Somehow many people believe 100 years ago was the “perfect” climate (never mind dust bowls in the 1930’s). So, we MUST do something to change it. As ATLGator said - the world gets hotter, the world gets cooler. I believe the world is getting warmer. I do not accept man is the sole or main cause of this warming….we may be, but it’s all conjecture and models and estimates right now. Further, with India and China continually putting greater and greater CO2 in the atmosphere for the USA to cripple its economy (and force most of the 3rd world to not gain access to fossil fuels) is ridiculous. China is cool with releasing a virus around the world killing millions- they are not going to do any with climate change except laugh at us (and Europe) as we weaken our economies to gain “acceptance”.
This is like seeing a hose filling up a bucket with water, and asserting we can’t know for sure it’s the hose causing to bucket to fill up. Co2 is greenhouse gas that causes warming and makes the planet livable Co2 has increased over 50% in 150 years, to levels higher than seen in thousands of years Man has caused the increase in co2 No other known causes of warming can explain the increase in temps. It is pretty simple. China has gone into green energy in a big way. The notion that green energy will cripple the economy is complete nonsense. It is doubtful that fossil fuels could handle the world’s rapidly expanding energy needs.
Please, for the love of God, stop with the "renamed it climate change" bullshit. It's been posted here 4,000 times that climate change was a phrase coined by Frank Luntz to make AGW sound less scary. No matter how many times this alternate fact is disproved, it comes back time and time again. This has been going on for like 30 years. Amazing.
looking at some of his posts in this thread I don’t have a good answer. Pretty embarrassing honestly.
It’s actually more complicated than that Is it climate change or global warming? How science and a secret memo shaped the answer But if you look historically the terms evolved kind of interchangeably over the decades and in some ways were complementary. But yes, in terms of the political push to use climate change, that absolutely was Republican Frank Lutz in and effort to make it sound less scary.
To your first point, indeed there is no reason to view the climate of 1900 as objectively than the one we have today or will have tomorrow. However, most human societies (as well as those of wildlife) are adapted to the temperature, rainfall, and sea level, etc. of the climate of 1900. Changing these things will require a great deal of restructuring. It’s like building an elaborate house of cards on one table and having someone ask you to move it to another. There is nothing better about the first table, but at this point it’s the one you built the house on! To your second point, inferring causation is always a tricky matter, but it’s not hopeless. Let’s grant your belief that Earth is warming but not because of human activities. Now let’s imagine a second identical Earth that is warming because of human activities. How is that second Earth different? What signs of human influence do their people see that we are missing?
GatorRade- it’s not my belief that humans have no impact - we do. It’s a question of how much an impact, what price are we willing to pay and for what result? Spoke w a retired teacher from Colorado today and she said normally 2 or 3 children out of a kindergarten or 1st grade class of 20 have speech impediments. Due to masking during COVID she said it’s now close to 90% for those students during that time. There are always unforeseen ramifications to new actions. Let’s make fairly certain the cure isn’t worse than the disease
Another quip about people from the author of “How to antagonize others with one post”. Still available on Amazon?
Here we have two independent issues: are humans causing it, and what would it cost to fix it. On the first question, I am still wondering what things we would need to see to demonstrate that humans are causing it. If we can’t answer that question, I can’t see how we can determine that it isn’t humans. To your second point, I absolutely agree on unintended consequences, which is why I do not favor any geo-engineering solutions, like releasing sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Limiting CO2 emissions does not present such environmental dangers, as it is a negative action. Of course, it would present all kinds of economic risks, with many, as you note, likely being unpredictable. The issue of remedy is a complex political one where we shouldn’t be expect to agree, but we likely shouldn’t have widely diverging opinions on the scientific issue of whether humans are a cause.
Very fair and reasonable comments. Here’s the issue: the GW or “Climate change” (CC) alarmists have WAY OVERSOLD their position To those who disbelieve (a few) and those who do not concern themselves over this issue (most people) the shouted claims of “the earth will end as we know it” “our cities will be underwater by such and such a time” while meanwhile they purchase homes on the Coasts the cries of wolf have been mixed in now with honest, fair minded perspectives like yours. EDIT: (described by the author, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, it’s known as “mitote,” essentially chaos ). It’s like telling women who loathe DJT that all the stuff they’ve read and perceived was hype and DJT really is a gal’s best friend. Too much water under the bridge to sell it now. Our information systems do a great job of getting the word out. And our information systems suck at separating the wheat from the chaff. Trust is almost nil and it will be some time before it’s restored.
