John Oliver and Bill Nye Show Why Cable News Climate "Debates" Are So Ridiculous

[Olikan]

when will the world start bitching at china for all the damage they are doing to the planet?

because they are working on it, unlike us that just discuss and discuss

China is spending 1/6th as much as the US on its military and investing twice as much on clean energy technology

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/12/military-climate-spending-us-china

 

[michal1980]

You are misrepresenting data to fit your preferred conclusion.

LOL. Which is what every man made global warming nutter does.

 

[michal1980]

It's different because it's not being caused by fluctuations in the suns output, orbital variations, volcanism, geophysical changes, or natural changes in bacteria or algae populations, or natural atmospheric changes.

The very same researchers whose data you sit here touting are telling you we've ruled out the natural reasons that caused changes in the past and confirmed that it's mostly our doing.

I've answered your question why this time is different.

confirmed by those that want to confirm its caused by humans.

 

[K1052]

LOL. Which is what every man made global warming nutter does.

No, it just proves you are incapable of logical thought and are going to cling to your flawed reasoning more desperately when you get called on it.

The base of your claim is that a majority of climatologists and other scientists have deliberately set out (in a conspiracy) to fabricate an interpretation of the data to suit their agenda of man influenced climate change to what end even you can't figure out (or haven't made up a reason for yet). There is a word that describes this kind of thinking.

 

[Paratus]

No, it just proves you are incapable of logical thought and are going to cling to your flawed reasoning more desperately when you get called on it.

The base of your claim is that a majority of climatologists and other scientists have deliberately set out (in a conspiracy) to fabricate an interpretation of the data to suit their agenda of man influenced climate change to what end even you can't figure out (or haven't made up a reason for yet). There is a word that describes this kind of thinking.

You're missing the beautiful part of his lunacy. He trusts their data to prove that they are lying about their data.

 

[Paratus]

confirmed by those that want to confirm its caused by humans.

Prove it.

 

[sportage]

This planet earth is very fragile people, and mr Rubio FYI. Over and over no other planet out there has been found that supports life as we know it on this earth. It's becomes obvious that had conditions not been perfect, no life would exist on our planet. Even with taking religion and creation into account, God creation would not endure if conditions were not perfect. Then consider those perfect conditions for original life and creation did not involve spewing clouds of toxins into the air and water supply. If the virgin earth had been as polluted in the beginning as today, would life so fragile even existed? Or had the ability to exist? Even with relying only on the religion factor with creation, didn't God create a perfect environment for creating life? So republicans and mr Rubio, don't mess with God and what God created. Keeping with the right wing republican angle and all. You republicans can't have it both ways. Supporting creation, God and religion yet denying the fragile connection of life and climate. But I guess Rubio's bible and beliefs end where the business bucks kick in.

 

[shira]

This line of reasoning is tantamount to saying "an asteroid killed the dinosaurs, therefore humans couldn't possibly be responsible for any extinction." Just because extinctions have happened without human involvement doesn't mean that we can't cause others. Similarly, just because the climate has changed before humans came along doesn't mean our actions couldn't impact climate change.

Or how about:

Some people lived to be 80 in 1850, even though the average life expectancy back then was 38. Therefore modern medicine and cannot possibly be a major contributor to the current average life expectancy of 80 years.

 

[Paratus]

Or how about:

Some people lived to be 80 in 1850, even though the average life expectancy back then was 38. Therefore modern medicine and cannot possibly be a major contributor to the current average life expectancy of 80 years.

A better one:

Some people were worth hundreds of millions back when the marginal tax rates were 90%. Therefore taxes don't affect wealth.

He might get that one.



Might.

 

[smackababy]

Or how about:

Some people lived to be 80 in 1850, even though the average life expectancy back then was 38. Therefore modern medicine and cannot possibly be a major contributor to the current average life expectancy of 80 years.

It has been proven the average life expectancy was drastically lower not because people died much earlier, but due to infants not surviving into childhood. Modern medicine has contributed greatly to that metric.

 

[fskimospy]

It has been proven the average life expectancy was drastically lower not because people died much earlier, but due to infants not surviving into childhood. Modern medicine has contributed greatly to that metric.

