Public Opinion on Man-Made Climate Change Has Shifted

[Annoying]

I am old enough to remember the "acid rain" claim from the 1980's.

People claimed they had holes in their coats because of it.

Well, we had a pretty significant decrease in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission. Mostly because we put that whole "cap and trade" thing into action in the 90s.
The whole "holes in their coats" thing came from people misunderstanding what "acid rain" meant -- lowering of the pH of rainwater.

[Allybeboba]

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/

So, by us stating that the climate of the Earth has been in a state of flux for billions of years you, in your infinite wisdom have deemed us, heretics?

- - - Updated - - -

Holy shit you have zero fucking clue about anything.

Well now, that was quite rude wasn't it?

[Endus]

So, by us stating that the climate of the Earth has been in a state of flux for billions of years you, in your infinite wisdom have deemed us, heretics?

No, I've deemed that you're moving goalposts dishonestly and making a false equivalence.

Scientists are well aware that the climate has been in constant flux. That was literally never ignored, and it forms a fundamental basis for climate change science. This is how you move goalposts.

That the current warming trend over the last century is completely unlike any natural event in those billions of years is also clearly understood, which is why you're making a false equivalence.

In short, it's a deliberate lie that you use to present a false sense of uncertainty in the science. It isn't about "heresy", just willful misrepresentations of fact to push a lie.

[Daelak]

How do we know that anthropogenic climate change is exclusively exacerbating problems? If the Earth arbitrarily warmed by 1 degree Celsius through the natural rise and fall of climate change, would that automatically make droughts/heatwaves/hurricanes/floods worse or more frequent? It would seem that there would be consequences both positive and negative. Yet all we seem to hear is that the Earth warming will cause every catastrophic climate shift to do so in a worse direction.

The natural fluctuation of 1 degree celsius through natural processes takes tens of thousands of years.

[Allybeboba]

No, I've deemed that you're moving goalposts dishonestly and making a false equivalence.

Scientists are well aware that the climate has been in constant flux. That was literally never ignored, and it forms a fundamental basis for climate change science. This is how you move goalposts.

That the current warming trend over the last century is completely unlike any natural event in those billions of years is also clearly understood, which is why you're making a false equivalence.

In short, it's a deliberate lie that you use to present a false sense of uncertainty in the science. It isn't about "heresy", just willful misrepresentations of fact to push a lie.

So, now you are calling me a liar when I stated that the Earth's climate has been changing.

[Endus]

So, now you are calling me a liar that I stated that the Earth's climate has been changing.

No, because you dishonestly made that statement to dismiss the current anthropogenic forcing being a reality.

[Deleted]

There is no such thing as climate, much less change.

[Allybeboba]

No, because you dishonestly made that statement to dismiss the current anthropogenic forcing being a reality.

All I stated originally was "Climate change has been around as long as the Earth as been around".
It was not in response to anyone or anything in particular. It is was simply a statement.

I have not discussed "global warming" or other topics related to it in this thread. Other than to add the amount of animals killed by wind turbines. That is an unfortunate and unforeseen side effect of them.

Let's add a couple words and substitute a couple in statement from above.
Had I stated "Man-made climate change has been around since the industrial revolution" would that have been more accurate in your opinion?
Both of the statements are true. One just fits a little better.
I certainly am not a global warming denialist.

[drakensoul]

All I stated originally was "Climate change has been around as long as the Earth as been around".
It was not in response to anyone or anything in particular. It is was simply a statement.

I have not discussed "global warming" or other topics related to it in this thread. Other than to add the amount of animals killed by wind turbines. That is an unfortunate and unforeseen side effect of them.

Let's add a couple words and substitute a couple in statement from above.
Had I stated "Man-made climate change has been around since the industrial revolution" would that have been more accurate in your opinion?
Both of the statements are true. One just fits a little better.
I certainly am not a global warming denialist.

I feel like a broken record since this comes up in almost every thread. People end up on the wrong side of an argument and then try to pretend that they didn't really mean what they seemed to mean at the beginning as if pragmatism were some form of incomprehensible voodoo.

Pragmatic meaning exists. It's a real thing. The fact that you didn't directly say you don't believe in ACC doesn't negate the fact that you pragmatically implied it by making multiple posts counter to what Endus said, even going so far as to lump yourself into a self-ascribed group of 'heretics' to make a point that ended up not actually existing.

If you have your thermostat set at 61 degrees F and I'm sitting on your couch (in this case, a thread about man-made climate change) and I say "It's cold in here!!" (in this case, 'Climate change has been around as long as the Earth has been around'), you might react by getting up to change the temperature (in this case, Endus responding that your counter is baseless and bogus).

You would be responding to pragmatic meaning, and if I then yelled "What are you doing?!!" (in this case, "I certainly am not a global warming denialist"), you would reasonably turn around surprised. You, reasonably, understood via pragmatism that I was suggesting you should increase the temperature because it's cold in the house. So you then say "I was going to raise the temperature...", and if I responded with "Why? I was just making a statement, I never said cold is bad", you would probably quirk your eyebrow, still confused.

The logical question at the end is "Then why did you say anything at all?"

