By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Climate Change: What's your take?

This seems to be a sensitive issue for some people as it's become a political issue rather than a scientific one.

I have become fascinated as I have watched this whole thing play out. I looked into the science. Seemed legit. Co2 is a greenhouse gas (ie it traps and radiates heat), that is a fact and something that can be demonstrated in a lab environment. There is also a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. Not only that, but the computer models appeared to be predicting an increase in global temperatures fairly well for a while.

But then something strange happened....

Observations started deviating from the predictions of the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so they quietly began lowering their short and medium term expected temperature rises.

But the alarmism seemed to get more drastic instead of dying down. People were and still are heavily emotionally invested in the idea that man made CO2 emissions are going to destroy the planet, despite the latest observations and peer reviewed literature showing that less alarm is actually warranted.

Not only that, but many powerful people and organisations are now heavily financially invested in carbon markets and other such schemes.

A paper titled 'The Consensus Project was trotted out in 2013 by John Cook et al. in the hope that if the public saw that there was a 'scientific consensus' on man made climate change then they would take it as gospel and insist that their governments take action. I have seen an interview with him where he stated that this was the purpose of his paper. I'm sure many of you have heard of the '97% consensus'. This is where that number came from, but the number is misleading and misused. Please read the paper, or at least the abstract of the paper to see how they arrived at that particular number. President Obama tweeted the 97% number, added that man made emissions were also 'dangerous' (this isn't mentioned in the consensus project), and the world bought it.

Instead of appealing to the data, there is an appeal to authority and consensus. That is not science, that's politics. Even if you do like to appeal to authority, most claim that the IPCC is the authority on man made global warming but do not actually read the literature from the IPCC (which is becoming less alarming with each report). Instead they listen to what politicians say about the IPCC literature. Since when are politicians ever truthful about anything?

I prefer to look at the data and peer reviewed literature, which indicates that the climate is far less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought, and that the atmosphere is far more complex than it was previously understood to be.

What do you think? Am I wrong? Is an apocalypse coming?

I get the feeling some people are so devoted to the solution, that they are failing to see that it is becoming a less urgent problem.



Around the Network

The Earth changes and humans can change the environment. If there is one thing to know it is that mother nature reigns supreme. You can't fuck with natural disasters.



sethnintendo said:
The Earth changes and humans can change the environment. If there is one thing to know it is that mother nature reigns supreme. You can't fuck with natural disasters.

So you think that man made greenhouse gas emissions increase instances or severity of natural disasters?





Locknuts said:
sethnintendo said:
The Earth changes and humans can change the environment. If there is one thing to know it is that mother nature reigns supreme. You can't fuck with natural disasters.

So you think that man made greenhouse gas emissions increase instances or severity of natural disasters?



I believe practices like fracking cause earthquakes (OK has had huge increase in quakes recently) and could pollute ground water (they don't even tell us what types of chemicals they are injecting).  I am more concered about pollution, GMO crops (destroying biodiversity), and factory farms.  The food chain and the way we grow/make food is a major concern of mine.





im a biology major who knows nothing about climate change



Around the Network
sethnintendo said:

I believe practices like fracking cause earthquakes (OK has had huge increase in quakes recently) and could pollute ground water (they don't even tell us what types of chemicals they are injecting).  I am more concered about pollution, GMO crops (destroying biodiversity), and factory farms.  The food chain and the way we grow/make food is a major concern of mine.



The jury is still out on fracking as far as I know, but I agree:  pollution and ensuring the worlds food supply are serious issues.





Anoxic events have happened several time in Earth's history due to Massive Carbon Release into the Air and Lack of Oxygen in the Ocean. The extreme release of carbon likely happened due to Volcanic Eruptions on a massive scale.

Is that going to happen to us? I don't have the slightest clue but hope not. If anything is putting too much carbon in the air right now it's the Billion plus vehicles moving up and down the streets. Yeah that's right you and I are releasing this stuff on a massive scale.

Large portions of the ocean are covered in algae whose size dwarfs that of our forests. If these suddenly start dying then the photosynthesis that cleans our are is going to spiral the wrong way and it'll end badly. Am I gonna do anything about it? No.

Taxing companies for carbon emissions is for generating revenue for the state because the state will set levels that maximize it's own profit and not stop emissions. To stop high level emission you have to actually make it illegal.

Are we all fucked? I don't know. I don't think any of us are qualified to assess this situation because we are not experts. The experts who made it their lives to understand this subject are off in a bubble somewhere separated from our attention by a media that filters everything to conduct the agenda of the Banks that own Everything. We'll never know the truth.

My guess is the media wants us to believe in global warming true or not and eventually we will volunteer our taxes for repentance for how we screwed things up and trust in their super political power to fix it. Seriously most of us have never even taken a geology course and don't have any business in this discussion.



The way I see it, the odds are good that human waste emissions are, at the least, exacerbating climate change. At the worst, they're the main catalyst. If we try to minimize the damage and it turns out that they aren't a major factor, then what is the real harm? However, what if we do nothing and the outcome is that they are really bad and the world is irreversibly screwed? Will people just go, "oops, my bad?"

Logic would say to err on the side of caution, especially since we know other pollutants have caused irrefutable damage to the environment.

Honestly, though, the one thing that really, really bugs me is how many people form their opinions on this based solely on the stance of their political party of choice and whichever political entertainer they follow. Think for yourself, people.



I think the reason "the alarmism is increasing" (though I haven't noticed that) is because people are more informed, so more people are aware of the issue. It's not because those that were aware of the issues have become more "alarmed".

As far as the actual issue goes, it's there and it's real. There's no denying that. I can't say I know the extent of this issue, but to me it's enough to know that it's real to feel a certain responsibility to avoid that it gets out of hand. There have already been complications that are pretty undeniably related to manmade activities. There has been more cases of extreme weather (and that's something that I can notice from where I live), sea levels have risen, deserts are spreading more and more rapidly, mean temperature is increasing. All these things are measurable and have been measured.

It's better to be safe than sorry here. Better to take too many preventative measures than too few. Better to take action now than to wait to find out how big the consequences will be.



My take is politicians cannot debate scientific issues they don't understand. I am not a climateologist but. If 99% of climatologists after hard study and research come to the conclusion that humans are influencing climate change until evidence is shown otherwise I have to go with the side where the evidence is.

I'm not going to tell a geologist what a rock is.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'