Trump on Climate Change

Feb 19, 2018
163
81
160
#3
The flagrant disregard by many users in this forum for the peer reviewed scientific findings on climate change is incredibly alarming. Its best to act now so we can better our future. Why can't we be cognizant of nature and our effects on it? Why can't we work to make our economies envoronmentally friendly now?
 
Jan 13, 2018
217
91
180
#4
It's so bizarre that there are people on this very board who unironically believe this man is intelligent. How do you reconcile something like that when he subscribes to every conspiracy theory under the sun? He thinks asbestos is safe for people for fucks sake. He loosened EPA rules in regards to asbestos use in buildings.
 
May 17, 2018
2,057
925
275
#5
He is spanking us, teaching us a lesson. "Don't you ever elect somebody from the private sector as President again."
 
Jun 13, 2017
269
296
195
#8
The flagrant disregard by many users in this forum for the peer reviewed scientific findings on climate change is incredibly alarming. Its best to act now so we can better our future. Why can't we be cognizant of nature and our effects on it? Why can't we work to make our economies envoronmentally friendly now?
I think you'd be hard pressed to find people here who think climate change isn't real, I think you'll find many people who disagree with you on how to solve those issues but thats a different story.

Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it's right, peer reviews have plenty have draw backs. That's a simple call to authority and not really an argument. The simple awnser is the technology isn't there yet.

One thing I truly don’t understand and no one has ever explained to me is why climate change is politicized.
Well fighting climate change comes at a cost, some people deem this cost not worthy, other's think it's necessary. For the government to do anything about it needs money, which means taxes...and I think it's easy to see why this would easily be politicized. There's also the issue that some groups act to overstate the effect of climate change since it has been an issue which has led some people to disregard the issue entirely, there are other groups which try to suppress it.

It's also a big issue in developing countries, energy technology isn't developed enough to actually sustain entire countries, which means global CO2 emissions are rising to accommodate their increasing energy needs, trying to fight climate change as a developing nation is an hindrance to that countries development so when people tell them they need to spend less fossil fuels they obviously tell them to take a walk

It is a much harder problem to solve than some people like to pretend.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2018
253
154
170
New Hampshire, USA
#9
Likes: Yoshi
Feb 19, 2018
163
81
160
#11
I think you'd be hard pressed to find people here who think climate change isn't real, I think you'll find many people who disagree with you on how to solve those issues but thats a different story.

Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it's right, peer reviews have plenty have draw backs. That's a simple call to authority and not really an argument. The simple awnser is the technology isn't there yet.
Typically I refer to the IPCC when it comes to corroborated information on climate change. I understand not all peer reviewed sources are the best, but they are far more reliable than a article from CNN or Fox on this subject.
In terms of people having a disagreement on what to do, that shouldn't delay action. This is a bipartisan problem that needs acting on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Republican politicians deny or disregard this subject overall without suggesting what to do. I wouldnt be so critical if there was actual discussion on both sides on this subject instead of denial from one side.
Personally, I'm open to hearing solutions- none are off the table, because inaction is worse than action.
 
May 17, 2018
2,057
925
275
#14
One thing I truly don’t understand and no one has ever explained to me is why climate change is politicized.
The meat industry. They are powerful and stand to lose a lot if restrictions are put on their farming techniques. They even put out false scientific studies to make people believe meat is good for you. Do remember when scientists said bacon causes cancer, they went bat shit crazy over that putting out tons of false propaganda.
 
Oct 1, 2006
2,478
1,877
1,080
#15
The meat industry. They are powerful and stand to lose a lot if restrictions are put on their farming techniques. They even put out false scientific studies to make people believe meat is good for you. Do remember when scientists said bacon causes cancer, they went bat shit crazy over that putting out tons of false propaganda.
Meat is good for you. The fat/protein macros of meat are required for ketogenic diets, which have a growing list of proven benefits.

