climate change times are a changin'

[Tiggsy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Google "ozone hoax" and you'll see there are STILL people who don't think it was real. Climate change has 97% agreement among scientists.

Probably not good to argue with board, but I agree with St. Clown. If this was such a slam dunk, there would not be a debate. Plus there would be actual physical proof that is not based on computer models. You can't really do that projecting so far into the future. Also the effects are also in question. How many times have we heard the oceans will wash away New York and California, and the polar ice caps would be gone. Last time I checked, neither of those had happened. You can't make disastrous claims over and over, being wrong each time, and still have much credibility.

EDIT: I'm sure someone will cite some temperature study done as proof, but obviously that is not good enough. Climate is very dynamic so you can't predict trends so easily.

 

[Rover]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

You know, I don't give a hoot who was farming 1200 years ago in Greenland or anything else. What I can tell is there's less ice at the North Pole and it sure seems warmer around here than when I was a kid. One can also assess rising sea levels fairly easily. So, call me self-centered, but its the here and now I'm concerned with. No, I'm not one of those people who think climate change causes tornados. However, we need to cut emissions and carbon where we can, and let nature recover/take care of the rest so that over the rest of most of our lifetimes the air continually gets cleaner and there's less stress on the planet.

While not being alive in the 1700's unlike some conservative posters out here it seems logical to me that from the industrial revolution on to present day has to have had a hugely negative impact on what we call climate change. That was rightly or wrongly caused by humans, hence we should also strive to put it right. That doesn't mean moving into huts and living off the land, but it means being more and more responsible than not only our 19th century ancestors, but even more than our parents (in most cases).

 

[Tiggsy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

You know, I don't give a hoot who was farming 1200 years ago in Greenland or anything else. What I can tell is there's less ice at the North Pole and it sure seems warmer around here than when I was a kid. One can also assess rising sea levels fairly easily.

Really? If that's the case maybe it's a seasonal thing. How's the ice at the South Pole?

So, call me self-centered, but its the here and now I'm concerned with. No, I'm not one of those people who think climate change causes tornados. However, we need to cut emissions and carbon where we can, and let nature recover/take care of the rest so that over the rest of most of our lifetimes the air continually gets cleaner and there's less stress on the planet.

While not being alive in the 1700's unlike some conservative posters out here it seems logical to me that from the industrial revolution on to present day has to have had a hugely negative impact on what we call climate change. That was rightly or wrongly caused by humans, hence we should also strive to put it right. That doesn't mean moving into huts and living off the land, but it means being more and more responsible than not only our 19th century ancestors, but even more than our parents (in most cases).

How do you know the impact is negative? A little bit warmer weather seems like it might be okay. Still say that it is incredibly arrogant to say humans can have a significant impact on the planet. Again, if the Earth wants us gone... we are toast. So I don't think the Earth is too upset because we burn coal... something produced by the Earth.

So if it doesn't mean living in huts, what does it mean? You think us all driving electric cars will be enough to save the world? Or do we need to stop exhaling too?

 

[unofan]

Probably not good to argue with board, but I agree with St. Clown. If this was such a slam dunk, there would not be a debate. Plus there would be actual physical proof that is not based on computer models. You can't really do that projecting so far into the future. Also the effects are also in question. How many times have we heard the oceans will wash away New York and California, and the polar ice caps would be gone. Last time I checked, neither of those had happened. You can't make disastrous claims over and over, being wrong each time, and still have much credibility.

EDIT: I'm sure someone will cite some temperature study done as proof, but obviously that is not good enough. Climate is very dynamic so you can't predict trends so easily.

25% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth. You will never achieve 100% agreement on anything, even proverbial "slam dunks."

 

[Tiggsy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

25% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth. You will never achieve 100% agreement on anything, even proverbial "slam dunks."

Some things should require agreement because there is proof. Scientific law. Climate change is not scientific law so obviously it can and should be legitimately questioned like any scientific hypothesis to be proven/disproven.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

25% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth. You will never achieve 100% agreement on anything, even proverbial "slam dunks."

That's a horrible comparison. We're talking about climate researchers not being anywhere near approaching that 100% figure, not the ignorant hicks if they understand the fact of a heliocentric solar system.

 

[unofan]

Some things should require agreement because there is proof. Scientific law. Climate change is not scientific law so obviously it can and should be legitimately questioned like any scientific hypothesis to be proven/disproven.

Evolution isn't either, but you're a dumbass if you don't believe that one. That's another "slam dunk."

97% of the people who have questioned it and tested it are in agreement. They only debate at this point is whether we have the political wherewithal to do anything about it. And we're going to fail that one miserably.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Evolution isn't either, but you're a dumbass if you don't believe that one. That's another "slam dunk."

97% of the people who have questioned it and tested it are in agreement. They only debate at this point is whether we have the political wherewithal to do anything about it. And we're going to fail that one miserably.

No, 97% of the people who have question it agree that climate change is occurring. What they do not all agree upon -- and it's like a 60/40 split -- is whether or not man has made a significant difference to the climate one way or the other. That's the part of the survey that liberals never seem to bring up in some veiled attempt at creating a new mantra. I'll have to find the survey some time and link it. Or someone else can do it.

