Did we miss this? 2014 was the warmest year on record

[MongGrel]

The fact after all these years people haven't learned the difference between climate change and global warming is a bit glum it it's own right.

 

[rudeguy]

Climate change is not up to one person to attempt to reduce the negative impact. I understand what you're trying to do and it's fuckin stupid.

Asking for specific details is stupid? I was hoping to find some common things we could agree on but instead it's more of the same.

 

[OverVolt]

Thank god that means a low chance of 2015 also being the warmest. Can't wait for next year so I don't have to hear this shit.

The best model for our climate is "no trend" so whatever.

 

[Moonbeam]

Anybody really interested in why people can't come to grips with climate change might be interested in this:

http://www.kqed.org/a/radiospecials/R201502120200

 

[bshole]

I can still remember how I excited I was when mankind figured out how to measure temperature. In 1970.

It is kind of amusing how he chose 1970 as the starting point so he wouldn't have to include the cooling trend of the decades preceding 1970.

 

[PokerGuy]

right cause polluting the air, waters, land, etc is really, really, really, long term fiscally sound. You f*cking bafoon.

Can you point to where I (or anyone else for that matter) posted in support of pollution?

The thread is about the warmest year in a while. Alarmist drivel, with the usual lack of solutions other than the tried and true "give your money and/or more power to liberals, they'll fix it". Sorry, not buying it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Worst case scenario: what if we make the world a better place for nothing?

Does that "making the world a better place" come for free? No cost at all involved? Awesome! How could anyone be opposed to that?

Another idiot who thinks it's a binary choice between "clean up the world" vs "destroy the environment and doom us all!". There's this little thing called "reality" that is more complex than such a stupid simplification.

 

[rudeguy]

Does that "making the world a better place" come for free? No cost at all involved? Awesome! How could anyone be opposed to that?

Another idiot who thinks it's a binary choice between "clean up the world" vs "destroy the environment and doom us all!". There's this little thing called "reality" that is more complex than such a stupid simplification.

And when kindly asked to clarify, he attacks.

This is why I don't pay attention to the global warming clan.

 

[michal1980]

Nah. It's true. Climate change deniers are akin to holocaust deniers.

Worst case scenario: what if we make the world a better place for nothing?

Please show us these magical free technologies that make everything better.

 

[michal1980]

nm

 

[cbrunny]

Please show us these magical free technologies that make everything better.

If you think it's only worth doing if it is free then id expect you to be living your life for free. Cardboard box. Extreme poverty. That sort of thing. Why should this not cost money, and why is it that we can spend billions on other things that are great - gotta have a ps4 right?! - but we can't spend money developing new technologies that improve or seek to improve the environment?

 

[PokerGuy]

If you think it's only worth doing if it is free then id expect you to be living your life for free.

No you idiot, that's a stupid strawman. Nobody has argued that things are only worth doing if they are free. You (and other similar idiots) make the absurd point that "at worst" we make the world a better place! That simply has no basis in reality. There are hard complex choices to be made and resources are finite. Options have to be evaluated based on their merits, not just because "we have to do something!".

I'm perfectly open to discussions about options, choices, relative merit of different approaches and so forth. I'm not, however, open to the alarmist drivel "we have to do something, anything, to fix it!".

Why should this not cost money, and why is it that we can spend billions on other things that are great - gotta have a ps4 right?! - but we can't spend money developing new technologies that improve or seek to improve the environment?

Not platitudes, lets hear specifically what "new technologies" you're talking about, what their actual benefit is versus what the actual cost is, who is going to pay for it (and how), how you measure the benefit and so forth. That would be a rational discussion.

 

[michal1980]

If you think it's only worth doing if it is free then id expect you to be living your life for free. Cardboard box. Extreme poverty. That sort of thing. Why should this not cost money, and why is it that we can spend billions on other things that are great - gotta have a ps4 right?! - but we can't spend money developing new technologies that improve or seek to improve the environment?

using your strawman line of thinking.

if we kill all humans, global warming will be solved. So why not do that?

 

[glenn1]

No you idiot, that's a stupid strawman. Nobody has argued that things are only worth doing if they are free. You (and other similar idiots) make the absurd point that "at worst" we make the world a better place! That simply has no basis in reality. There are hard complex choices to be made and resources are finite. Options have to be evaluated based on their merits, not just because "we have to do something!".

I'm perfectly open to discussions about options, choices, relative merit of different approaches and so forth. I'm not, however, open to the alarmist drivel "we have to do something, anything, to fix it!".

Not platitudes, lets hear specifically what "new technologies" you're talking about, what their actual benefit is versus what the actual cost is, who is going to pay for it (and how), how you measure the benefit and so forth. That would be a rational discussion.

I have the solution right here but the people like cbrunny and eskimospy don't like it. As always it becomes a "collective action" problem when they're asked to sacrifice instead of someone else. They want solutions, but only the ones where they get to control things.