Processed meats (particularly those treated with nitrites) are the ones the study you are talking about associated with cancer, and the risk was small (and would likely vanish with adequate fiber intake, which it appeared their study did not look at). Practically everything causes cancer anyway, outside of water - even oxygen.
 
Last edited:
Likes: RedVIper
May 17, 2018
2,057
925
275
#16
Meat is good for you. The fat/protein macros of meat are required for ketogenic diets, which have a growing list of proven benefits.

Processed meats (particularly those treated with nitrites) are the ones the study you are talking about associated with cancer, and the risk was small (and would likely vanish with adequate fiber intake, which it appeared their study did not look at). Practically everything causes cancer anyway, outside of water - even oxygen.
If you want to enjoy meat, that is your choice. To each his own but your not entitled to your own facts. Meats and even worse process meats lead to heart disease, diabetes and all kinds of illnesses.
 
Oct 1, 2006
2,478
1,877
1,080
#17
If you want to enjoy meat, that is your choice. To each his own but your not entitled to your own facts. Meats and even worse process meats lead to heart disease, diabetes and all kinds of illnesses.
It is mechanistically impossible for meat to lead to diabetes, as meat is not a significant source of the glucose which diabetes allows to accumulate. In fact, as ketogenic diets do not rely on insulin response and keep steady glucose levels, high meat/low carb diets have potential to manage diabetes:

https://nutritionandmetabolism.biom.../1743-7075-5-36?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled

Forty-nine (58.3%) participants completed the study. Both interventions led to improvements in hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and weight loss. The LCKD group had greater improvements in hemoglobin A1c (-1.5% vs. -0.5%, p = 0.03), body weight (-11.1 kg vs. -6.9 kg, p = 0.008), and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (+5.6 mg/dL vs. 0 mg/dL, p < 0.001) compared to the LGID group. Diabetes medications were reduced or eliminated in 95.2% of LCKD vs. 62% of LGID participants (p < 0.01).
Heart disease is correlated with inflammation, and a HFLC diet is anti-inflammatory. Unless you are chugging a Coke or milkshake and eating fries with your cheeseburger, the cheeseburger is perfectly safe:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29710809

Meat is a great source of nutrition, and when combined with leafy and fibrous vegetables provides complete nutrition.
 
Feb 19, 2018
163
81
160
#18
If you want to enjoy meat, that is your choice. To each his own but your not entitled to your own facts. Meats and even worse process meats lead to heart disease, diabetes and all kinds of illnesses.
Meat is find in moderation like anything else. The problem that we face in America is that we eat way more than the recommended amount.
 
Last edited:
Jul 12, 2012
9,998
1,211
490
#19
Meat is find in moderation like anything else. The problem that we face in America is that we eat way more than the recommended amount.
It's not it even that. It's more that your average American meat eater is also consuming metric tons of added sugar and processed carbs. I'll guarantee health conscious people eating fruits, vegetables, and moderate amounts of grass fed meats aren't the issue here.
 
May 17, 2018
2,057
925
275
#21
It is mechanistically impossible for meat to lead to diabetes, as meat is not a significant source of the glucose which diabetes allows to accumulate. In fact, as ketogenic diets do not rely on insulin response and keep steady glucose levels, high meat/low carb diets have potential to manage diabetes:

https://nutritionandmetabolism.biom.../1743-7075-5-36?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled



Heart disease is correlated with inflammation, and a HFLC diet is anti-inflammatory. Unless you are chugging a Coke or milkshake and eating fries with your cheeseburger, the cheeseburger is perfectly safe:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29710809

Meat is a great source of nutrition, and when combined with leafy and fibrous vegetables provides complete nutrition.
You don't know how diabetes works. Sugar is not the direct problem when it comes to diabetes. Your meat consumption hurts your kidneys and other organs and keeps your body from properly absorbing minerals. After this gets to a certain point if you consume a lot of sugar it's a problem. Sugar on it's own is not the problem.
 
