Public Opinion on Man-Made Climate Change Has Shifted

[Tijuana]

Err, no. I like discussion. That's why I joined these forums, originally. Mostly for Shaman stuff, since I wanted to get involved in guide-writing, way back when. That, over the years, led to me participating more and more in GenOT, and finally moving my mod duties over here.

The moderation stuff is a way to give back to a community I enjoy being a part of. It's completely separate from why I post on the forums.

But, the main reason you post is just to correct people? That's how your post reads. /shrug

[Endus]

But, the main reason you post is just to correct people? That's how your post reads. /shrug

No, to counter people. Because that's what a discussion is.

If we weren't having a back-and-forth over an issue we disagreed with, every thread would just be "Aren't puppies adorbs?" "Gee willikers, of course!" "Shall we post images of puppies?" "We shall!"

That's an echo chamber of silliness and I have no desire to waste my time in that.

[Zecora]

Is it Beijing in china that has so much smog that its like smoking a pack of cigarettes a day?

Yes, but do not fear, Glorious Leader T.rump will soon bring that to a city near you as well!
"It's like smoking a pack a day, for free. It costs them nothing. Nothing. It saves people money, your money. It is good. durrrr...."

[Garnier Fructis]

I don't understand people like this. You are saying you are a moderator on a discussion forum because you like to correct people. I wish there were two GEN-OT forums, so those of us who like to discuss things could not be bothered by those who want to argue every irrelevant point, and discuss nothing.

At least in the context of climate change, these 'irrelevant points' are actually the important points.

[Barnabas]

I agree. We should forget about this man made reality we've created and go back to living in caves. Climate will still change but whatever.

[Garnier Fructis]

I agree. We should forget about this man made reality we've created and go back to living in caves. Climate will still change but whatever.

Because that's totally what we need to do to combat climate change.

Except not. If hyperbole is the only way you can debate, consider getting better arguments.

[lockedout]

Because literally nobody claimed otherwise. It's an elementary component of anthropogenic climate change theory, because if we didn't understand the paleoclimate trends, there would be no way to show how wildly extreme the current anthropogenic trend is. And how none of the factors that contributed to climate change in those past cycles are driving the current warming.

The two of you are engaging in nothing but blatant willful ignorance. You may as well be claiming that the Earth is flat and all those pictures from space are just CGI. Because that's as informed and justifiable position as the anti-intellectual crapbag that is climate change denial.

For anyone who gives a shit about the truth, here's a thorough summary, with direct citations to primary source data; http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Has there ever been a "wildly extreme" trend in the past?

[Barnabas]

Because that's totally what we need to do to combat climate change.

Except not. If hyperbole is the only way you can debate, consider getting better arguments.

So then what is an acceptable amount of man made contribution to you if you have this great awesome godlike undebatable position?

[Garnier Fructis]

So then what is an acceptable amount of man made contribution to you if you have this great awesome godlike undebatable position?

Hyperbole is seriously your only trick, isn't it?

[Barnabas]

Hyperbole is seriously your only trick, isn't it?

Again what is an acceptable amount of man made contribution in your opinion? You seem to have all this science and all the answers. So answer the question.

[Chickat]

Let's hope the laws of physics never become a political football or we might wind up fighting gravity deniers.

Pretty sure they already exist, but not mainstream..... yet.

- - - Updated - - -

About as overused as "Global Warming"?

The correct term is Climate Change.

[Endus]

Has there ever been a "wildly extreme" trend in the past?

Short of what we assume it must have been like during extinction-level events like asteroid strikes, no. There has not.

By way of comparison, we're in the middle of an ice age; that means there's permanent icecaps at the poles. We're currently in an interglacial period, those tend to last a while and then everything freezes back up into another glacial period for tens of thousands of years. Interglacials warm up very rapidly, in geological terms, and once the cooling starts, temperatures slowly cool over the course of the glacial period, until the next interglacial spikes them back up.

Those interglacial warming spikes are only a few degrees (from the lowest global temperatures during the last glacial period to the modern era is only about 4 degrees C, averaged over the globe), and they occur across a period of thousands of years. That's lightning-fast, in geological terms. The current warming has been nearly a degree in the last century, and the rate in the latter half of that century was twice that of the first half. If you compare this to the most-recent interglacial warming, the rate of change from anthropogenic forcing is well over 100 times as fast.

Again what is an acceptable amount of man made contribution in your opinion? You seem to have all this science and all the answers. So answer the question.

That's not an answerable question, because you haven't determined what outcome you want to achieve.

If you want to prevent warming, well, the "acceptable amount" isn't just "zero", we need to aggressively sequester carbon out of the atmosphere and reduce emissions to zero. We've already passed that tipping point; if we dropped emissions to zero overnight, the warming trend will continue for centuries, possibly longer.

So it's a question of "how much do you want to spend on adaptation and how much infrastructure are you willing to abandon as unsalvageable". The more you're willing to spend to fix problems, the more you can deem "acceptable" in terms of emissions. But we're talking about trillions of dollars, globally, regardless.

- - - Updated - - -

The correct term is Climate Change.

No, it isn't. Global warming is the increasing global temperatures. Climate change is the effect of those increased temperatures on global climate patterns. They're two different but strongly related things.

[Torto]

Because that's totally what we need to do to combat climate change.

Except not. If hyperbole is the only way you can debate, consider getting better arguments.

This is a term I see a lot, to combat climate change. Combat. To fight against, the classic war of good vs evil. The great crusade.

You do realise we are talking about the weather here right? It's not a war, battle or fight, it's a warming of the planet. But this terminology is consistently used by the alarmists, because to get everyone on board there needs to be a bad guy. It's a small glimpse into the mindset of the left and how easily they can get themselves worked up into a frenzy.

