reading is hard blah blah blah insult insult. You need some new material bro. This shit is getting boring.
I wonder about the extent of human reason. How could we know if humans are or are not altering Earth’s climate? You seem convinced they are not, so I am curious about what evidence, if it existed, would convince you that humans are altering the climate?
given your proclivities for exaggeration and/or misrepresentation of the written word, I thought it best to remind you to read before you post. I think you do earn a medal for bitching at me for insults. You are both the coffee and the kettle.
well, I’m not sure…what do you have? I think I would be less skeptical if: 1. The people claiming climate change is ending the world spoke with actions and deeds, not hyperbole. They all need to give up all products made with fossil fuel. Stop driving SUVs, stop flying in private jets, ….just stop using petroleum products. They don’t seem convinced of their own argument so how can they convince me? and 2. The whole “movement” wasn’t a giant $90 trillion profit making industry. If you believed the world was ending soon, why do you need profit? let’s start there for my response.
Interestingly we seem to agree about the basic premise. Although you dismiss a mountain of field research and evidence that carbon levels are climbing, it is getting hotter and science (not politics) indicate human activity is acclerating the process. To each their own I guess.
your argument misses a nexus. Global temps have gone up and down since the earth was created. Man has been on the planet for about 200,000 years on our 4.5 billion year old planet. Carbon producing industry has been around in ernest for what… 100 to 150 years?
Hi Lawyer, I agree with much of your post. If fact FORGET about Mankind having ANY impact on it then, which is what the main political pissing contest is about. You just acknowledged that temps go up and down. If you believe that you probably also understand that temperature shifts of even a few degrees, caused say, exclusively to natural processes represents a huge problem at various levels for humans. Melting of glaciers and Ice sheets. Or conversely an increase in Ice and glaciers. Rising and falling Ocean and Sea levels. My point is, if nature is just doing what it does, how do we protect ourselves and our human infrastructure? I would like to think that both parties would be interested in addressing the situation for the benefit of all.
First, I gave you a really tough problem that is difficult for almost anyone to answer for any question of value. I do think it’s a good question, but it’s a real bear. Second, there is a lot to parse through with the problem you’ve given me in return. To your first point, how many people have you known that wish they ate more healthily? To my lights, this describes almost everyone I know. “I know I shouldn’t eat this ice cream, but…”. Does the fact they are eating the ice cream prove that it is healthy? Of course not. Is it annoying to get lectured on carbon emissions from a SUV driving dude with a pool heated to 95F in the dead of winter? Absolutely, but it is not proof that the climate is impervious to changes in atmospheric constituents. To your second point, of course there would be a lot of money to be made if people started to take climate change seriously. Then again, there is a ton of money to made if people do not take it seriously, so on this count we appear to be at a standstill. I would further the point by bringing up that every theory/cause has good and bad actors associated with it. “I would vote for Trump if the white nationalists didn’t like him so much!” a) This seems true that white nationalists like Trump, but b) that is hardly proof Trump is a white nationalist. Hitler probably liked Cheerios, but that doesn’t make them evil. Green energy companies like the theory of anthropogenic climate change, but that doesn’t disprove the theory. Third, I think my question is more fundamental than these concerns. How do we gain certainty about an idea? Your claim isn’t just, “This is complicated, so I don’t know.” You’ve actually staked out a strong claim: “Human activity has less than negligible impact on the climate.” To make this claim, we need not just evidence that the competing claim has flaws; we need evidence that this claim does not. That’s a much tougher task.
Your arguments: - Some people who advocate for climate change are hypocrites, therefore the science isn’t true. - there was climate change before man, so man can’t cause climate change. Therefore it is logical to conclude: - some people who purport that gravity is real are assholes, therefore gravity isn’t real - forest fires existed before man, therefore man doesn’t create forest fires. Am I getting this right?
Homo Sapiens first evolved around 300,000 years ago. By 164,000 years ago modern humans were collecting and cooking shellfish and by 90,000 years ago modern humans had begun making special fishing tools. Then, within just the past 12,000 years, our species (Homo sapiens) made the transition to producing food and changing our surroundings. Modern man's evolution has exponentially increased. Assuming we don't wipe ourselves out, in another 300,000 years we should be able to travel space, and probably outside of the Galaxy. After 250 Million years Homo Sapiens will be waaaayyyyy down the evolution tree. Just my two cents.
Not sure unless they are stating that the higher temperatures can hold more humidity even if it is still relatively low percentage wise. More so than the desert SW does currently. More humidity allows the air to maintain it's heat so things don't cool off as much when the sun goes down. That's probably as good a guess as theirs.
the issue I have with your response is your suggestion that I/others have to prove that climate change doesn’t exist. I don’t accept that premise. My point is that if climate change actually existed, then you would expect the people screaming the loudest about it would actually live their life accordingly. They are not. From that I can assume that they are full of shit. You can prove otherwise to me.
Damn. I thought we were making progress here. Need to try harder + reading comprehension + self insult + find meme/cartoon to punish myself.
I think this is a fair point. To push back slightly, I would note that when people are caught violating the various ethical, moral, or religious positions they espouse, it's often stated in response that everyone falls short of their own standards and that doesn't necessarily negate the validity of those positions or necessarily mean the person is lying about what they think is right. But yeah, at some point along the spectrum, it's not unfair to infer that someone doesn't believe what they say they believe when it looks like they're not even trying. I believe in climate change, but I'm not gonna pretend I'm a stickler about energy use either so I don't go around lecturing others. I keep my house cooler than it needs to be in the summer, but I honestly can't stand sitting around sweating. I can only hope I'm offsetting that somewhat by almost never using my heater in the winter. And I did get sold on a fancy HVAC unit that is supposedly more efficient, lol.
It is possible to have an academic societal view on something, and at the same time not totally act on it at a personal level. I definitely believe in climate change, it is pretty straightforward and obvious science. I definitely think we should do some of the things we are doing, such as alternative energy, conservation, etc as a society we not only does it incrementally help climate change it helps in other areas such as pollution, energy independence, and also long term energy efficiency as an investment. Now do I drive a 40mpg car or an electric car? No. Do I run my ac at 80 degrees? No. Why not? Because while I’m willing to share in a collective effort, I’m not going to go overboard virtue signaling by myself while 90% of other people around me make no effort whatsoever. Make of that what you will. Also, whatever people’s actions and morality surrounding an issue, doesn’t mean the core issue/science isn’t true. What we should do about it is debatable, the fact that it exists is not.
I addressed both of these points in the post above. 1. That I am putting the burden of proof on you. I would say that I’m not doing this; it’s you that did this by staking out the strong claim. Your claim isn’t just, “This is complicated, so I don’t know.” You said: “Human activity has less than negligible impact on the climate.” Since this is your claim, it is your responsibility to defend it. 2. That some people who espouse the dangers of climate live a lifestyle that emits a lot of carbon. Indeed this is true. I would again ask that you picture the person who wishes they ate better but still goes for the extra cookie. Or better, the heroin user that warns against its ill effects but still shoots up. Should this contradictory behavior overwhelm the all the other data that tells us that heroin is dangerous for users? But these are just my responses to you. What I am most interested in is my first question: What evidence, if it existed, would convince you that human activities are influencing the climate? It’s a tough question, but if we can’t give an answer to it, I would suggest that our opinion is not scientific.
