What will it take to convince you of climate change?

[kevin 714]

Climate changes plenty. Problem is this time WE are changing it, and our whole way of life is based on existing weather patterns

 

[byke]

Not to nitpick, but we are *influencing* an existing change.

 

[Gabe]

Climate changes from the moment earth was born. Do we contribute to it? To some degree, yes. But to run around screaming it's all our fault is retarded.

Almost as retarded as ignoring a massive body of evidence because it doesn't match your political world view? That kind of retarded? Or somehow even more retarded? Because that's pretty retarded.

 

[redruM]

Oh yeah, "Climate change": the rebranding of "global warming"

10 years ago, Al Gore - along with that whole political propaganda platoon - exclaimed "unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” He said we were in “a true planetary emergency.”

:| mmkay.

The better question is: "what will it take to convince you that blind faith in everything/anything authorities tell you is dangerous"?

 

[Gabe]

Oh yeah, "Climate change": the rebranding of "global warming"

10 years ago, Al Gore - along with that whole political propaganda platoon - exclaimed "unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” He said we were in “a true planetary emergency.”

:| mmkay.

The better question is: "what will it take to convince you that blind faith in everything/anything authorities tell you is dangerous"?

So the icecaps melting, 5 years of drought, summer in February, pacific islands disappearing isn't an emergency? So what is?

 

[Bay Arean]

Oh yeah, "Climate change": the rebranding of "global warming"

10 years ago, Al Gore - along with that whole political propaganda platoon - exclaimed "unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” He said we were in “a true planetary emergency.”

:| mmkay.

The better question is: "what will it take to convince you that blind faith in everything/anything authorities tell you is dangerous"?

Since I am old enough to remember the global cooling scare of the 1970s, it is a bit hard for me to jump wholeheartedly into believing it. Also, the fact that Al Gore is a carbon credits broker does not help.

At this point, viscerally, it just feels too much like people are trying to convince me of something they are not really sure is correct. Because scientists are typically the most skeptical people on the planet. knowing about the British falsified data, and the fact that grant-chasing might influence public statements by various institutions doesn't help either.

Global warming feels like a con. I don't know how else to put it. And the worst part is that I am MORE vulnerable to believing in weather manipulation theories by countries than the basic assertion.

But I am happy to comply in ways to put less crap in the air no matter what just because I have seen the drastic change in air quality since I was a kid. I went to LA in the 60s and saw the out-of-control smog. I also went to Mexico City a year and a half ago, as well as other cities, and it reminded me of when I was a kid. Some funky air in the Valle de Mexico.

 

[kevin 714]

Al gore was neither a scientist nor a politician at the time. He just made a movie. He's not in any way a figurehead of spokesperson for the scientific community



And there's FAR more money to be e made, paid for by endless oil companies "studied, in denying it.

 

[nbean16]

Almost as retarded as ignoring a massive body of evidence because it doesn't match your political world view? That kind of retarded? Or somehow even more retarded? Because that's pretty retarded.

Nah, retarded is using the fact that it was 80 degrees on one day as some sort of evidence. Sounds more like your political outlook is influencing you than roman who seems to he all over the map politicaly. You however seem to fit into a nice little liberal box that seems to follow every talking point of one party.

Im sure youve poured over all the scientific data and not just blindly believed what youve seen on tv.

 

[Bay Arean]

Al gore was neither a scientist nor a politician at the time. He just made a movie. He's not in any way a figurehead of spokesperson for the scientific community



And there's FAR more money to be e made, paid for by endless oil companies "studied, in denying it.

And there's far more power for governments to gain by confirming it. Including quasi-private cooked-up schemes like carborn credit trading. Regulatory AND corporate capture. Sheeyit, just look at the contortions we go through with smog-testing in this state.

 

[nbean16]

Since I am old enough to remember the global cooling scare of the 1970s, it is a bit hard for me to jump wholeheartedly into believing it. Also, the fact that Al Gore is a carbon credits broker does not help.

At this point, viscerally, it just feels too much like people are trying to convince me of something they are not really sure is correct. Because scientists are typically the most skeptical people on the planet. knowing about the British falsified data, and the fact that grant-chasing might influence public statements by various institutions doesn't help either.

