(11-27-2017, 02:47 AM)treee Wrote:  And one degree is huge for certain ecosystems, specifically oceanic ones.

That is so far within natural variation that's it's practically a crime to make the claim.  To say nothing of whether man might not actually be 100% responsible for the 1 degree increase.

I'm sorry, but it's pseudo-science largely driven by an agenda.  They're ALWAYS revising some temperature subset lower to keep their claims alive.

(11-27-2017, 03:00 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That is so far within natural variation that's it's practically a crime to make the claim.  To say nothing of whether man might not actually be 100% responsible for the 1 degree increase.

I'm sorry, but it's pseudo-science largely driven by an agenda.  They're ALWAYS revising some temperature subset lower to keep their claims alive.

You're right, it is an agenda.

 That is because the free market is not proactive, it is reactive. Therefor, there would not be enough incentive to move towards renewable energy until the problem had continued to occur for some length of time.

Once that point is reached, there could be monumental outcomes, such as the inability to sustain the necessary agricultural conditions to feed 7 billion+ people.

Also, the natural variation argument doesn't stand with context. You're looking solely at net change without taking into account the amount of time that transpires within that net change.

(11-26-2017, 10:29 AM)WiregrassBenGal Wrote: Here's my take and it's a self-serving one.

Last February after my mother passed, I decided to move back to Ohio to be close to my sisters in Cincinnati and in Logan County. I ended up in Dayton, which is exactly half way between them.

Part of my decision was that with climate change the winters here may not be as bad in the past. Even though there have been some cold days, that's been mostly true so far. Although ask me again at the end of March.

Winters have been milder in this area the past two, three years but summers have become markedly cooler.  Wonder how that fits.

(11-27-2017, 08:08 AM)McC Wrote: Winters have been milder in this area the past two, three years but summers have become markedly cooler.  Wonder how that fits.

That kind of surprised me. For the whole month of July there was not one single high above 90 degrees. And then August had some cool days, too.

My niece got married 9/23 and my sister had electric heaters like they used at restaurants ordered since the wedding and reception would be outdoors in the sculpture park in Hamilton (nice wedding venue by the way and very reasonable). But it was 93 degrees that day, so I felt for the guys in tuxes and three-piece suits. 

If it's going to be cooler in the summer, I'm fine with that since I had enough hot weather in over three years in south Florida, seven years in southern California, and 12 years in central Florida. It regularly hit 100 degrees in Norco, where I lived in CA and I don't agree with the "dry heat" B.S. That's hot!

(11-27-2017, 08:08 AM)McC Wrote: Winters have been milder in this area the past two, three years but summers have become markedly cooler.  Wonder how that fits.

Our weather is affected by a number of things. Climate change looks at overall global trends, but our weather can be affected by any number of things. For example, this volcano issue in Bali could make our summer cooler because of aerosolized particles reflecting sunlight.

(11-27-2017, 04:48 AM)treee Wrote: That is because the free market is not proactive, it is reactive. Therefor, there would not be enough incentive to move towards renewable energy until the problem had continued to occur for some length of time.

That is a great argument, even more so if it were actually true (tons of VC and PE money that disagrees with your assertion).  If it were ever true, which would rarely be the case.

But the point remains that despite the "catastrophic" claims, the thermometer hasn't moved in 2+ decades.  At some point, people MUST start questioning the validity and certainty of those "claims".  I'm AMAZED by the parallels with all the Net Neutrality bullshit.

If you were to set politics aside and look at the case rationally and objectionably....I thing you'd probably agree with me.

(12-03-2017, 05:06 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That is a great argument, even more so if it were actually true (tons of VC and PE money that disagrees with your assertion).  If it were ever true, which would rarely be the case.

But the point remains that despite the "catastrophic" claims, the thermometer hasn't moved in 2+ decades.  At some point, people MUST start questioning the validity and certainty of those "claims".  I'm AMAZED by the parallels with all the Net Neutrality bullshit.

If you were to set politics aside and look at the case rationally and objectionably....I thing you'd probably agree with me.

Whatever, dude. 