Oct 1, 2006
2,478
1,877
1,080
#24
You don't know how diabetes works. Sugar is not the direct problem when it comes to diabetes. Your meat consumption hurts your kidneys and other organs and keeps your body from properly absorbing minerals. After this gets to a certain point if you consume a lot of sugar it's a problem. Sugar on it's own is not the problem.
If you aren't consuming hydrolyzable carbs, diabetes is basically harmless. You can't get glucose toxicity without glucose.
 
Sep 25, 2012
1,955
664
440
#26
It's not a good read as it's written by a global warming skeptic to diffuse the narrative presented in the report.

Contrarian: "Actually, the assessment, and science, tell a different story. “Drought statistics over the entire contiguous US have declined,” the report finds, reminding us that “the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event.”

Rebuttal: The "report in brief" section goes over 12 different factors they analyze for climate warming, and he apparently decided to pick out drought as his single ripe cherry to put forward as indicative of the science. All other 11 factors show a warming world, including air increasing temperature, more heat waves, more heavy precipitation, shrinking snowpack, shrinking arctic ice, rising sea levels, sealife swimming deeper for colder waters, ocean acidity, growing season lengths, wildfire increases, and heating/cooling degree days.

Here is the part I think he's trying to reference, but his quote certainly isn't reflective of the context:

Across much of the United States, surface soil moisture is projected to decrease as the climate warms, driven largely by increased evaporation rates due to warmer temperatures. This means that, all else being equal, future droughts in most regions will likely be stronger and potentially last longer. These trends are likely to be strongest in the Southwest and Southern Great Plains, where precipitation is projected to decrease in most seasons (Figure 2.5, right) and droughts may become more frequent.101 ,108 ,109 ,110 ,111 ,112 Although recent droughts and associated heat waves have reached record intensity in some regions of the United States, the Dust Bowl of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event in the historical record, and though by some measures drought has decreased over much of the continental United States in association with long-term increases in precipitation (e.g., see McCabe et al. 2017113 ), there is as yet no detectable change in long-term U.S. drought statistics. Further discussion of historical drought is provided in Wehner et al. (2017).101
His characterization is intentionally misleading, and his supposed direct quote is highly embellished in service to that narrative. The report constantly warns about the increasing likelihood and severity of droughts.

To be fair, he is correct in calling out the NYT article for being overly aggressive in it's tone. Their first sentence:

NYT said:
A major scientific report issued by 13 federal agencies on Friday presents the starkest warnings to date of the consequences of climate change for the United States, predicting that if significant steps are not taken to rein in global warming, the damage will knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end.
This is somewhat misleading phrasing, as the 10% figure is conditional on the very worst (and unlikely) scenario. They clarify it a little later but the mixture of "will" and "could" isn't helpful. CNN does a better job with this:

CNN said:
A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts, saying the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars -- or, in the worst-case scenario, more than 10% of its GDP -- by the end of the century.
This is accurate. Regardless, in both cases neither news source used the 10% figure in their headline, so not sure what crawled up his butt so badly about it to claim the "media got it all wrong." Hyperbole train, choo choo.

Contrarian: But even the 8.7-degree warming estimate is unrealistically pessimistic. This stems from an extreme high-emission scenario that expects almost the entire world to revert to using massive amounts of coal: a five-fold increase from today.

Rebuttal: The 8.5 model does not have the world "reverting to coal." It shows an electricity hungry world using as many sources of power it can, as it also contains the highest amounts of renewable energy. There is no "reverting" here so that's blatantly misleading. The 8.5 was apparently reasonable enough to be included in the report itself as one of its two models, so to claim it's "unrealistically pessimistic" is simply, like, his opinion man. He then goes onto heat deaths:

Contrarian: Moreover, two-thirds of the purported 10 percent damage to the economy comes from just one category: heat deaths. So, the well-reported idea that warming will shrink the economy by 10 percent disregards huge economic growth, assumes twice the damages of the worst-case temperatures the report itself expects and even then only finds such high costs stemming almost exclusively from easily preventable heat deaths.

