when new industry will emerge. Sure, many industries will see reduced profits, but the economy won't be "destroyed." And no, air travel and dairy aren't going to be banned.

My thoughts exactly. They can't admit they are wrong about ANYTHING, EVER.

When you take page from "the moon landings are faked crowds", your ideology is intellectually bankrupt.

Good critical thinking requires taking in an occasional negative feedback of contravening evidence and changing your mind.

[Chris]

How do we address climate change? By giving Al Gore more money, or should we do a universal carbon tax?

[ElNono]

How do we address climate change?

A good start is informing ourselves by more than a random Youtube video that agrees with our position due to some political cheerleading.

[RandomGuy]

How do we address climate change? By giving Al Gore more money, or should we do a universal carbon tax?

From an economic standpoint the carbon tax is the best solution. Simply impose the true cost and let the market sort out the best solution. As noted, this is what the fossil fuel companies have pushed for. They are, under everything, simply energy companies. They will figure out the rest.

[RandomGuy]

A good start is informing ourselves by more than a random Youtube video that agrees with our position due to some political cheerleading.

The amount of effort needed to blow past most bad arguments is really small in my experience. "the scientists are all in it for the money" is a prime example. As if scientists could sustain a fiction, when you have a multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel industry that would call them on it in a heartbeat if it could be proven with evidence that the scientists were making things up. It doesn't hold up to the slightest test of reasonableness.

[BD24]

Imagine being so stupid that you think 90 some odd % of scientist are in on a hoax/conspiracy

qhris

[RandomGuy]

Don't see how it's going to "destroy the economy" when new industry will emerge. Sure, many industries will see reduced profits, but the economy won't be "destroyed." And no, air travel and dairy aren't going to be banned.

You put your finger on it. The economic arguments for doing nothing, and not switching don't pan out. It won't destroy the economy, merely shift it. Let's even grant for the sake of argument, that energy bills go up an average of 5%. How much will average wages go up from the new investments and industries? If the additional economic activity increases average wages by 10%, then keeping the current system makes people worse off, not better, economic damage from climate upheaval aside.

The people screaming loudest about the harm, but glossing over the benefits are exactly the people you would think would be motivated to tell 1/2 truths, i.e. people with fossil fuel investments.

[RandomGuy]

Imagine being so stupid that you think 90 some odd % of scientist are in on a hoax/conspiracy

qhris

The problem with this is that the biggest claims to fame in science tend to go to people who upset conventional orthodoxies by getting better evidence and finding better theories. "they are in it for the research grants" is risible on its face as being completely unsupported by any statement of motive.

[Nathan89]

At least she's trying guys.