- Feb 4, 2009
- 34,611
- 15,810
- 136
Or are we waiting for 100% of the experts plus that shirtless guy in those YouTube videos to all agree?
EPA chief on Irma: The time to talk climate change isn't now
I honestly didn't see this fake news article before I posted this thread.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/scott-pruitt-hurricanes-climate-change-interview/index.html
Gotta love how the term "climate deniers" means everyone who doesn't agree that the climate first began to change with the Industrial Revolution.Maybe a nice soaking will sober up climate deniers.
Gotta love how the term "climate deniers" means everyone who doesn't agree that the climate first began to change with the Industrial Revolution.
Gotta love how the term "climate deniers" means everyone who doesn't agree that the climate first began to change with the Industrial Revolution.
Gotta love how the term "climate deniers" means everyone who doesn't agree that the climate first began to change with the Industrial Revolution.
That's not the arguement and I don't think anyone (hell im sure they exist but still) says that. Both sides agree that climate changes, even those on the right - although they are really quick to point out when it's cold outside. The arguement is whether or not humans exacerbated the natural climate change cycles making what took place over hundreds of thousands of years change in hundreds.
Nice strawman argument.Gotta love how the term "climate deniers" means everyone who doesn't agree that the climate first began to change with the Industrial Revolution.
Or are we waiting for 100% of the experts plus that shirtless guy in those YouTube videos to all agree?
I pretty much agree with you but I do want to take a moment to point out a subtle bias in your wording. It's a bias deniers latch onto.
When you say humans may have exacerbated natural cycles the bias inherent in that statement is humans only have to capability to push the climate in the same direction it was already going.
It cuts off the discussion that humans may be forcing the climate to move in a direction opposite of the way the natural cycles would have it going.
Climate skeptics latch onto that argument and say sure humans have an "effect" but the warming is really being driven by the natural cycles.
In reality current natural forcings are basically neutral and all warming is being driven by human activity. Enough so that it's likely we've pushed off the next ice age.
Where are we currently in the natural cycle (Milankovitch cycle)? The warmest point of the last cycle was around 10,000 years ago, at the peak of the Holocene. Since then, there has been an overall cooling trend, consistent with a continuation of the natural cycle, and this cooling would continue for thousands of years into the future if all else remained the same. But since 1750 however, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has deviated from the natural cycle. Instead of decreasing, it has increased because of the fossil-fuel burning. Methane and nitrous oxide have also increased unnaturally because of agricultural practices and other factors. The world has also warmed unnaturally. We are now deviating from the natural cycle.
OR stay off the coast of Florida & Texas, two peas in a PodMelting glacial ice and rising sea water temps all mean that you need to turn the temperature dial down a little bit on the ac and fridge, get another beer and go back to watching nascar on your big screen tv. Nothing to see here folks now move along. Say aren't those swimming polar bears kind of cute.
I'm in Jax and have to replace the head gasket on the generator today so I'll have a working unit for this weekend's main event.OR stay off the coast of Florida & Texas, two peas in a Pod
Gotta love how the term "climate deniers" means everyone who doesn't agree that the climate first began to change with the Industrial Revolution.
No because it is a liberal hoax.
Werepossum is trolling the fuck out of you guys.
No because it is aliberalChinese hoax.
Werepossum is trolling the fuck out of you guys.
Just like with gun laws when an incident occurs that may be related to lax gun laws/climate change during or immediately after the incident it's not time to talk about it because people are suffering. Once the incident has passed it's not time to talk about it because things are fine and there's nothing to talk about. The point is to find a way to never discuss these things.
So what did you want to talk about? The science behind it? Solutions? Politics and policy?
You all want to crow as this is the first year since 2005 with major impacts. That time span does not work to your advantage. More 12 year droughts please.