Rebuttal: Really not sure where he's coming up with this number of 2/3rds. The report estimates heat deaths at $141B, which isn't even the biggest individual category let alone represent "two-thirds" of the economic damage under the 8.5 model. And the paper already points out that these deaths could be mitigated to some extent by adaptation (along with the Coast Property/Roads/Rail/Alaska categories). In any case the category represents less than 10% of the damage, so his claim that mitigating heat death will mitigate most of the economic damage is clearly false. Is he referencing some other model that's based strictly off the 10% GDP damage ratio, and how that model in particular is dependent upon heat deaths? Who knows, as he doesn't reference or link to anything explaining this.

Contrarian: While activists overstate the costs of climate change, they suggest its reversal is simply a matter of political will. In fact, there are significant costs to climate action: It often involves replacing relatively cheap, efficient fossil fuels with still-uncompetitive green-energy sources.

Uncompetitive? Studies show green energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels by 2020. Nevermind the whole not-polluting-and-raising-temps aspect.
 
Last edited:
Apr 19, 2018
699
579
230
#27
Typically I refer to the IPCC when it comes to corroborated information on climate change. I understand not all peer reviewed sources are the best, but they are far more reliable than a article from CNN or Fox on this subject.
In terms of people having a disagreement on what to do, that shouldn't delay action.
I mean IPCC had climategate where top brass literally tried to shut down opposing research and vilify people who go against Mann and their co. IPCC by any measure is not body to be trusted. Much like any UN body.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
269
296
195
#28
Contrarian: While activists overstate the costs of climate change, they suggest its reversal is simply a matter of political will. In fact, there are significant costs to climate action: It often involves replacing relatively cheap, efficient fossil fuels with still-uncompetitive green-energy sources.

Uncompetitive? Studies show green energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels by 2020. Nevermind the whole not-polluting-and-raising-temps aspect.
He did say "still" so I think you're just trying to disagree here, but never the less renewable energy (Green energy is a stupid term)might be cheaper by 2020 but there are still costs and drawbacks associated with it.
The huge upfront cost of switching to green energy is not negligible, that's why it needs to happen at a gradual pace, and it is happening, renewable energy production grows every year.

Other drawbacks include the fact that it's unreliable and you cannot mass produce energy which means energy consumed still needs to be reduced (The latter can and will be countered as we improve technology)

There's also a bunch of issues regarding transportation. Here's an article on the subject: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890417312050, it's a bit technical but I recommend skimming trough it even if I don't strictly agree everything said on it.

It's explains several of the constrains that renewable energy introduce, such as the need for rare metals for batteries(And the limited reserves we have of those might make it completely impossible to transition to full renewables),the high energy cost of operating shipping and aircraft on renewables and the substantial price increases associated with it. It also a assumes that the entire world would agree on a proposed solution, otherwise some systems are simply unfeasible.

So yes as of know renewable energy is uncompetitive with fossil fuels in many ways. Should we invest in it? Definitely. Is it perfect? No. Investing in it now also means spending money on a technology that's still maturing, so it will have to be replaced in the future.

I know some people here get really heated regarding this subject, but being alarmist and dismissing anyone who doesn't instantly agree with you is ultimately counter productive
 
Aug 26, 2018
24
41
90
#29
It's also a big issue in developing countries, energy technology isn't developed enough to actually sustain entire countries, which means global CO2 emissions are rising to accommodate their increasing energy needs, trying to fight climate change as a developing nation is an hindrance to that countries development so when people tell them they need to spend less fossil fuels they obviously tell them to take a walk

It is a much harder problem to solve than some people like to pretend.
This is spot on
 
Last edited:
Jul 12, 2004
3,027
196
1,305
#30
Good read. More rational takes like this are needed amid the hysteria.
But it’s completely incorrect. You just want to believe what it says. Honestly. In the first hundred words it betrays the authors complete ignorance on the subject.

