• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Scientist Predicts Mini Ice Age in next few decades...

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Well your posts are very confusing. You seem to have an issue with with taking drastic action on climate change, which no one in this thread, as far as I'm aware, has actually recommended.
I have no issue with Believers taking drastic action in their personal lives to combat climate change, in fact, I expect it, else they're just hypocrites running their mouths. No one has recommended it? We're talking about coastal cities/peoples being underwater, famine, WWIII, and every other calamity that could even remotely be possibly attributed to Climate Change, what other cause could be more important to a Believer than taking any and all steps possible to mitigate what we've already done to the climate? I mean, the science is settled, right? If Believers believe the science is settled, there is no point debating it, action needs to be taken. Since countries take decades to actually do anything (what they'll actually do in Reality that is), it is not a rational decision to leave the action up to countries. Each and every molecule extra of CO2 must be considered unacceptable. Therefore the action Believers must take is clear, and that is drastically reducing their CO2 impact so as to reduce the impact of Climate Change. Right?

You deride anyone who understands or follows mainstream climate science as a "believer". Yet you claim to be one too.
No no, I deride Believers because they lap up each and every peer reviewed science article as absolute Reality, despite those being wrong time and time again. Lap up each and every prediction, despite those being wrong time and time again (unless they're so general they're next to meaningless). Scream that 'the science is settled' when the science can't even get next weeks temperature right, and on top of all this, despite their Belief, they can't even apply their Belief to their actual lives. It doesn't matter what I believe, it matters what they Believe. They themselves have professed 'the science is settled', and then deride anyone who doesn't lockstep in with whatever climate agenda their pet advocate is throwing out there. I simply want these Believers to actually believe. If they do, they will modify their lives to be drastically less CO2 impacting.

It sort of feels like you think climate change is a problem but one that requires reasonable action that balances risks, and costs and benefits. Something I agree with.
I believe our climate is changing. That's what the data says. (Changing to what? 30 year trends don't tell us much other than what's happening over 30 years. Trusting data from the 1850's? Yeah...I don't. We need 100 years of credible data, 200 years. We need models that actually can be fed accurate historical data and puke out what's happening today, accurately.) I believe we've had some kind of impact to what the climate would be if we were still apes. To what degree? We can't reliably say. You couch 'reasonable action' with balances risks, costs, and benefits. That's great. The Risk is massive. It's so massive according to Believers that simply any and all costs vs. all but the most severe risk to benefits would be advocated: They'd have to be, given the Risk(s) the Believers 'science is settled' believe in. Reasonable action for a Believer, in light of how glacially slow countries move, is to hope their numbers are in the tens, hundreds of Millions, or Billions, and drastically reduce their CO2 impact given their Belief (which given that Belief, means you need to buy into their Risk(s)...again, so massive, they necessitate any and all actions they can personally take). Any yet, I see a Believer friend is taking a Spring Break in FL. Flying on down. How is that possible if they Believe? How can that massive and needless support of CO2 consumption for the flight alone be justified if they actually Believe? It can't. Scapegoat excuses would need to be employed, like, 'Oh, my personal consumption doesn't matter, only countries can solve this'. BS. That's what Believers say so they don't have to feel the pain of their beliefs.

It's hard to tell because you smear your posts with a coating of conservative denier BS like you're concerned you might be called a liberal if you stated your position plainly.

It is ok to base your beliefs on reality. Old school conservatives used to cite that as a virtue you know. ;)
I do base my beliefs on reality. So far we're barely warming after massive amounts of CO2 output, something in the 1st world technology is going to take care of in the next 2-3 decades (and something we could take care of quicker if we could get the enviro's to get us some new Gen nuke plants built out). In the 3rd world, as long as they're not accelerated needlessly into the 1st world living status, it won't matter as our 1st world will trickle down to them. We don't need massive solutions to a barely impacting us problem. And if we do, then Believers really need to get busy actually believing, and taking personal action. Sorry, I don't see the vast bulk of Believers taking that personal action (or taking it to near the degree they should be). That tells me either their whining is BS or that they do Believe, but are complete hypocrites. When I see vast amounts of Believers actually taking real action in their own lives, then maybe I'll take them a little more seriously.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,499
3,004
126
I have no issue with Believers taking drastic action...
They aim to pass laws to do just that. You are ignoring the reality of the situation. They move to take action, it is YOU and I who stand in their way.

No no, I deride Believers because they lap up each and every...
Partisan politics cannot help it, on both sides.

I like to buy into the opposition but they frequently fall short. At this point if they don't seriously tear apart GISS as fraud with systemic errors, if they let the surface record stand without a thorough scientific contest... then we have nothing.

Details are in dispute, radicals make exaggerated claims, but the core argument / science of the topic is holding firm.

I believe our climate is changing. That's what the data says. (Changing to what?
You know damn well what the claims are, and what the data says.
And yes, I too hold out hope that the quality of data is too poor, that the time frame is too short, but if that were true there'd be some sign that its cyclical. Some pause or even cooling to counter the warming effect.

Every Single Data Point says global warming... sans Satellite. Sounds more like an error in what to expect or how to measure the mid-upper troposphere than any change in the reality of the overall situation.

I do base my beliefs on reality. So far we're barely warming...
You made a false claim that we gained 0.1c in 50 years. You continue to say we've barely warmed but that's just not true. And further more what has been experienced is just the beginning. As China + Globe continues to increase the rate of warming you can expect the next degree to come sooner. You can expect the stability of the ice sheets to deteriorate as they were meant to be stable at an even lower temp.

Look at the projection Paratus shares for rising sea and those refugees.
That's quite a serious issue.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,162
146
They aim to pass laws to do just that. You are ignoring the reality of the situation. They move to take action, it is YOU and I who stand in their way.



Partisan politics cannot help it, on both sides.

I like to buy into the opposition but they frequently fall short. At this point if they don't seriously tear apart GISS as fraud with systemic errors, if they let the surface record stand without a thorough scientific contest... then we have nothing.

Details are in dispute, radicals make exaggerated claims, but the core argument / science of the topic is holding firm.



You know damn well what the claims are, and what the data says.
And yes, I too hold out hope that the quality of data is too poor, that the time frame is too short, but if that were true there'd be some sign that its cyclical. Some pause or even cooling to counter the warming effect.

Every Single Data Point says global warming... sans Satellite. Sounds more like an error in what to expect or how to measure the mid-upper troposphere than any change in the reality of the overall situation.



You made a false claim that we gained 0.1c in 50 years. You continue to say we've barely warmed but that's just not true. And further more what has been experienced is just the beginning. As China + Globe continues to increase the rate of warming you can expect the next degree to come sooner. You can expect the stability of the ice sheets to deteriorate as they were meant to be stable at an even lower temp.

Look at the projection Paratus shares for rising sea and those refugees.
That's quite a serious issue.
Wow that's well said Jasklas.

Have you seen the latest Feb temperature data? It's not good.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-feb-2016-0-83-deg-c-new-record/



Satellite shows a record .83C jump from last year and .3C jump from January.

This was also reflected in the surface temperatures. Parts of the Artic were 29F higher than normal. (Above freezing during the coldest time of the year)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY