What can we do about Climate Change?

[Grat3fulh3ad]

consensus on CO2 driven climate change = 97% of the people who are qualified to know agreeing, including NASA.


denialism = loudest 3% get's media attention.


you have it bass ackwards.

I'm not saying the 'space cloud' "could not affect the climate".... I'm saying that CO2 is measurably, observably, undeniably driving global warming, not any space cloud...

The theory you push, would be easily provable with simple measurements, were it true...
It'd be a guarantee of fame and good fortune to the scientists that proved thusly...

Man's CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is driving climate change.

You can repudiate this fact all you want to, but until you are able to refute it, I'll stick with what the sum total of the available data clearly points to, along with 97% of everyone with enough education to understand it.

Have you bothered to look as deeply into the consensus science as you have into the space cloud theory?


Perhaps you should study up on the manifold lines of evidence which all converge to point at CO2 driven warming... http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

[GoatCheese]

consensus on CO2 driven climate change = 97% of the people who are qualified to know agreeing, including NASA.


denialism = loudest 3% get's media attention.


you have it bass ackwards.

I'm not saying the 'space cloud' "could not affect the climate".... I'm saying that CO2 is measurably, observably, undeniably driving global warming, not any space cloud...

The theory you push, would be easily provable with simple measurements, were it true...
It'd be a guarantee of fame and good fortune to the scientists that proved thusly...

Man's CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is driving climate change.

You can repudiate this fact all you want to, but until you are able to refute it, I'll stick with what the sum total of the available data clearly points to, along with 97% of everyone with enough education to understand it.

Have you bothered to look as deeply into the consensus science as you have into the space cloud theory?


Perhaps you should study up on the manifold lines of evidence which all converge to point at CO2 driven warming... http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Yea that IPCC consensus is very convincing ...so convincing they have to manipulate data and over state things to sell it

 

[maryj315]

Yea that IPCC consensus is very convincing ...so convincing they have to manipulate data and over state things to sell it

You have no idea what you are talking about do you. Perhaps you should look into a little further as to what service the I.P.C.C. provides.

Mj

 

[MagdaAndBernie]

IMHO we can do nothing about climate change, because we have no affect on the climate. Earth has cycled thru hot and cold spells long before we were around, and will do long after. It is a cycle we have no part of, only to try to exist in it and survive.

Europe had a mini ice age within last 500 years, now we have a heat wave in some areas.

We are full of hubris to think we cause anything here except pollution, and even then it would be gone in a few centuries if we were to die off.

IMHO

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Yea that IPCC consensus is very convincing ...so convincing they have to manipulate data and over state things to sell it

I am not talking about the IPCC at all, first off... I'm talking about a recent poll done among all scientists involved in climate related research...

Secondly there is no evidence that any of the data was incorrectly used...
The 'climategate' accusations have been declared a load of crap by 5 different investigations...

Third, to M&B... You should do a bit more information gathering before making assumptions. The earth has a long history of having her environment changed by the biology residing on her... Mankind is another in a long line of species which have impacted the climate. You wouldn't even have O2 to breathe if a species of stromatolite hadn't changed the chemistry of the earth's atmosphere a couple of billion years back...


The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is undeniable to anyone who takes the time to become educated on the subject.

 

[maryj315]

IMHO we can do nothing about climate change, because we have no affect on the climate. Earth has cycled thru hot and cold spells long before we were around, and will do long after. It is a cycle we have no part of only to try to exist in it, and survive.

Europe had a mini ice age within last 500 years, now we have a heat wave in some areas.

We are full of hubris to thing we cause anything here except polluction, and even then it would be gone in a few centuries is we were to die off.

IMHO

Whenever the climate changes it is because of a imbalance within the the climate model. I also used to think our ice ages were a cycling event but after reading up on the subject I found they are not.

Mj

 

[MagdaAndBernie]

Did we (humans, that is what we are discussing here, right?) have anything to do with the mass extinctions (starting from the Permian forward)? No. Ice Ages? No. Continental drift? No. More than 90% of all species that ever lived went extinct long before our distant ancestors were eating bugs in trees.

We are a blink in time, ants on a continent. Our residue will be gone before the next revolution of our galaxy is over, and naught will remain but our footprints on the moon. Sure, we ate some things, and some things ate us, but long term, large scale impact is a product of overactive imaginations and hugely erroneous self importance. Garbage will rot, plastic islands in the ocean will dissipate, steel and glass will return to the earth. Our pot plants will outlive us, and cockroaches too. We won't be here to witness the end, anymore than we were here to see the start.

Get over yourselves - you, and I, mean nothing, stand for nothing, accomplish nothing, and change nothing.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Did we (humans, that is what we are discussing here, right?) have anything to do with the mass extinctions (starting from the Permian forward)? No. Ice Ages? No. Continental drift? No. More than 90% of all species that ever lived went extinct long before our distant ancestors were eating bugs in trees.

We are a blink in time, ants on a continent. Our residue will be gone before the next revolution of our galaxy is over, and naught will remain but our footprints on the moon. Sure, we ate some things, and some things ate us, but long term, large scale impact is a product of overactive imaginations and hugely erroneous self importance. Garbage will rot, plastic islands in the ocean will dissipate, steel and glass will return to the earth. Our pot plants will outlive us, and cockroaches too. Wee won't be here to witness the end, anymore than we were here to see the start.

Get over yourselves - you, and I, mean nothing, stand for nothing, accomplish nothing, and change nothing.

The earth has a long history of having her environment changed by the biology residing on her... Mankind is another in a long line of species which have impacted the climate. You wouldn't even have O2 to breathe if a species of stromatolite hadn't changed the chemistry of the earth's atmosphere a couple of billion years back...


The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is undeniable to anyone who takes the time to become educated on the subject.

Who said it was always man, or only man that can affect climate?

it is just man THIS time...

It it verifiably provably man's burning of fossil fuels driving the warming.
There are even images of the decreased heat being radiated into space and of the
extra heat being radiated downward... at the specific wavelength at which CO2 absorbs and reradiates. Pictures of CO2 driven Global Warming happening...

I don't need to 'get over' anything...
nothing arrogant about recognizing one's species' impact...

the more you learn the more impossible it is to be a denier...
dig deeper, the evidence is all there.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Sure... ultimately we are dust in the wind, but why ignore the probability that we are hastening our own demise?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Because the fixes that are proposed would ruin us. And the fact remains that every bit of your stance is speculative. Every bit of it.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Bullshit.
I have posted workable fixes that couldn't possibly ruin us, and the science becomes more undeniable every day. My stance is based on solid irrefutable evidence from multiple independent sources which all point to the same conclusion.

repudiate my stance and the wealth of data and observation at it's foundation all you want to, you'll still not be able to refute it and your repudiation will continue to look like foolish denial of the obvious and undeniable.

educate yourself.

Here's a good conservative article, about how denial of the obvious is ruining the credibility of conservatism.

Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause


Have you heard about the “growing number” of eminent scientists who reject the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are increasing the earth’s temperature? It’s one of those factoids that, for years, has been casually dropped into the opening paragraphs of conservative manifestos against climate-change treaties and legislation. A web site maintained by the office of a U.S. Senator has for years instructed us that a “growing number of scientists” are becoming climate-change “skeptics.” This year, the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation gave a speech praising the “growing number of distinguished scientists [who are] challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.” In this newspaper, a columnist recently described the “growing skepticism about the theory of man-made climate change.” Surely, the conventional wisdom is on the cusp of being overthrown entirely: Another colleague proclaimed that we are approaching “the church of global warming’s Galileo moment.”

Fine-sounding rhetoric — but all of it nonsense. In a new article published in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, a group of scholars from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and elsewhere provide a statistical breakdown of the opinions of the world’s most prominent climate experts. Their conclusion: The group that is skeptical of the evidence of man-made global warming “comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers in the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups … This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that [about] 97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of [man-made global warming].”

How has this tiny 2-3% sliver of fringe opinion been reinvented as a perpetually “growing” share of the scientific community? Most climate-change deniers (or “skeptics,” or whatever term one prefers) tend to inhabit militantly right-wing blogs and other Internet echo chambers populated entirely by other deniers. In these electronic enclaves — where a smattering of citations to legitimate scientific authorities typically is larded up with heaps of add-on commentary from pundits, economists and YouTube jesters who haven’t any formal training in climate sciences — it becomes easy to swallow the fallacy that the whole world, including the respected scientific community, is jumping on the denier bandwagon.

This is a phenomenon that should worry not only environmentalists, but also conservatives themselves: The conviction that global warming is some sort of giant intellectual fraud now has become a leading bullet point within mainstream North American conservatism; and so has come to bathe the whole movement in its increasingly crankish, conspiratorial glow.

Conservatives often pride themselves on their hard-headed approach to public-policy — in contradistinction to liberals, who generally are typecast as fuzzy-headed utopians. Yet when it comes to climate change, many conservatives I know will assign credibility to any stray piece of junk science that lands in their inbox … so long as it happens to support their own desired conclusion. (One conservative columnist I know formed her skeptical views on global warming based on testimonials she heard from novelist Michael Crichton.) The result is farcical: Impressionable conservatives who lack the numeracy skills to perform long division or balance their checkbooks feel entitled to spew elaborate proofs purporting to demonstrate how global warming is in fact caused by sunspots or flatulent farm animals. Or they will go on at great length about how “climategate” has exposed the whole global-warming phenomenon as a charade — despite the fact that a subsequent investigation exculpated research investigators from the charge that they had suppressed temperature data. (In fact, “climategate” was overhyped from the beginning, since the scientific community always had other historical temperature data sets at its disposal — that maintained by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, most notably — entirely independent of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, where the controversy emerged.)

Let me be clear: Climate-change denialism does not comprise a conspiracy theory, per se: Those aforementioned 2% of eminent scientists prove as much. I personally know several denialists whom I generally consider to be intelligent and thoughtful. But the most militant denialists do share with conspiracists many of the same habits of mind. Oxford University scholar Steve Clarke and Brian Keeley of Washington University have defined conspiracy theories as those worldviews that trace important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal; and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their hypothesis, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society. This describes, more or less, how radicalized warming deniers treat the subject of their obsession: They see global warming as a Luddite plot hatched by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and Al Gore to destroy industrial society. And whenever some politician, celebrity or international organization expresses support for the all-but-unanimous view of the world’s scientific community, they inevitably will respond with a variation of “Ah, so they’ve gotten to them, too.”

In support of this paranoid approach, the denialists typically will rely on stray bits of discordant information — an incorrect reference in a UN report, a suspicious-seeming “climategate” email, some hypocrisy or other from a bien-pensant NGO type — to argue that the whole theory is an intellectual house of cards. In these cases, one can’t help but be reminded of the folks who point out the fluttering American flag in the moon-landing photos, or the “umbrella man” from the Zapruder film of JFK’s assassination.

In part, blame for all this lies with the Internet, whose blog-from-the-hip ethos has convinced legions of pundits that their view on highly technical matters counts as much as peer-reviewed scientific literature. But there is something deeper at play, too — a basic psychological instinct that public-policy scholars refer to as the “cultural cognition thesis,” described in a recently published academic paper as the observed principle that “individuals tend to form perceptions of risk that reflect and reinforce one or another idealized vision of how society should be organized … Thus, generally speaking, persons who subscribe to individualistic values tend to dismiss claims of environmental risks, because acceptance of such claims implies the need to regulate markets, commerce and other outlets for individual strivings.”