You can sit on your back porch and think that the global temperature hasn't changed much and from your back porch in Cincinnati,  Dayton or most inland areas, but the problem is that your back porch doesn't encompass the entire globe. You don't feel the effects of climate change nearly as much as someone living in Sub Sahara Africa (which by the way was mostly green and lush before the Industrial revolution) or Equador or a million other places. You don't feel the immediate impact of billions of trees cut down for farming in the Amazon basin and you certainly wouldn't notice from Cincinnati Ohio that suddenly there's a wide open Northwest passage completely across the Arctic ocean in the summer months when there never was one before.
These changes don't just happen while you're out mowing the lawn, but over the course of a lifetime an entire region can change from productive farmland to wasteland. It can and has occurred in a few short years as it did during the dust bowl years. 
You can pretend it won't effect you or your family, but it most certainly will one way or another. 
From a self serving point of view, sure, I hate the cold.I'm very cold sensitive, but I'm also pretty sensitive to 120° temperatures that last all summer long. 
The last year I was living in Irving Texas the temperature reached 115 every day for over 76 straight days and every single plant in our front yard, trees, bushes, grass, ALL DIED.. It didn't rain that entire time and there were wild fires all over the state. Our current energy secretary, former governor of Texas at the time Tricky Ricky's solution? Pray for rain.. It eventually did rain, but I strongly believe it had nothing to do with his pleading with any higher power. The weather service had forcasted rain 3 days before his now infamous prayer gathering at the stadium.. What a schmuck.. 

..

(12-03-2017, 07:19 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..

lol I was just coming to say there are people that still believe the earth is flat. and only ~2000 years old

(12-07-2017, 11:21 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: lol I was just coming to say there are people that still believe the earth is flat. and only ~2000 years old

Those sketchy ass science dudes and their "facts" have an agenda behind trying to make you think the earth isnt flat.

(12-03-2017, 05:15 AM)treee Wrote: Whatever, dude. 

LMFAO....is this you basically admitting that you're going to believe whatever you want to believe, actual facts and evidence be damned?   

Irony is thick....But don't worry, that is how every one of these debates I've had here on this subject has ended.  "Whatever, dude - I choose to believe whatever some unqualified random blogger has told me the science says [because I can't and don't read the science] so long as it aligns with my belief set"

(12-09-2017, 08:35 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Those sketchy ass science dudes and their "facts" have an agenda behind trying to make you think the earth isnt flat.

Scientific proof, instead of bullshit agendas, is a wonderful thing.  Even if one were to believe the fearmongers....one only need look at actual policy to determine veracity.

There was good science behind the CFC effects.  And they actually DID something about CFC's.  THAT is how you know you're not being bullshitted.  Congress - for as incompetent as they may be - actually DOES come together and do do something when science says they need to do something.

Global warming is just another wedge issue like guns and abortion.

(12-10-2017, 04:06 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LMFAO....is this you basically admitting that you're going to believe whatever you want to believe, actual facts and evidence be damned?   

Irony is thick....But don't worry, that is how every one of these debates I've had here on this subject has ended.  "Whatever, dude - I choose to believe whatever some unqualified random blogger has told me the science says [because I can't and don't read the science] so long as it aligns with my belief set"

No, you just didn't say anything worth debating. Yea, there's private funding for renewable energy. That is literally all you said that was a new point, in your post. That was why I said "whatever, dude". You've already made up your mind. What's the point in continuing from there?

(12-10-2017, 04:13 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Scientific proof, instead of bullshit agendas, is a wonderful thing.  Even if one were to believe the fearmongers....one only need look at actual policy to determine veracity.

There was good science behind the CFC effects.  And they actually DID something about CFC's.  THAT is how you know you're not being bullshitted.  Congress - for as incompetent as they may be - actually DOES come together and do do something when science says they need to do something.

Global warming is just another wedge issue like guns and abortion.

First, scientific evidence, not proof. Science doesn't really prove much, just provides evidence to support hypotheses based on observational information. The information obtained regarding climate change and humankind's impact has provided substantial evidence to support these hypotheses.

The idea that we need only look at policy to see that if this were real something would be done is fallacious logic. Congress has become less effective since then. A more polarized political body combined with a continued shift favoring less regulation, even among the Democrats, would be prohibitive to something like the Montreal Protocol passing muster these days. In addition to that, the lobbying force behind the industries that would be most affected by efforts to curb human impacts on climate change is much greater than those that were most impacted by the CFC restrictions and have gained greater power since the decision in Citizens United.

There is plenty of good science behind the assertion that global climate change is occurring and that humans are having an impact on this. It has been something that has been politicized too much. People have staked their positions on this issue based on their political ideologies as a result of this politicization of the topic and that has caused an unfortunate delay on the progress of technologies that could be used to help mitigate the damage we have done.