Actually, the assessment, and science, tell a different story. “Drought statistics over the entire contiguous US have declined,” the report finds, reminding us that “the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event.”
That’s the exact opposite of that climate scientists have predicted. That shows the author doesn’t even know the most elemental aspects of what he is talking about.

This is the problem. Not that people don’t believe that climate change is real. It’s that they have no ability to recognize good and bad information. You start with what you want to believe and keep searching until you find it. They you label it “rational” because it calmly states that things are not as bad as what the experts are claiming.
 
Likes: JareBear
Jul 12, 2012
9,998
1,211
490
#31
But it’s completely incorrect. You just want to believe what it says. Honestly. In the first hundred words it betrays the authors complete ignorance on the subject.



That’s the exact opposite of that climate scientists have predicted. That shows the author doesn’t even know the most elemental aspects of what he is talking about.

This is the problem. Not that people don’t believe that climate change is real. It’s that they have no ability to recognize good and bad information. You start with what you want to believe and keep searching until you find it. They you label it “rational” because it calmly states that things are not as bad as what the experts are claiming.
Maybe you're right. But your post is pretty useless. It just says the article is wrong without demonstrating how/why, and then launches into a personal attack on me.

I appreciated Arkage's post far more as he dives into the specifics of the issues he has with the article (though he gets off to a bad start labeling the author a "skeptic" as if that's inherently bad in the course of the quest for enlightenment... this is a very resetera-esque strategy, in basically poisoning the well from the get go, assuming bad faith hence going into what followed with less than an open mind).

Refuting points using evidence counter examples == good. Refuting points by ridiculing the opponent and claiming they are self evidently wrong while providing no thing substantive == bad. It's quicker and easier to go the latter route, so that's what happens too often.
 
Likes: Joe T.
May 4, 2005
11,450
673
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#32
Trumo and the Republican's stance on climate change is fatal for the world. However, conservatives in other countries, such as Germany, are not much better. Paying lipservice but not putting money where the mouth is does not solve the problem any better than lying it does not even exist. And if >50% of US Americans think climate change does not affect them, they either plan for a short remaining life time or are idiots.
 
Oct 16, 2018
53
11
150
#33
Its best to act now so we can better our future. Why can't we be cognizant of nature and our effects on it? Why can't we work to make our economies envoronmentally friendly now?
The problem is that even though we're all aware of climate change and its possible effects to us, it's not enough to make us do something about it. Will we ever? Maybe when the world is already ending, but maybe not anytime soon. Sometimes the only way you can make people believe is to let them experience it firsthand. Also, until there's a person of a higher power preaching that it's not true, then people might believe that.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
2,640
1,802
240
#34
Feb 1, 2017
3,598
1,122
355
#35
It's so bizarre that there are people on this very board who unironically believe this man is intelligent. How do you reconcile something like that when he subscribes to every conspiracy theory under the sun?
What makes you think he is being honest?

He clearly is intelligent, an idiot could not multiply millions of his dad into billions, then surprise Republicans on the primaries, then depress Democrats on the presidential elections, heck, he even followed up with gaining seats in Senate.

And, just to be clear:
1) I believe climate change is caused by humans (I don't think the fact that it is changing is even challenged, its what causes it is somewhat disputed)
2) Even if scientists would be much less overwhelmingly (it actually is about 1 to 10, not 1 to hundreds, as one might get an impression) against/for the theory, the mere fact that we risk wiping out the planet as we know it, should be enough to act.
 
Jul 12, 2012
9,998
1,211
490
#36
This might be slightly off topic in this particular thread, but there's a lot of the usual "we're all fucked if we don't act" posts, but what are we gonna do, hold a gun to the BRIC's (and others) heads? US emissions could go to zero and we'd still be on an unsustainable course based on the models/predictions most people are rallying behind, as far as I know.