This is very true. For example, if you lived to age 20 in 1850 your life expectancy was to live until 60. That being said, the average 20 year old today should expect to live until 77. Seventeen years is still a long time.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

 

[Gunslinger08]

Climate change seems to get a 3 position argument:
1. It's real and humanity has contributed to it.
2. It's real and entirely natural.
3. It's not real.

Can someone link me to studies that support #3? Everything that I have seen (in my somewhat limited research) indicates that >90% of climate scientists say it's happening. I know that climate science has a lot of assumptions and competing models, but it's different from "the weatherman is always wrong," which is an argument I hear more frequently than you'd expect.

I think that #1 and #2 are the only reasonable positions right now, with the science that we have. Do we have a concrete way to determine whether #1 or #2 is more true? Does it actually matter what's causing it? Will anything we do at this point make a difference?

 

[smackababy]

Climate change seems to get a 3 position argument:
1. It's real and humanity has contributed to it.
2. It's real and entirely natural.
3. It's not real.

Can someone link me to studies that support #3? Everything that I have seen (in my somewhat limited research) indicates that >90% of climate scientists say it's happening. I know that climate science has a lot of assumptions and competing models, but it's different from "the weatherman is always wrong," which is an argument I hear more frequently than you'd expect.

I think that #1 and #2 are the only reasonable positions right now, with the science that we have. Do we have a concrete way to determine whether #1 or #2 is more true? Does it actually matter what's causing it? Will anything we do at this point make a difference?

I don't think anyone actually believes #3. At least, anyone of any import. I think the competing ideas are 1 and 2. There isn't really a debate over whether or not the climate is changing. It is.

And, in my non climate scientific expertise (read as none), it shouldn't be that hard to determine humans are having a significant effect. As more nations become industrialized, more CO2 is being emitted into the atmosphere, right? Shouldn't temperatures be rising faster than they were before? Even if we only take data from the time we have an accurate way of measuring it (18th century), shouldn't the furthering industrialization of places, as well as increased population, show some increasing effect?

I haven't done a ton of research, but the prediction models touted around seem always be wrong.

And, could it be that we haven't (we as in the climate of the Earth) not reached the equilibrium surface temperature yet? Couldn't that temperature be something bad for humans? And we are simply clinging to the 200 years of recorded climate data and seeing it as normal? Sure, it might suck for us if the temperatures continue to rise to a level that disrupts out current ecosystem, but the Earth doesn't give a shit.

 

[Dman8777]

The sad thing is that convincing people that we are responsible for climate change is the easy part. Even if 99% of the world believed we could do something about it, you will never get more than a tiny minority to do anything substantive. The changes that entails will only be implemented when the situation is dire.

 

[Olikan]

Climate change seems to get a 3 position argument:
1. It's real and humanity has contributed to it.
2. It's real and entirely natural.
3. It's not real.

correct answer:
4. it's real, it's natural, it's getting worst by humanity

 

[GaiaHunter]

Climate change seems to get a 3 position argument:
1. It's real and humanity has contributed to it.
2. It's real and entirely natural.
3. It's not real.

Can someone link me to studies that support #3? Everything that I have seen (in my somewhat limited research) indicates that >90% of climate scientists say it's happening. I know that climate science has a lot of assumptions and competing models, but it's different from "the weatherman is always wrong," which is an argument I hear more frequently than you'd expect.

I think that #1 and #2 are the only reasonable positions right now, with the science that we have. Do we have a concrete way to determine whether #1 or #2 is more true? Does it actually matter what's causing it? Will anything we do at this point make a difference?

100% of the Scientists, skeptics or otherwise, say climate change is real.
That was never the debate.

We had Ice ages before - of course the climate has changed since Ice Ages.

The question is if Climate change is driven by man made CO2 and if it is, by how much.

 

[ElFenix]

It has been proven the average life expectancy was drastically lower not because people died much earlier, but due to infants not surviving into childhood. Modern medicine has contributed greatly to that metric.

infants aren't people?

 

[Printer Bandit]

let's solve the climate change problem by reducing earth's population to 500 million people.

 

[thraashman]

let's solve the climate change problem by reducing earth's population to 500 million people.

I vote we keep Americans, Canadians, and Colombians. Have you seen some of these Colombian women? I don't think they make them anything other than hot.

