81–90 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately climate change became a political stance more than a science. It is now extremely difficult to get straight facts from both sides of this debate. Both sides feel like thy need to completely overstate and exaggerate the facts in order to create fear, urgency and hate for the other side.
There's not really 2 sides to the debate over on the science side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you seen what's going on in Australia and the Amazon right about now?
Yeah, fire because of arson? There were much bigger fires past due to lack of fire supplies. What's your point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately climate change became a political stance more than a science. It is now extremely difficult to get straight facts from both sides of this debate. Both sides feel like thy need to completely overstate and exaggerate the facts in order to create fear, urgency and hate for the other side.
There's not really 2 sides to the debate over on the science side.
As far as I can tell there is still a lot of work and debate around how much people contribute to climate change and what are the future previsions. It is important to let the ability for researcher to publish research that goes against the consensus.
I imagine this is perfect for climate change deniers. Climate change is very difficult to fight because both undershooting and overshooting your predictions can come back and hurt you.
Can we please stop this absurd idea of "climate change deniers". No one is denying that the climate is changing. It always have and it always will. The discussion is about how much, how big a problem it is, how much of it is because of us and to what extent we can/should do anything about it. That's the actual debate. Calling someone a climate change denier is a cheap and sloppy shot at trying to lump a much more com…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's not really 2 sides to the debate over on the science side.
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of s…
Back in 2004 the Pentagon predicted dooooooooooooooom by 2020: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.t... "A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the reason is to imply the sense of urgency that does exist - whether the 7000 year old glaciers melt in one decade or two, that's still a warning that the climate is warming.
Right but OC's comment still stands: state the uncertainty rather than project certainty. "Glaciers are projected to disappear between 2020 and 2030 based on current emission trends" would still be alarming.
"This glacier likely won't survive long enough for your kids/grandkids to see themselves"
Is there an investment fund that is designed to specifically invest in companies that have solid plans in place for mitigating or taking advantage of climate change, or taking short positions against industries or regions that are at risk and totally unprepared? Examples would be shorting Florida coastal real estate, shorting flood insurance, long on agricultural and real estate investments that depend on moving grow…
Rather than shorting, another option might be to buy undeveloped land that should appreciate as climate change predictions come true. For example, the land in the Canadian territories might be an option if you believe thawing will occur. Or possibly further south in the northern US.
If your model says rain patterns will change, invest in desert real estate in those areas set to get the most rain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we please stop this absurd idea of "climate change deniers". No one is denying that the climate is changing. It always have and it always will. The discussion is about how much, how big a problem it is, how much of it is because of us and to what extent we can/should do anything about it. That's the actual debate. Calling someone a climate change denier is a cheap and sloppy shot at trying to lump a much more com…
It's changing a lot, it's a big problem, it's almost entirely because of humans, and we should do everything we can. https://xkcd.com/1732/
Do you know why that is?
That's the difference between temperature averaged over thousands of years and then suddenly measuring year over year.
If you think that's a reasonable way of showing temperature changes, then I guess we have very different standards for what we consider evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's not really 2 sides to the debate over on the science side.
It's not nearly as clear-cut as one might hope. Cliff Mass, a respected University of Washington Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, is a noted 'skeptic' of the urgency of climate change, at least the anthropogenic causes thereof. I've heard of others, but he's the one that comes closest to mind.
Here's his most recent summary of his views, specifically how they apply locally: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-science-based-appro...