There's probably going to need to be technological breakthroughs in various arenas to actually reduce emissions in any significant way if we don't pivot and vastly increase the use of nuclear power. Ways to drastically improve the efficiency of renewables, ways to better store/remove waste, etc. Imagine if all the effort that went into obscenely expensive renewables went into making nuclear much safer and easier, instead of shunning nuclear because it wasn't perfect. Maybe we can hope we figure out fusion power. Should be better/safer than fission. SimCity2000 said it would be 2050; maybe we make it in time...
 
Last edited:
Likes: Bluntman
Mar 12, 2014
2,925
1,457
355
#37
I think you'd be hard pressed to find people here who think climate change isn't real, I think you'll find many people who disagree with you on how to solve those issues but thats a different story.

Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it's right, peer reviews have plenty have draw backs. That's a simple call to authority and not really an argument. The simple awnser is the technology isn't there yet.



Well fighting climate change comes at a cost, some people deem this cost not worthy, other's think it's necessary. For the government to do anything about it needs money, which means taxes...and I think it's easy to see why this would easily be politicized. There's also the issue that some groups act to overstate the effect of climate change since it has been an issue which has led some people to disregard the issue entirely, there are other groups which try to suppress it.

It's also a big issue in developing countries, energy technology isn't developed enough to actually sustain entire countries, which means global CO2 emissions are rising to accommodate their increasing energy needs, trying to fight climate change as a developing nation is an hindrance to that countries development so when people tell them they need to spend less fossil fuels they obviously tell them to take a walk

It is a much harder problem to solve than some people like to pretend.
Fantastic post. On the issue of why it became politicized, another reason is that the people who are most vocal in pushing for corrective measures, have little common sense with respect to human nature. When humans are told you are dumb for not believing me, the common reaction is to believe the person asking for trust is dumb. You touched on this with the overstating effect, but this is a discreet cause of the effect in and of itself.
 
Oct 21, 2018
249
154
160
#38
This might be slightly off topic in this particular thread, but there's a lot of the usual "we're all fucked if we don't act" posts, but what are we gonna do, hold a gun to the BRIC's (and others) heads? US emissions could go to zero and we'd still be on an unsustainable course based on the models/predictions most people are rallying behind, as far as I know.
There are multiple actions that can be taken. It depends on the specific field. It's a gradual process and there are costs, but the responsible thing is to make serious attempts and not use the rhetoric of ignorance.

Assuming that nothing should be done until we have developed quasi-utopian levels of technology is a recipe for disaster. Not today, not tomorrow, but eventually we will pay the price for delays and prioritizing immediate pleasure over long term safety.

We might not care, but future generations will look back and see how foolish this "debate" was.
 
Last edited:

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
1,966
420
430
Reading, Berkshire
#41
One thing I truly don’t understand and no one has ever explained to me is why climate change is politicized.
Going against corporations seems to be a political thing now. You'd think most people would be on the side of the environment and not the corporations given historically how much corporations have absolutely fucked environments and got what amounts to slaps on the wrist. It's like people have hilariously short term memories, or don't care, or think environmental destruction is a small price to pay as long as it's not in their backyard.
 
Sep 25, 2012
1,955
664
440
#43
He did say "still" so I think you're just trying to disagree here, but never the less renewable energy (Green energy is a stupid term)might be cheaper by 2020 but there are still costs and drawbacks associated with it.
The huge upfront cost of switching to green energy is not negligible, that's why it needs to happen at a gradual pace, and it is happening, renewable energy production grows every year.

Other drawbacks include the fact that it's unreliable and you cannot mass produce energy which means energy consumed still needs to be reduced (The latter can and will be countered as we improve technology)

There's also a bunch of issues regarding transportation. Here's an article on the subject: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890417312050, it's a bit technical but I recommend skimming trough it even if I don't strictly agree everything said on it.