 

[PokerGuy]

I have the solution right here but the people like cbrunny and eskimospy don't like it. As always it becomes a "collective action" problem when they're asked to sacrifice instead of someone else. They want solutions, but only the ones where they get to control things.

That's the unspoken reality of course. It's like the guy asking for money on the side of the road with the sign "will work for food". He doesn't actually want food or work, he wants money. They don't want to talk about actual solutions, they want money and power/control.

 

[Jaskalas]

A visual representation of the margin of error.

 

[rudeguy]

using your strawman line of thinking.

if we kill all humans, global warming will be solved. So why not do that?

Worst case scenario: what if we make the world a better place for nothing?

 

[fskimospy]

I have the solution right here but the people like cbrunny and eskimospy don't like it. As always it becomes a "collective action" problem when they're asked to sacrifice instead of someone else. They want solutions, but only the ones where they get to control things.

Because ignoring that something is a collective action problem doesn't make it not one.

You are just trying to find ways to battle your perceived political enemies as opposed to solving the problem. Why you're proud of this is beyond me.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Easy peasy.

Just add a negative sign in front of whatever 'increase' the Liberal Death Squad Climate Panels spew out.

2°F? Make that a -2°F!!

See, them dang dern Liberals can cook up numbers, well, soz kin we!

 

[cbrunny]

The problem with asking me what the solution is is that I have no fuckin idea what the solution is. I make no illusion of that. This is why people say "let's do anything" - because no normal people are environmental engineers or scientists. My understanding of climate change pales in comparison to what is necessary to do something productive. The difference between you and I is that I'm willing to accept the consensus or near consensus opinions of the relevant scientific community. They are experts. I am not an expert.

 

[dphantom]

The problem with asking me what the solution is is that I have no fuckin idea what the solution is. I make no illusion of that. This is why people say "let's do anything" - because no normal people are environmental engineers or scientists. My understanding of climate change pales in comparison to what is necessary to do something productive. The difference between you and I is that I'm willing to accept the consensus or near consensus opinions of the relevant scientific community. They are experts. I am not an expert.

Ah, "so I have nothing constructive to add so I am going to hide behind what I have been told is the majority scientific opinion". That is your position it appears.

In actuality, better than 97% of all scientists and others engaged in climate study do in fact agree the climate is changing, that there has been a warming trend since the end of the LIA and that man has some affect on the warming due to release of CO2 and other GHGs.

All of whom you may consider "deniers", including me, that I follow via their published papers and blogs if any, ALL support some man effect on warming. ALL

So where do we go from here?

 

[rudeguy]

The problem with asking me what the solution is is that I have no fuckin idea what the solution is. I make no illusion of that. This is why people say "let's do anything" - because no normal people are environmental engineers or scientists. My understanding of climate change pales in comparison to what is necessary to do something productive. The difference between you and I is that I'm willing to accept the consensus or near consensus opinions of the relevant scientific community. They are experts. I am not an expert.

Then why not say that you are ignorant instead of attacking me for asking your opinion?

You are seriously the reason so many people refuse to even consider listening to anyone about global warming. Ignorance and hatred will not help your cause.

 

[CPA]

No.

So, in 40 years it was up 1 degree fahrenheit? Yawnnnnn.....

 

[PokerGuy]

The problem with asking me what the solution is is that I have no f*ckin idea what the solution is. I make no illusion of that. This is why people say "let's do anything" - because no normal people are environmental engineers or scientists. My understanding of climate change pales in comparison to what is necessary to do something productive.

I'm not sure who you're directing your comment to, but I've never claimed to be an environmental engineer or scientist. Nor does someone have to be an environmental engineer or scientist to come up with policies / plans / ideas / approaches. Rarely do policies actually get made by the real experts in the field. Policymakers need to rely on the expertise of those people, and incorporate their expertise into the decision making process.

"Lets do anything" is in fact the dumbest approach, because you could be making things worse, or you could be wasting tons of resources with no real benefit. Even "do nothing because I don't know what to do" is better than "just do anything".

The real answer is to evaluate options and approaches based on their merit (cost benefit analysis), not based on some alarmist "we must do anything!" criteria.

The difference between you and I is that I'm willing to accept the consensus or near consensus opinions of the relevant scientific community. They are experts. I am not an expert.

Again, I'm not sure who that's directed towards, but I have no problem accepting opinions of the scientific community, but that is not the same as accepting economic/political/control agendas attached to the global warming alarmist movement.

 

[PokerGuy]

All of whom you may consider "deniers", including me, that I follow via their published papers and blogs if any, ALL support some man effect on warming. ALL

So where do we go from here?

That's really the crux of the problem. The connection between actual science and the political policies and agendas that are connected to it. I don't have any problem with the science or the scientists, but I do have a problem with the hijacking of what should be a scientific discussion by people with their own economic/political control agendas.

So you get what we have now. Idiots flailing around that "we must do something, anything, right now!!", and others who simply refuse to believe that mankind is incapable of affecting the planet as a whole. Both of those positions are stupid.