Global warming feels like a con. I don't know how else to put it. And the worst part is that I am MORE vulnerable to believing in weather manipulation theories by countries than the basic assertion.

But I am happy to comply in ways to put less crap in the air no matter what just because I have seen the drastic change in air quality since I was a kid. I went to LA in the 60s and saw the out-of-control smog. I also went to Mexico City a year and a half ago, as well as other cities, and it reminded me of when I was a kid. Some funky air in the Valle de Mexico.

Why arent we celebrating humans defeat of global cooling?

 

[Bronto]

This is my Post arty

 

[byke]

...using the fact that it was 80 degrees on one day as some sort of evidence...

You're absolutely right about this, which is I nitpick verbiage. A person would have to not believe in the principals behind thermal radiation, insulation, evaporation, etc, in order to think that climate change and greenhouse gasses are fake, but making statements about one 80 degree day is a big part of what has set back the people trying to educate others on the reality of these principals. To simply state that man is *the* cause of climate change and greenhouse gasses and to make microclimate references, it does way more harm than good, imo.

 

[ThumperX]

This is my Post arty

We'll just have to agree to disagree

 

[redruM]

So the icecaps melting, 5 years of drought, summer in February, pacific islands disappearing isn't an emergency? So what is?

- In 2014, it was determined that polar ice grew thicker and covered a larger area than it did when Gore made his prediction 10 years earlier. Has it subsided since then? Oh well! Ebb, flow, ebb, flow.

- Drought sucks. So does geo-engineering. Perhaps there's a correlation

- Yep, warm day today. However, if you check historical high temps for February in San Francisco, you'll find 80 degrees is not even close to an aberration. Here, lemme help you:

http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=usca0987

Add: meanwhile, looks like SF only saw 74 today.

 

[nbean16]

You're absolutely right about this, which is I nitpick verbiage. A person would have to not believe in the principals behind thermal radiation, insulation, evaporation, etc, in order to think that climate change and greenhouse gasses are fake, but making statements about one 80 degree day is a big part of what has set back the people trying to educate others on the reality of these principals. To simply state that man is *the* cause of climate change and greenhouse gasses and to make microclimate references, it does way more harm than good, imo.

I think this is a great post. I havent made up my mind on how much we have affected the climate, but every time i see people post "look how hot it was this week, do you believe now?" I realize they havent the foggiest idea of what theyre talking about and should not argue climate change at all. Even a climate scientist fully supporting man made climate change would laugh at how dumb of an argument it is. Even using 4 years of drought looks just as foolish.

 

[Brokenlink]

Climate changes from the moment earth was born. Do we contribute to it? To some degree, yes. But to run around screaming it's all our fault is retarded.

I don't get why people get hung up on this part of the discussion. Who gives a fuck how much we influence it? The bottom line is that the climate is changing rapidly. This will lead to a lot of changes that have the potential to really fuck us up as a species, as well as countless other species. What can we do about it?


Argue about the fucking cause.

 

[byke]

I think it's at least somewhat important to know how much we influence because it clues us into how much we can change. Lots of times people like to throw around big percentages as a means of amplifying a small number. Like if we could somehow quantify our impact as something like 0.0000001% and over five years we increase that an *incredible one hundred percent!!*, well...shit, guess we won't be doing much about it. At the same time, getting hung up on finding some exact measurement of something is often an excuse people use to do nothing. So, we gotta focus on educating people with real laymen information, but not information that feels so disconnected from anything tangible (which it currently does).

 

[Wormwood]

It is unusually hot today.

I agree the globe is warming.

Unanticipated exponential consequences are a bitch.

 

[tzrider]

I don't get why people get hung up on this part of the discussion. Who gives a fuck how much we influence it? The bottom line is that the climate is changing rapidly. This will lead to a lot of changes that have the potential to really fuck us up as a species, as well as countless other species. What can we do about it?

How much we influence it determines how much we can do about it.

 

[byke]

Mostly, but not totally. There could be some areas where man is able to assist nature, which would mean contributing outside of our typical areas of impact.