171–180 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you mention a single scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change we dont know how to handle with todays technology let alone in 50 years time? I am not talking about speculated but demonstrates. Thats what they mean.
When flat-out denial slowly morphs into "maybe it isn't a huge deal", one must question if that is actually what they mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When flat-out denial slowly morphs into "maybe it isn't a huge deal", one must question if that is actually what they mean.
So mind reading is your argument?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oddly I think it’s you who have fallen pray to propaganda. (Ps calling her mentally ill when she is clearly not does nothing for your position)
Here, educate yourself: > Four years ago, she was diagnosed with Asperger’s, on the autism spectrum https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/23/greta-... Just watching any of her public speeches makes obvious that she is a poor ill person. And as they say, whenever the government wants to make some especially heinous laws, they use children. It's especially disgusting to see the media use a mentally ill chi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. The Supreme Court has two very memorable recent decisions that cause us to question the viability of our (2 party) democracy. 1) Bush v. Gore 2000: only time the court ever issued a decision, knowing that it was totally vaporous, and said this should not be used as future precedent. The entire point of the court is to set precedent. 2) Citizens United: continuing the notion that companies deserve as much protect…
You understand that a contrary ruling on Citizens United would also allow the government to shut down numerous organizations advocating for addressing climate change? If the government can ban a political movie about Hilary Clinton (which is what was at issue in Citizens United), it can ban a political movie about Trump’s effect on climate change.
You’re being disingenuous to say the least.
Edit: btw I am not a lawyer, and so this is of course my lay persons opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The official position of organizations like Heritage Foundation is not to deny that climate change is happening Not now , but the official position of, say, the Heritage Foundation has always been the most do-nothing position that they might hope much of the public would accept . As the evidence mounts they have to back off a bit. Let's take a quick trip back in time: Heritage Foundation in 2010: https://www.herita…
Regarding your earlier citations, the consensus for anthropogenic climate change is much more recent than you seem to assume. The IPCC was not formed until 1988. Even as of the 1995 report, the conclusions regarding the anthropogenic nature of observed warming was tepid: > An introductory preface to the SAR written by IPCC chairman Bolin and his co-chairs John T. Houghton and L. Gylvan Meira Filho highlighted "that o…
https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientif...
Or the "Climate Change Realities" section from this 2013 article [1]. Let me quote a sentence from it:
> Although there is a near unanimous consensus that the earth has warmed, no consensus exists regarding climate sensitivity, the role CO2 plays with respect to climate change, whether global warming is a problem or a benefit, or how current temperatures fit into the broader climate context.
No consensus on the role of CO2, or whether global warming is a problem or benefit... Words fail me.
[1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/congress-should-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Their position is, basically, the potential risks of climate change are overstated and extreme solutions are not worth the cost." Stating that the risk of climate change is overstated is denying the risk of climate change. I don't see how you can interpret it any differently. In your own words they are denying the risk of climate change. Saying that climate change is happening, but that it is not a risk, is the same…
> Stating that the risk of climate change is overstated is denying the risk of climate change. So you classify any form of dissent as "denying"?
1. The earth is warming rapidly.
2. Human CO2 emissions are a primary cause.
3. There will be very significant impacts across the world this century if we don't take serious action. The lives of hundreds of millions of people (if not more) will be radically altered.
4. We have the ability and responsibility to take action and significantly reduce and mitigate future damage.
These points seem pretty non-negotiable to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Stating that the risk of climate change is overstated is denying the risk of climate change. So you classify any form of dissent as "denying"?
The basic facts are: 1. The earth is warming rapidly. 2. Human CO2 emissions are a primary cause. 3. There will be very significant impacts across the world this century if we don't take serious action. The lives of hundreds of millions of people (if not more) will be radically altered. 4. We have the ability and responsibility to take action and significantly reduce and mitigate future damage. These points seem pret…
Having said that, Freeman Dyson also seems to share this opinion, and I think it carries some weight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs. Another article also says the same: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-clim...
The later link also highlights an important aspect from IPCC's report: "In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. (Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2.)]"
Whatever I know about modeling and Lorenz's theories, I do think long-term climate predication is impossible given our current models. Is that denial? Certainly not, and I am open to change my mind as models become more accurate and more data is avaiable.
Till then I would not want my wallet to be lighter in the name of carbon taxes, please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The basic facts are: 1. The earth is warming rapidly. 2. Human CO2 emissions are a primary cause. 3. There will be very significant impacts across the world this century if we don't take serious action. The lives of hundreds of millions of people (if not more) will be radically altered. 4. We have the ability and responsibility to take action and significantly reduce and mitigate future damage. These points seem pret…
(3) is certainly debatable. If you read the actual contents of the IPCC forecasts it doesn't seem anything close to the end of the world. We're not turning the planet into Venus and we're not going to have to abandon Manhattan. Given a realistic climate change cost assessment, the >90 trillion dollar proposals like the Green New Deal can certainly come out looking like a bad deal.
We can also look at the more modest predictions of a 2 to 3 foot sea-level increase. That would still throw the lives of dozens of millions of people into complete chaos. Not to mention the disruption to the economic systems in these coastal areas, and those that flow through those areas.
And this isn't even discussing the actual temperature increases, agricultural issues, floods / droughts, and so on.