101–110 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the fact that climate change is being weaponised as an anti-capitalist vehicle by the left doesn't help persuading conservatives that it may be real/man-made/of the stated magnitude.
Conservatives: a group famous for being easily persuaded by the opposition.
Warnings of impending problems serve a real purpose even if they miss the mark. We absolutely want folks thinking about environmental responsibility, and the consequences of their choices. Unfortunately, some of the more doom and gloom predictions can send young people down the wrong path. I remember listening to 10 in 2010 and imagining that I would never make it to 40. Well here we are in 2020, and somewhere along…
Even if they change signs to read 'will melt in 2050', that's still terrifying. So I do hope they put up new data soon.
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…
==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.== This is today's argument, because nobody believes yesterday's argument that nothing was changing. This line of attack is simply the pivot. I clearly remember Ted Cruz running around the 2016 primary saying the globe was not warming [1]. The President exposed it today wh…
The scientific mind is always and should always be skeptical to absolute claims like the glaciers are melting and NY is underwater soon. The "hoax" is not with regards to the climate but with regards to those who claim the glacier is melting in 2020.
The media is the biggest perpetrator of all, fueling to this frenzy that not only makes people panic unnecessarily but also creates a situation where really really really dangerous decisions potentially will be taken.
Yes the climate is changing as it always have, no it's not something we don't know how to deal with over the next 80 years.
So lets all just chill and stop letting the media control the narrative.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fires are obviously much worse due to high temps
That could be your imagination. Australia's temperature is quite in the normal range, similar to that of 1960s. https://weatherspark.com/h/y/149434/2020/Historical-Weather-... https://weatherspark.com/h/y/149434/1960/Historical-Weather-...
2019 was Australia's hottest year on record.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You see that change in the dotted to solid line down in the end? 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.
Coincidentally, the title text of this famous xkcd: > [After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before. If you car is on fire, and inside temperature exceeded 70°C when all evidence points it never happened in the past 12 years you had the car, you can insist on measuring the past 24 hour average of interior temperature, because that's the granularity of past data, and claim that the…
If you averaged that last part of the graph like the previous measurements it wouldn't show this spike.
That's the point here. It's misleading.
That doesn't mean there isn't a change in temperature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Repeatedly telling people that the sky is falling in N years, only for it to not happen(perhaps in that time scale), doesn't help at all. I've heard some say that people need to be scared in order to convince them to do something, but clearly it hasn't worked. It just comes off as the doomsday that cried wolf.
How about telling them that Australia is on fire now? Doomsday for lots of Kangeroos and other animals, no wolves in Oz though.
I don't know about Australia, but I know that the vast majority of fires in the US are caused directly by humans. Something like 90+% of them are started artificially(not by lightning strikes or something along those lines), which is kinda sad.
But is climate change necessarily making the situation worse? How great would the Australia fires be if this was the year 2000?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/89757/people-cause-... https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/27/517100594...
Are the fires worse because of global warming? Kinda hard for me to say with certainty, but I doubt it makes that big of a difference at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
==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.== This is today's argument, because nobody believes yesterday's argument that nothing was changing. This line of attack is simply the pivot. I clearly remember Ted Cruz running around the 2016 primary saying the globe was not warming [1]. The President exposed it today wh…
The problem is that the discussion has gotten completely off the rails and become politicized to a degree that makes it impossible to discuss rationally. The scientific mind is always and should always be skeptical to absolute claims like the glaciers are melting and NY is underwater soon. The "hoax" is not with regards to the climate but with regards to those who claim the glacier is melting in 2020. The media is th…
This is the same type of false authority you claim the media to be pushing. You do not know this to be true, why would you say it?
==So lets all just chill and stop letting the media control the narrative.==
Agreed. Let's let scientists control the narrative. What do they have to say?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's really fucking clear-cut from a risk management point of view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Repeatedly telling people that the sky is falling in N years, only for it to not happen(perhaps in that time scale), doesn't help at all. I've heard some say that people need to be scared in order to convince them to do something, but clearly it hasn't worked. It just comes off as the doomsday that cried wolf.
How about telling them that Australia is on fire now? Doomsday for lots of Kangeroos and other animals, no wolves in Oz though.
Eucalyptus trees are evolved to make oil that volatizes in heat, and makes the atmosphere of entire valleys combustible in the dry season.
Australia being on fire is just Australia.