 

[smackababy]

infants aren't people?

Sure aren't. More like parasites.

 

[peonyu]

Yea sure, "Humans are not driving climate change". So many folks in this thread parrot each other and that line like its coming into style, yet dont think for themselves or use simple logic. Yes, climate change has changed in the past yet it was often slowly and it was natural. And Yes, The planet still releases CO2 and methane in large quantities into the atmosphere to. The issue is that people are pumping gasses into the atmosphere in addition to what the planet does, that simple fact is why it is easy to see that humans are steering climate change at this point [and certainly over the long term].

Also to the folks in denial: Are we not cutting down ALL of the jungles in the world right now ? Most of the jungles are gone already and we are busy finishing off the rest of them, and often for STUPID reasons like cutting it down for charcoal [which in 20 some years those people's kids will be on TV asking for a dollar to feed them, just like Ethiopia]. We have oil rigs in the Oceans spilling oil into the Oceans in massive numbers every few years, fucking up the animals and the water itself. The idea that humans are also fucking up the atmosphere is not a question, it just IS happening and has been noticable for a long time now [since the Industrial revolution].



Here are some night time pics from NASO of mother Earth...People are absolutely in control of the planet at this point, no climate change my ass.

 

[smackababy]

^What does having lights have anything to do with controlling climate change? Is my CFL bulb running actually increasing the global average temperature?


Also, if we have such a profound difference by release more CO2 gas into the atmosphere, please point to a data source that shows the temperature is steadily rising faster than it was a thousand years ago, or 500, or 200. It shouldn't be that hard to provide data that in the 200 years we've had an accepted scale and the ability to measure temperature, that as more nations become industrialized (producing more CO2) the average temperature would be rising at a faster rate. Surely 200 years of data is enough to show something like that right?

 

[peonyu]

^What does having lights have anything to do with controlling climate change? Is my CFL bulb running actually increasing the global average temperature?


Also, if we have such a profound difference by release more CO2 gas into the atmosphere, please point to a data source that shows the temperature is steadily rising faster than it was a thousand years ago, or 500, or 200. It shouldn't be that hard to provide data that in the 200 years we've had an accepted scale and the ability to measure temperature, that as more nations become industrialized (producing more CO2) the average temperature would be rising at a faster rate. Surely 200 years of data is enough to show something like that right?

Where does the power come from for those lights ? The same place that the power comes from that powers your AC, and your Computer - Usually coal or fossil fuels [hello CO2!] that power the Power plant. All those lights you see on the planet also have millions of people buzzing around in cars adding CO2 and other pollutants to the atmosphere, not to mention fires/airplanes/cooking fumes from restaurants etc etc etc. If you add that up day after day and night after night, you can see why people are effecting the climate.

 

[smackababy]

Where does the power come from for those lights ? The same place that the power comes from that powers your AC, and your Computer - Usually coal or fossil fuels [hello CO2!] that power the Power plant. All those lights you see on the planet also have millions of people buzzing around in cars adding CO2 and other pollutants to the atmosphere, not to mention fires/airplanes/cooking fumes from restaurants etc etc etc. If you add that up day after day and night after night, you can see why people are effecting the climate.

And, the pictures of the lights have zero to do with anything. If they were all powered by magic fairy dust that was so green it was an entirely new color of smugness, the picture of all the lights would be exactly the same.

You saying "look how much power these people are using! that is proof we are causing global warming" is incredibly stupid.

 

[peonyu]

And, the pictures of the lights have zero to do with anything. If they were all powered by magic fairy dust that was so green it was an entirely new color of smugness, the picture of all the lights would be exactly the same.

You saying "look how much power these people are using! that is proof we are causing global warming" is incredibly stupid.

It has everything to do with it, it shows the magnitude of human activity and presence on the planet. Reading this thread from start to finish you would think every town and city is surrounded by sherwin forests every which direction for hundreds of miles...Thats as true as saying people have little impact. We have a huge impact since we are almost everywhere on the planet. If you can look at a Nasa sattelite image and have a difficult time finding a piece of land with NO human activity at all in the USA [3+million square miles of land] then our presence is immense. Denying that is as you say "incredibly stupid".