[Barnabas]

Short of what we assume it must have been like during extinction-level events like asteroid strikes, no. There has not.

By way of comparison, we're in the middle of an ice age; that means there's permanent icecaps at the poles. We're currently in an interglacial period, those tend to last a while and then everything freezes back up into another glacial period for tens of thousands of years. Interglacials warm up very rapidly, in geological terms, and once the cooling starts, temperatures slowly cool over the course of the glacial period, until the next interglacial spikes them back up.

Those interglacial warming spikes are only a few degrees, and they occur across a period of thousands of years. That's lightning-fast, in geological terms. The current warming has been nearly a degree in the last century, and the rate in the latter half of that century was twice that of the first half. If you compare this to the most-recent interglacial warming, the rate of change from anthropogenic forcing is well over 100 times as fast.



That's not an answerable question, because you haven't determined what outcome you want to achieve.

If you want to prevent warming, well, the "acceptable amount" isn't just "zero", we need to aggressively sequester carbon out of the atmosphere and reduce emissions to zero. We've already passed that tipping point; if we dropped emissions to zero overnight, the warming trend will continue for centuries, possibly longer.

So it's a question of "how much do you want to spend on adaptation and how much infrastructure are you willing to abandon as unsalvageable". The more you're willing to spend to fix problems, the more you can deem "acceptable" in terms of emissions. But we're talking about trillions of dollars, globally, regardless.

- - - Updated - - -



No, it isn't. Global warming is the increasing global temperatures. Climate change is the effect of those increased temperatures on global climate patterns. They're two different but strongly related things.

It's an answerable question. You, just like the person I quoted, choose to avoid answering it. Instead you try to submit some circular reasoning to make up for your lack of an answer.

[Garnier Fructis]

This is a term I see a lot, to combat climate change. Combat. To fight against, the classic war of good vs evil. The great crusade.

You do realise we are talking about the weather here right? It's not a war, battle or fight, it's a warming of the planet. But this terminology is consistently used by the alarmists, because to get everyone on board there needs to be a bad guy. It's a small glimpse into the mindset of the left and how easily they can get themselves worked up into a frenzy.

Alternatively, you could not over-analyze word choice to draw faux-psychology conclusions.

Replace 'combat' with 'mitigate' if it bothers you so much.

Again what is an acceptable amount of man made contribution in your opinion? You seem to have all this science and all the answers. So answer the question.

That's for policymakers to decide (for reasons Endus pointed out), after they accept reality.

But to be perfectly honest, I have no desire to debate solutions with people who are still stuck on the whether or not we contribute. Because at that point it's a moot exercise: any solution will seem terrible to you because you don't actually think there's a problem that we're part of.

But if we're going to make ultimatums here, then I have one too: present scientific rebuttals if you're so confident of your position.

- - - Updated - - -

It's an answerable question. You, just like the person I quoted, choose to avoid answering it. Instead you try to submit some circular reasoning to make up for your lack of an answer.

I don't know how to say this in any way that isn't rude, so I'm just going to say it.

You simply don't understand enough to even know that your question is unanswerable without more conditions. I get it, people don't like to know that some questions don't have answers or that questions themselves can be wrong. This is an example of a wrong question, because it's missing too many parts.

[Zecora]

So public opinion has shifted in the UK. Yet we still don't act in a way to make a difference. Does anyone here try to live their own live more "ecological"?

Yep.

(little things like avoiding the use of plastic

Yep.

or bigger things like not owning a car, or if you must own a car at least do everything in a range of 6 km on a bike?)

Yep.

[Spectral]

So public opinion has shifted in the UK. Yet we still don't act in a way to make a difference. Does anyone here try to live their own live more "ecological"? (little things like avoiding the use of plastic or bigger things like not owning a car, or if you must own a car at least do everything in a range of 6 km on a bike?)

I certainly don't try very hard. Things that are relatively easy to do, sure. We don't throw shit out that can plausibly be reused, carry bags to the grocery store, recycle, etc., but I don't have any delusion that these things make much difference even in the scheme of how much ecological impact I personally have. My wife and I only have one car and only drive ~5K miles/year when at home (lots of walking and biking, live in a city center), but I fly a lot for work and drive places when I land. I'm not going to rearrange life to avoid flying when this makes no noticeable difference without sufficient worldwide cooperation.

More to the point, very minor policy changes matter a lot more than personal habits do. I'd heartily endorse replacing coal plants with alternative energies wherever feasible.

[Endus]

It's an answerable question. You, just like the person I quoted, choose to avoid answering it. Instead you try to submit some circular reasoning to make up for your lack of an answer.

Try re-reading my post. Because it isn't. You aren't asking for something that you can be given an answer to, because you haven't provided enough information for anyone to understand what answer you're looking for.

It's a question like "How much fruit?" or "Where should we go?" Without context to explain what those questions are looking for, they're meaningless. As yours was. As I already explained. By providing example context and then answering it.

[Shadowferal]

That's why I'm a huge fan of climate change. A week in the 70s has been great!

Then the abnormally extreme heat and humidity in the summer should be up your alley.

I think it's the shits myself.

One of the big reasons for the warm winter has been the massive loss in ice up north.

[Glorious Leader]

Ha, don't make me laugh. Most western governments are in so much debt that it will take generations to pay off. We are condemning our children to endless recessions and no one cries about that. But when the seas rise by an inch it's all hands on deck.

Yea thats not really how it works. In real terms your children cant pay the debt back since nobody has perfected time travel. In nominal terms sovereign monetary issuers with no currency pegs can always pay back the debt.