 

[Tiggsy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Evolution isn't either, but you're a dumbass if you don't believe that one. That's another "slam dunk."

97% of the people who have questioned it and tested it are in agreement. They only debate at this point is whether we have the political wherewithal to do anything about it. And we're going to fail that one miserably.

Hypothesis --> Theory --> Law.
So you are correct about Evolution. Big Bang is another one. Gravity, Newton's Laws of motion are beyond debate. They are a scientific fact. So there will always be debate on theories. Clown is correct. Again I've already said this but climate is dynamic. It will always be changing, so how anyone can deny that is a good question.

So if you're so certain that the only debate is when we're going to do something, how long do we have before disaster strikes? 5 years, like was said maybe 10 years ago? 500 days like the guys from France just said so we can start counting down? 1000 years so it may not even be in the human race's lifetime? How long? We need to know if you expect some drastic action.

 

[Foxton]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Hypothesis --> Theory --> Law.

It's amazing how well you've illustrated your scientific illiteracy in a single line. Kudos

What they do not all agree upon -- and it's like a 60/40 split -- is whether or not man has made a significant difference to the climate one way or the other. That's the part of the survey that liberals never seem to bring up in some veiled attempt at creating a new mantra. I'll have to find the survey some time and link it. Or someone else can do it.

Source pls.

 

[Priceless]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

There is a 97% agreement among scientists that climate change is real, and is man-made.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position

One of the reasons there is so much confusion about this was touched on by John Oliver in that piece posted earlier. Debates are always 1-on-1, Not 97-on-3. If they were, there might be a little more agreement among the population. Right now it looks like it's Bill Nye against a bunch of different scientists. Far from it. The facts are that it is happening, man kind is making it happen faster and at some point we're either going to have to do something about it or grow gills.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

No, 97% of the people who have question it agree that climate change is occurring. What they do not all agree upon -- and it's like a 60/40 split..

I don't think it's anywhere close to 60/40.

 

[unofan]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Hypothesis --> Theory --> Law.
So you are correct about Evolution. Big Bang is another one. Gravity, Newton's Laws of motion are beyond debate. They are a scientific fact. So there will always be debate on theories. Clown is correct. Again I've already said this but climate is dynamic. It will always be changing, so how anyone can deny that is a good question.

So if you're so certain that the only debate is when we're going to do something, how long do we have before disaster strikes? 5 years, like was said maybe 10 years ago? 500 days like the guys from France just said so we can start counting down? 1000 years so it may not even be in the human race's lifetime? How long? We need to know if you expect some drastic action.

Who needs drastic action?

I'd start with a simple elimination of the "derp, 'dem elite librul scientists R so stooped. I'll show them by burning extra gas and buying the biggest incandescent light bulbs I can find out of spite" demographic.

We're not going to eliminate coal and oil for our energy needs anytime soon, nor should we until there is a viable option. But doing things like indexing the gas tax to inflation, funding railroads, funding alternative energy, and otherwise not acting like spiteful dumbasses for political reasons would be a sufficient start. I don't particularly like Al Gore either, but let's not forget the national parks were created by Teddy Roosevelt and the EPA was started by Richard Nixon. Instead of running from that past, I wish the modern day GOP would embrace it.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

so no one knows why the climate has repeatedly warmed and cooled though out time? with and with out man around? d^mn! I'm going to have to do some googling, she said lazily.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

so no one knows why the climate has repeatedly warmed and cooled though out time? with and with out man around? d^mn! I'm going to have to do some googling, she said lazily.

The fact the climate has regularly warmed and cooled doesn't invalidate the scientific evidence that man is negatively influencing the climate like at no other time in history. Why do draggers continue to roll with this line of defense?

 

[Foxton]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

so no one knows why the climate has repeatedly warmed and cooled though out time? with and with out man around? d^mn! I'm going to have to do some googling, she said lazily.

Perhaps a better conundrum to consider.
<img src=http://s12.postimg.org/v7vn21fel/VWk_Zl.jpg></img>

 

[huskyfan]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

in a quick scan of material google brought up, I couldn't find ONE SINGLE unbiased source. on either side. and the 97% of scientist agree is a myth.

 

[Priceless]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Let's assume that somehow the entire scientific community has been hoodwinked. Human beings aren't the cause of climate change. It is occurring 100% naturally. It's still happening. The oceans are still rising. Average temperatures are rising significantly - particularly at the poles. Wouldn't it behoove us to try to slow that climate change as much as possible before Florida goes the way of Atlantis and sinks into the ocean? Or should the huge urban centers on the coasts just up and move?

 

[huskyfan]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Let's assume that somehow the entire scientific community has been hoodwinked. Human beings aren't the cause of climate change. It is occurring 100% naturally. It's still happening. The oceans are still rising. Average temperatures are rising significantly - particularly at the poles. Wouldn't it behoove us to try to slow that climate change as much as possible before Florida goes the way of Atlantis and sinks into the ocean? Or should the huge urban centers on the coasts just up and move?

Florida like Atlantis? I knew there was good in global warming. and I will be able to grow decent tomatoes!

 

[huskyfan]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

and does anyone know why the name was changed from global warming to climate change. help me out here. I'm trying to learn.