171–180 of 205 posts
Well, that's evil? It's deliberate so it can't be stupid. What else is there to say.
They're not stupid. They're evil. We can't rely on them failing because they're stupid, we need to fight against them because they're evil.
Malignant/Malicious/Malevolent yes -- absolutely; not evil -- not yet.
The study questioned whether heat records are truly increasing and whether extreme weather is worsening. I thought we were past that. I thought that it was now about questioning whether it was human caused, or the size of the impact. Apparently we really are going back, and revisiting basic arithmetic.
Are storms getting worse? No. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ace-north-atlantic-hurric...
Is drought getting worse? No. https://www.drought.gov/historical-information?dataset=1&sel...
For people who don't Fucking Love Science!™ and think climatologists are corrupted by profit, what's the killer argument that weather is getting more extreme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't want to trust the priests, fine. Go do the work yourself. Or take no position at all. Actively rejecting the work of scientists based solely on ideology, that is religion, in the worst sense of the word. They're not heretics. They're just liars.
You could replace the word “scientist” with “priest” in your post and it would be no different. Rejecting or accepting based on ideology is wrong. And given we lack the technical ability to fully understand global warming, there is no objective truth here.
I think all the stuff in the above sentence is objectively true and observable.
The study questioned whether heat records are truly increasing and whether extreme weather is worsening. I thought we were past that. I thought that it was now about questioning whether it was human caused, or the size of the impact. Apparently we really are going back, and revisiting basic arithmetic.
Ironically climate will also rewrite the US and the rest of the world in return. More so that we are losing several important years because the US as a big contributor is now governed by complete climate deniers. Currently having the hottest summer so far, but coolest summer we will see at the same time is something I hoped to never experience.
I’m not sure the US matters as much as other economies. And our emissions peaked around 2005 and continues to decline. We will still continue to reduce emissions in the next few years because old energy sources just are losing economic viability. The US is just choosing to make a huge mistake and not participate in growth markets like clean energy, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s not get carried away with hubris. Nature wrote our genes. Nature made us the way we are. All this nonsense you see going on is ultimately a result of cognitive biased thinking, especially confirmation bias. The fact that we differ so deeply from these biases was not our decision, it was thrust upon us by nature and it helped us survive in an environment very different from the one we found ourselves in now.
However those biases are supposed to favour our survival and, more importantly our children's survival. That's how we got this far. It says something when we act against that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP is talking about people who reject climate change. If you know many, youll likely note most do not deny climate change but instead deny that it is man made, which is an easier delusion to maintain.
It depends on which subset we're talking about though. Some are quite well educated and (IME) lately have taken the position that sure, it's happening and sure, it's human caused but that mitigation is far too expensive and economically disruptive to justify. Thus that we should simply let things run their course and deal with any fallout as necessary.
If they think mitigation is bad for the economy, why would the uncontrolled fallout be any better?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s not get carried away with hubris. Nature wrote our genes. Nature made us the way we are. All this nonsense you see going on is ultimately a result of cognitive biased thinking, especially confirmation bias. The fact that we differ so deeply from these biases was not our decision, it was thrust upon us by nature and it helped us survive in an environment very different from the one we found ourselves in now.
You're getting downvoted, but you have pointed to a possibly important factor. We're intelligent, but definitely have primate intelligence, and we're closest to the murderous bastards known as chimpanzees. That said, nothing about this has been inevitable. So many accidents along the way. There are many other results that have been possible. Our social/political setting may be related with technology but it's wholly…
So what are the broad strokes of humanity that could have reasonably been foreseen? A trend towards greater societal social complexity, increased resource consumption, increased energy use, economic efficiency, and wealth concentration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on which subset we're talking about though. Some are quite well educated and (IME) lately have taken the position that sure, it's happening and sure, it's human caused but that mitigation is far too expensive and economically disruptive to justify. Thus that we should simply let things run their course and deal with any fallout as necessary.
.. "as long as that fallout doesn't affect us." might be the unspoken corollary. If they think mitigation is bad for the economy, why would the uncontrolled fallout be any better?
See how easily these people switch from "Nothing is happening" to "Oops it's too late to do anything."
The study questioned whether heat records are truly increasing and whether extreme weather is worsening. I thought we were past that. I thought that it was now about questioning whether it was human caused, or the size of the impact. Apparently we really are going back, and revisiting basic arithmetic.