The premise of your post is wrong. It’s natural to think that the most conservative predictions are the most reasonable because it’s hard to conceive of future change. However, in reality, scientists are a pretty conservative bunch so when they make predictions they are likely more conservative. By all accounts the earth is warming in the more aggressive predictions. 1.5 degrees was tossed out as an initial prediction / goal by the end of the century - and we’ve already just about hit that. There are lots of scientists, and lots of scenarios. Then there are media types who communicate the scenarios, including the possibility of severe consequences. A possibility doesn’t mean something will happen. It is very difficult to predict the exact consequences of global warming. Some of the things that were predicted have happened. Some of them didn’t. Some things happened that weren’t predicted. The level of fires in the western US has certainly been significant. Heat waves have already caused geopolitical disruption in places like the Middle East as crops become harder to grow. Why is it with global warming the skeptics demand near 100% certainty of consequences in order to take preventative action? The defense department spends billions or even trillions on scenarios that likely won’t happen, but could. The thing is we don’t know exactly what will happen and when. It’s hard to foresee. But then when it does happen it is too late. I don’t think we will put a serious dent in global warming. To the extent we produce more green energy, it just becomes more energy that will be used, for things like AI or other future technologies. But the energy is cleaner, has less pollution, gives us more independence and diversity of sources, so clean energy is a good thing even if it doesn’t alter the path of climate change.
Your argument would hold more water if the climate change crowd wasn’t, for the most part, against nuclear power. Clean nuclear power is a great answer for climate change. However, many people associated with the climate change agenda are against nuclear power. Why? Who knows? Maybe because Jane Fonda made a movie about it many, many years ago. Go figure.
At this point you are just throwing out generalizations and stereotypes. I don’t what the climate change crowd, or the climate change agenda is. I’d encourage you to provide some evidence of this. Here is evidence that some of the most notable like James Hansen do support nuclear. This link was 10 years ago - and from what I’ve read it is growing. Top US climate scientists support development of safe nuclear power This is earth scientists - about 90% believe in climate change and it’s mostly man made. About 2/3 support nuclear. This was 9 years ago. Elaborating on the Views of AAAS Scientists, Issue by Issue Having said that nuclear power is expensive and is slow to roll out. The main reason you haven’t seen much new nuclear is it isn’t cost competitive. Even in places like China solar and wind production dwarfs what they are building in nuclear. So yes nuclear should be part of the long term equation but it’s not likely to love the needle in the next 10 years and probably longer. At best it will be a challenge to maintain the existing share as some of these plants are aging out and scheduled for decommission. You seem like a reasonable and open minded person but a lot of your views on this issue seem outdated and driven by prior anti climate change dogma that has been proven as flat out false.
Nuclear power is a fascinating subject. The same people that declare wind and solar, which, even with battery storage, is starting to get cheaper compared to burning fossil fuels, too expensive seem to run to the notion of "why not nuclear?" Seemingly, they do not realize that it is one of the most expensive ways to produce power. Why would we want the more expensive power when we could get the cheaper power without emissions? My only explanation for this gap is that nuclear power has become a way for people that were wrong about the development of wind and solar and wrong about the earth warming 20 years ago to try to get some pride back on this subject. Essentially, they were so wrong that they need those that were right to have been wrong about something too rather than just admitting that they were wrong on the topic. And so, they try to run to nuclear power as a good alternative when, in reality, it is massively expensive. No utility really wants it in its current technological form. Perhaps that is why you are relying on shots at Jane Fonda of all people, rather than the people that actually stop new nuclear plants, the accountants and finance people at utilities. At best, the only investments in nuclear should be on new technologies.
Certainly no one would question the rigorous scientific studies of a kindergarten teacher but "Do masks cause speech issues? While this is a natural concern, there is no known evidence that use of face masks interferes with speech and language development or social communication. Plus, children can still get plenty of face time at home with mask-free family members."
