Why should we fear climate change?

Blindman said:
This leads me to the point of this thread. Which is the greater peril. GW or econimic depression.

If GW activists had their way we would be plunged headlong into the greatest depression of all time. The great depression would look like an all you could eat smörgåsbord.

Human society requires growth. Unfortunate but true. We can not stop growth, we can not ban children, we can not abate the human desire for comfort, health, and long life.

Lets get real and concentrate on how we are to adapt to a changing world. Put in place strategies to help those that will be adversely effected by climate change.

Increasing TAX, limiting growth will not help society. Times are good why mess it up because we fear something we don't understand. Kyoto was a joke, Copenhagen even greater.

There has never been a light at the end of the tunnel of human growth lets not make it darker. Live for now not for an unknown future. IMHO:D
Click to expand...

It will indeed help society to find a new economy based on renewable and environmentally friendly energy. We are heading to a tipping point with peak oil. We can prepare for the twin diasters of peak oil and global warming or we can sleepwalk into our doom. Your choice.
 
We are heading towards a tipping point indeed. Look at the polls today; more and more people believe climate fluctuations are due to natural occurrences. The climate propaganda has reached its peak and is losing support fast. Your lie is exposed. Time to find a new theater for your proposed socialism.
 
arch rival said:
Hold on, you are becoming incoherent. All i claimed is DDT is safe enough to eat.
Click to expand...
It's an estrogen mimic that accumulates and persists in fat, concentrating low doses into high load levels given continual consumption. Such as in all the upper level predators you might eat - say, fish - or domestic meat animals fed residue in sprayed crops. And subsequently, in ever increasing concentrations, in your breasts, the fat around your internal organs, your bone marrow, etc.

As an estrogen mimic, it does not duplicate all of the hormonal effects - just some of them, and not quite correctly. Bit of a crap shoot, there. If you have testicular cancer, it might do you good.

But as you say, it's "safe" to eat - so are your girlfriend's birth control pills. She in fact eats them. They don't accumulate in her fat, would be one possibly significant difference, but they won't kill you or make you immediately sick.

Bon appetit.

engineerie said:
Time to find a new theater for your proposed socialism.
Click to expand...
If you think regulating carbon emission is socialism, wait 'til you see what has to be done to handle the consequences of a 2C greenhouse warming.
 
Last edited:
engineerjoe said:
Climate change could happen! We must pass laws to avoid it!

We might get attacked by glitter unicorns! We must pass laws to avoid this as well!
Click to expand...

Ahem.

The evidence for climate change is just a little stronger than the evidence for glitter unicorns. Trust me on this.
 
The argument could be made:

There is a climate email scandal. No unicorn email scandal.

Current climate debate. No unicorn debate.

Contradicting climate studies. No contradiction concerning unicorns.

Therefore: The scientific community is in more agreement about unicorns than climate change.
 
The e-mail scandal would be significant if it encompased the entire body of evidence for global warming, which goes back to the 70's. It does not.

The scientific debate is largely over, the only reason people stil vehemently deny it is because as soon as the phenomenon was known, industry started to be scared that maybe the governments of the world would want to do something about it, which threatened their incomes. This is an understandable worry, but it has nothing to do with the science. Instead of coming to terms with the situtation, the response of industry was to hire people to counter the message. Inside communications from political craftsmen like Frank Luntz reveal the scandalous way in which they both admit the facts, and cynically craft their response to undermine legitimate scientific conclusions.
 
Typical liberal response: Caught in a farce? Deny facts and blame everything on a conspiracy from the evil corporations!
 
Which fact am I denying? The recent e-mail scandal is significant with regard to that one institution. You are the one suggesting a conspiracy among all climate scientists, an unreasonable extrapolation.

On the other hand, we have evidence that the Republican administration did collude to undermine the science in the eyes of the public in order to further their pro-corporate platform. I have nothing against corporations, I am employed by one. I just don't want political motivations to undermine good science.

Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

Words such as "common sense" should be used, with pro-business arguments avoided wherever possible.

The environment, the memo says, "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable".​

How about that for a conspiracy? This memo is scandalous!
 
As I do not want bad science to dictate politcal policy. If climate change is really to be looked at honestly, and accepted as honest science by society, it needs to start over from scratch.
 
How so? The historical temperature records cannot be redone, even if there were a need to do so, which there isn't.
 
There is a need, but it is not the reason you are thinking. The polls show dropping support for climate change. There was an email scandal. Scientists continue to argue vehemently with each other. Political leaders cannot agree. When you have all of this, and growing resistance, don't you think it would all go better if things were just halted for 2 seconds and a review of the science conducted? Or better yet, do a new study with technology we have now instead of relying on 30 year old nonexistent records. If the trust of the public on this issue is not attained quickly, they will always see it as a lie and do everything they can to resist it.
 
I'm sure you are trying your best to perpetuate the myth that there is something wrong with the science. Much of the data is based on things like tree rings, coral, and ice cores. The samples still exist, so I fail to understand what needs to be redone.
 
No. Im saying you are losing public support; climate change is looking like a lie. In order to reverse this you cannot keep pointing at the same data and repeat "believe this." Statements and then retractions made by people like Gore do not help. Squabbling among scientists does not help. You have to have some unbiased new data to show and convince people.

Also ice cores show natural fluctuations which would prove temperature changes are natural.

Im guessing the tree rings you mentioned were the ones used by the U.N. for their climate change basis. From my understanding only a few trees were used which is not good science. When the rings of the same tree species were looked at in relation to current climate conditions, they did not match up very well either.
 
We don't redo the data collection aspect of scientific studies just because deniers have achieved a measure of success confusing the public.

Why would new data be treated any differently than the old data? The original goal of confusing and delaying public reaction would still be there.

Ice Core Studies Confirm Accuracy Of Climate Models

An analysis has been completed of the global carbon cycle and climate for a 70,000 year period in the most recent Ice Age, showing a remarkable correlation between carbon dioxide levels and surprisingly abrupt changes in climate.​
 
engineerjoe said:
Correlation does not equal causation buddy.

Also, tree ring issues?
Click to expand...

No, but it does not preclude causation either, for example there is a high correlation between auto accidents and driving while intoxicated.

Correlation when coupled with other data as is the case with climate warming, can build a pretty conclusive case.
 
Stubbing my toe is correlated with yelling. So does that mean everytime I yell my foot hurts? No.

What other likely factors are discounted? Are you telling me that EVERY issue has been looked at and discounted as having anything to do with temperature?

and still...tree ring issue?
 
This is a strange conversation, but typical of conservatives, Republicans, tea baggers, et al. They seem always to know the answer before they know the question and by God, ain't nothing gonna get between them and the already known answer. :) By God they are entitled to that answer no matter what :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top