It's explains several of the constrains that renewable energy introduce, such as the need for rare metals for batteries(And the limited reserves we have of those might make it completely impossible to transition to full renewables),the high energy cost of operating shipping and aircraft on renewables and the substantial price increases associated with it. It also a assumes that the entire world would agree on a proposed solution, otherwise some systems are simply unfeasible.

So yes as of know renewable energy is uncompetitive with fossil fuels in many ways. Should we invest in it? Definitely. Is it perfect? No. Investing in it now also means spending money on a technology that's still maturing, so it will have to be replaced in the future.

I know some people here get really heated regarding this subject, but being alarmist and dismissing anyone who doesn't instantly agree with you is ultimately counter productive
I think the "competitve" phrasing he uses is misleading, as fossil fuels are only priced cheaper because they don't account for any of the environmental damage they do as they are not responsible for their carbon emissions or cleanup. I'm sure someone has made the case that renewable energy is currently cheaper to implement when you have a long enough view, but it's not like anybody finds long term solutions with an upfront cost appealing or rewarding in our political or economic climate.

I generally agree that we shouldn't jump onto renewables immediately while cutting all fossil fuels, but more could certainly be done now than has been done. Other countries are witness to that, even China of all places, which has significantly higher ratios for their renewable energy totals than we do. The fact that we have a President that regularly shits on whether climate change is even real, shits on his own governments reports about it, and has rolled back many environmental policies along with the Paris agreement, is a total shit way to address the problem. In this political environment I'd rather vote in someone who errs on the side of doing too much renewable too fast than someone who says fuck it, it's all fake, let's burn more coal because coal miners vote for me and god will protect the planet.


Orange man bad, the topic...
You know for as often as I hear this drive-by phrase, one would think it's scripted dialogue programmed into a group of Trump supporting NPCs. :unsure:
 
Last edited:
Aug 24, 2016
1,032
275
265
#44
The flagrant disregard by many users in this forum for the peer reviewed scientific findings on climate change is incredibly alarming.
Just like the left-wing scientific disregard for the peer reviewed research having the opposite findings is alarming. hard to take climate change seriously if you're not allowing everyone credible tot he table and only one a group of peers that agree on the same thing.

Remember it was global cooling before global warming> And then Global warming partially became Climate change when things were getting colder in some areas, not global warming is still used because people are saying warming is also the cause of cooling. I'd not call BS if credible people that have issues with the current findings weren't kicked out of group discussions sponsored by companies that make billions off this subject.
 

BANGS

Fresh single BANGS in your area, or in my browser.
Dec 13, 2016
3,817
1,522
420
#45
You know for as often as I hear this drive-by phrase, one would think it's scripted dialogue programmed into a group of Trump supporting NPCs. :unsure:
Is this a really piss poor attempt at "I know you are but what am I?"
 
Jan 7, 2018
1,947
719
310
#46
Just like the left-wing scientific disregard for the peer reviewed research having the opposite findings is alarming. hard to take climate change seriously if you're not allowing everyone credible tot he table and only one a group of peers that agree on the same thing.

Remember it was global cooling before global warming> And then Global warming partially became Climate change when things were getting colder in some areas, not global warming is still used because people are saying warming is also the cause of cooling. I'd not call BS if credible people that have issues with the current findings weren't kicked out of group discussions sponsored by companies that make billions off this subject.
What 1970s science said about global cooling

https://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html
A persistent argument designed to discredit the field of climate science is that scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s. So popular in fact that it ranks an impressive #7 in the most cited skeptic arguments. The logic goes that climate scientists got it completely wrong predicting global cooling in the 1970s (it started warming instead). Hence climate science can't be trusted about current global warming predictions. Setting aside the logical flaws of such an ad hominem argument, was there any consensus among 70s climate scientists predicting global cooling?

