• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is now the time to talk about climate change

Fanatical Meat said:
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
Click to expand...

Currently the EPA is running all grants past a Public Realtions guy who is a political appointee. Part of what he screens for is the "CC" word.

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-past-a-political-appointee-in-its-pr-office/

6160029-Blue-Box-of-Tissues-on-White-Background-Stock-Photo-tissue-box-kleenex.jpg

The tissues are to cry in for allowing a PR guy to determine what science gets funded.

The tissues are to do "other things" in for allowing a PR guy to determine what science gets funded.
 
werepossum said:
Gotta love how the term "climate deniers" means everyone who doesn't agree that the climate first began to change with the Industrial Revolution.
Click to expand...

I can see why you are confused.

A climate change denier is someone who denies the evidence and theory that human activities effect the climate and the bulk of warming over the past several decades is due to these activities.


Nobody disagrees that climate changed before during and after the industrial revolution.
 
werepossum said:
Gotta love how the term "climate deniers" means everyone who doesn't agree that the climate first began to change with the Industrial Revolution.
Click to expand...


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.
 
UglyCasanova said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paratus said:
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.
Click to expand...


Admittedly I know little about the details of all of this, I thought we were on the upswing of the cycle. It looks like the opposite might actually be true:

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle

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.
Click to expand...
 
Melting 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.😱
 
Puffnstuff said:
Melting 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.😱
Click to expand...
OR stay off the coast of Florida & Texas, two peas in a Pod 😉
 
werepossum said:
Gotta love how the term "climate deniers" means everyone who doesn't agree that the climate first began to change with the Industrial Revolution.
Click to expand...

Worst case : It is all us, we are bringing about the end of our species, we are choking mankind off of this planet.

Best case : It is not us. Climate will still change and we get choked off this planet anyway.

Now place your bets.
You could argue that if its the best case scenario then you should not be going all in on EWs and solar panels just yet. True, yet for the time being this is the best bet we have until new science backs up another scenario, we need NASA, ESA etc to continue monitoring the situation and put science towards climate engineering if push really comes to shove.
Being a climate change sceptic is like flipping a coin, heads we live, tails we die. Sorry I want better odds than that thank you.

How come we devise plans to nuke asteroids should need arise but climate change we should "meh" about?
 
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.
 
dank69 said:
No because it is a liberal hoax.

Werepossum is trolling the fuck out of you guys.
Click to expand...

Yes, anyone who thinks werepossum was making an attempt to honestly describe what people who accept climate change science are arguing has clearly not read anything he's posted.

It looks like it might be time to add another rung to the ladder of climate change denial though, now they seem to have retreated to 'okay climate change might be real and man caused but liberals take it way too far and conservatives are the victims of persecution.'
 
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

You sir figured out what this thread is about!
 
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.
 
Paratus said:
So what did you want to talk about? The science behind it? Solutions? Politics and policy?
Click to expand...

There is not much point of us talking about the science. The basics are pretty well accepted by the scientific community, and the real points of discussion are extremely complex and basically requires an advanced degree in math and access to a computing cluster to even discuss, and only make a difference in how long it is going to take before we are all treading water.

Solutions are what we need to discuss, and those solutions are going to require politics and policy changes. Those two issues are really the same issue, and what we should all be discussing as an international community.
 
Jaskalas said:
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.
Click to expand...

Climate change causes changes in weather patterns. Sometimes that is stronger and more frequent hurricanes and tropical storms, sometimes that is longer and harder droughts, sometimes that is colder winters, sometimes that is warmer winters and colder summers. The specific changes for any given year and any given place is hard to predict, but the overall world climate is getting warmer, and that is powering more extreme weather overall, and that is becoming obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top