In simpler words, too many of us treat science as subjective — something we customize to reduce cognitive dissonance between what we think and how we live.

In the case of global warming, this dissonance is especially traumatic for many conservatives, because they have based their whole worldview on the idea that unfettered capitalism — and the asphalt-paved, gas-guzzling consumer culture it has spawned — is synonymous with both personal fulfillment and human advancement. The global-warming hypothesis challenges that fundamental dogma, perhaps fatally.

The appropriate intellectual response to that challenge — finding a way to balance human consumption with responsible environmental stewardship — is complicated and difficult. It will require developing new technologies, balancing carbon-abatement programs against other (more cost-effective) life-saving projects such as disease-prevention, and — yes — possibly increasing the economic cost of carbon-fuel usage through some form of direct or indirect taxation. It is one of the most important debates of our time. Yet many conservatives have made themselves irrelevant in it by simply cupping their hands over their ears and screaming out imprecations against Al Gore.

Rants and slogans may help conservatives deal with the emotional problem of cognitive dissonance. But they aren’t the building blocks of a serious ideological movement. And the impulse toward denialism must be fought if conservatism is to prosper in a century when environmental issues will assume an ever greater profile on this increasingly hot, parched, crowded planet. Otherwise, the movement will come to be defined — and discredited — by its noisiest cranks and conspiracists.



Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...lity-to-the-conservative-cause/#ixzz0u8X8BKR0

 

[Bill164Approved]

Whats really gonna fuck us up is if the polarities switch. It's been happening since the beginning of time, it's bound to happen again sometime. Computers and most electronics would be fucked.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-bl...pport-systems/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

 

[hoosierdaddy]

We all know what the position is: Eyes squeezed shut, forefingers inserted firmly into ears, loudly chanting the slogans they’ve been taught to chant so that no portion of actual scientific knowledge is allowed to penetrate.

But let’s take a look anyway, because it’s our planet, and it’s important, and I have children, and I’m not going to give up hope that we may yet summon the decency, courage and wisdom to at least try to mitigate the worst impacts of what we are doing to ourselves.

Opinion pieces slathered in junk science.
Goons always think they have it all figured out.
We all know the type...mouth wide open, head inserted instinctively up ass...loudly blowing global warming into their own bowels...taught the secrets of the universe by those with credentials on par with hog pussy...yeah, we know em...

(the smarmy, self righteous pomp that spews from these assholes truly amuses me)

"I have chilren damnit! Ima fight da good fight, yo!"

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

thus speaketh the sage prophet of the denialists.


you've been wrong all along, why break a streak, eh?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gre...e-to-credible-compelling-climate-science.html

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

http://dalnews.dal.ca/2010/07/28/photoplank.html

http://arstechnica.com/science/news...he-climate-warming-with-no-sign-of-waning.ars

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

 

[SpasticGramps]

Weeeeeeee.....

 

[JackTheGrower]

2009 Hottest year on record. Hotter than 2008 and 2008 > 2007 > 2006 > .....

It's not getting warmer. Global warming is not true..

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Science isn't a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what's driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning. It's not even really debatable anymore.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Thus speaketh the disciple of AlGore, with the debunkdenialists.net handbook at the ready. You have been faithful all along, why break with tradition now?

I love how the anecdotal evidence of one weather event, or even the weather encompassing a single season or year was not indicative of the global climate, until we have a hot season or two...then all of a sudden it is clearly evidence of a global increase in temps.
How many degrees have scientists been saying the overall global temp will rise by in 100 years with that path we are on now? 2...3 degrees? And if we are now using single events and seasons to help make the AGW case, then aren't we doomed much faster than any of you thought?

"It's not really debatable anymore."
Stop debating it folks...the self taught college dropout climate scientist hath spoken!

We seriously need to cull ignorance from academia, the media, and then the government...so we can stop wasting time on all the silly shit that all the lefts loons bring to the table, including this global warming hog shyte.