The evidence for global cooling consensus
Most cited is a 1975 Newsweek article The Cooling World that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production":

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."​
A 1974 Times Magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."​
However, these are media articles, not peer reviewed scientific papers. Does a consensus on global cooling emerge from the scientific literature?

A new paper exposing the myth of 70s global cooling
Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.


Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

Global warming vs climate change

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change'was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

No Reason to Change the Term
Those who perpetuate the "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change. Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.

The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat. Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.

The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.
“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.​
Summary
So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".
 
Sep 4, 2018
1,062
952
225
#47
i grew up reading old 70's books on global warming and climate change and the oil crisis. they all predicted we would be past peak out now and it would be dozens of dollars a gallon. it was part of this huge Self Help market imo part of the Me Generation's cultural narcissism. it was all throughout the 70's science fiction before the comparatively substance-free Star Wars, the future was dystopian, we were all gonna die, etc.

now those same people are saying the same things. about what is going to happen in 50, 100, 1,000 years from now.

what is the purpose of the government? to deal with things now, as they exist, in current reality? or to make "sacrifices" so that we will save the future? we have problems at home, now, to deal with. justice issues, electoral issues, human rights issues, etc. in some way this whole carbon tax based debate is another way for the corporate elites to control the narrative. notice how nobody even considers talking about pollution in itself anymore.

if there is a future cost, we will deal with it in the future. it was going to happen that way no matter what we do. yes let's be smart about our tech but let's also cool it with the hyperbolae crystal gazing aspects. some science folk are straight up evangelists about this, proposing dangerous sounding geo-engineering solutions like pumping sulfites into the atmosphere. yes, more helpful science from the same people that brought us the plutonium cake and the atomic bomb.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,809
295
1,320
35
USA
#50
if there is a future cost, we will deal with it in the future. It was going to happen that way no matter what we do.
what a silly approach

Apply the same logic to cancer. Forget using scientific measurements to detect and intervene early (you know, when it can actually be stopped), such technology is expensive and difficult and I neither understand it nor trust the people who do. Let's wait until malignant boils are all over your body, because then we can "see" the cancer and surely there's no question it's present at that point

There's a reason scientists want us to act now. They have actual data showing the compounding problem will become harder and harder to correct. The environment, like the body, is a complex, interconnected, poorly understood system. Preventative approaches and early intervention are the most efficient solutions to problems that corrupt complex systems

what is the purpose of the government? to deal with things now, as they exist, in current reality? or to make "sacrifices" so that we will save the future?
what a silly question

both!

If making sacrifices now will save significant time, effort, and lives in the future, why wouldn't we make the sacrifice now? Why would we allow problems to fester until solving them becomes a monumental effort? The majority of government regulation is sacrifice made to save the future. We plan budgets and infrastructure projects, we prioritize preventative medical procedures, we maintain firefighters, police forces, and national defense so we will be prepared when they are required, we research new technologies, we monitor the activity of allies and enemies, we disaster proof our construction, we curate and maintain wildlife, we ration limited resources, we educate children K-12 so they don't grow up unable to understand the benefits of taking preventative action

If the government is incapable of solving current problems while preparing for future ones, we need a better government, not a change in policy. Our government has issues, but it's certainly large and competent enough to multi-task. Preparing for climate change isn't what's preventing us from stopping Leslie McCrae Dowless' rigged NC elections. We have different departments for each of these things

yes, more helpful science from the same people that brought us the plutonium cake and the atomic bomb.
what a silly statement

The atomic bomb did exactly what it was meant to. Just because it was used for an (arguably) poor purpose doesn't mean the science was wrong, or 'unhelpful'. Research into the atomic bomb and plutonium have taught us a great many truths, it's up to us how those truths are used. You could certainly find examples of 'unhelpful' science, like ether or humorism, but you won't find such an example in modern climate science
 
Last edited:
Likes: Arkage