The answer being that either: you were just trying to create a "Hah!! See how smart I am with my word games!" moment, when in reality I would contend you instead created a spectacle showing a lack of self-awareness for the meaning of what you're posting.

Or: you're just full of shit. Either way, you believe in ACC and agree with Endus so why are you making multiple "So... what you're saying.." posts misrepresenting what he's saying? The answer has already been given above.

[Slant]

I'm glad more and more people are starting to realize the adverse effects we have on the Earth and how we're impacting global temps, the atmosphere, sea levels and ecology through indirect means.

I'm convinced the majority understood the problem for a long while now. That we're indulging a vocal minority in discussing the obvious doesn't mean that they're actually in the majority.

[Endus]

All I stated originally was "Climate change has been around as long as the Earth as been around".
It was not in response to anyone or anything in particular. It is was simply a statement.

I have not discussed "global warming" or other topics related to it in this thread. Other than to add the amount of animals killed by wind turbines. That is an unfortunate and unforeseen side effect of them.

Let's add a couple words and substitute a couple in statement from above.
Had I stated "Man-made climate change has been around since the industrial revolution" would that have been more accurate in your opinion?
Both of the statements are true. One just fits a little better.
I certainly am not a global warming denialist.

I feel like a broken record since this comes up in almost every thread. People end up on the wrong side of an argument and then try to pretend that they didn't really mean what they seemed to mean at the beginning as if pragmatism were some form of incomprehensible voodoo.

Pragmatic meaning exists. It's a real thing. The fact that you didn't directly say you don't believe in ACC doesn't negate the fact that you pragmatically implied it by making multiple posts counter to what Endus said, even going so far as to lump yourself into a self-ascribed group of 'heretics' to make a point that ended up not actually existing.

If you have your thermostat set at 61 degrees F and I'm sitting on your couch (in this case, a thread about man-made climate change) and I say "It's cold in here!!" (in this case, 'Climate change has been around as long as the Earth has been around'), you might react by getting up to change the temperature (in this case, Endus responding that your counter is baseless and bogus).

You would be responding to pragmatic meaning, and if I then yelled "What are you doing?!!" (in this case, "I certainly am not a global warming denialist"), you would reasonably turn around surprised. You, reasonably, understood via pragmatism that I was suggesting you should increase the temperature because it's cold in the house. So you then say "I was going to raise the temperature...", and if I responded with "Why? I was just making a statement, I never said cold is bad", you would probably quirk your eyebrow, still confused.

The logical question at the end is "Then why did you say anything at all?"

The answer being that either: you were just trying to create a "Hah!! See how smart I am with my word games!" moment, when in reality I would contend you instead created a spectacle showing a lack of self-awareness for the meaning of what you're posting.

Or: you're just full of shit. Either way, you believe in ACC and agree with Endus so why are you making multiple "So... what you're saying.." posts misrepresenting what he's saying? The answer has already been given above.

I was going to respond myself, but this covers pretty much everything I was going to say, so I'll just quote it.

The only reason to say "climates have always changed" is to;

1> re-state an obvious factoid that nobody really disputes, for literally no practical reason whatsoever, or
2> to lie through omission, to create a false sense of uncertainty.

Yes, climates have always changed. So what? They haven't changed in the ways we're currently seeing. It's like saying "sometimes rocks cleave along straight lines naturally" in a thread about castle construction in the Middle Ages. Yes, it's technically true, but there's literally no contribution to the discussion, unless you're trying to push a ridiculous conspiracy theory (in that case, that castles are natural formations).

[Allybeboba]

I feel like a broken record since this comes up in almost every thread. People end up on the wrong side of an argument and then try to pretend that they didn't really mean what they seemed to mean at the beginning as if pragmatism were some form of incomprehensible voodoo.

Pragmatic meaning exists. It's a real thing. The fact that you didn't directly say you don't believe in ACC doesn't negate the fact that you pragmatically implied it by making multiple posts counter to what Endus said, even going so far as to lump yourself into a self-ascribed group of 'heretics' to make a point that ended up not actually existing.

If you have your thermostat set at 61 degrees F and I'm sitting on your couch (in this case, a thread about man-made climate change) and I say "It's cold in here!!" (in this case, 'Climate change has been around as long as the Earth has been around'), you might react by getting up to change the temperature (in this case, Endus responding that your counter is baseless and bogus).

You would be responding to pragmatic meaning, and if I then yelled "What are you doing?!!" (in this case, "I certainly am not a global warming denialist"), you would reasonably turn around surprised. You, reasonably, understood via pragmatism that I was suggesting you should increase the temperature because it's cold in the house. So you then say "I was going to raise the temperature...", and if I responded with "Why? I was just making a statement, I never said cold is bad", you would probably quirk your eyebrow, still confused.

The logical question at the end is "Then why did you say anything at all?"

The answer being that either: you were just trying to create a "Hah!! See how smart I am with my word games!" moment, when in reality I would contend you instead created a spectacle showing a lack of self-awareness for the meaning of what you're posting.

Or: you're just full of shit. Either way, you believe in ACC and agree with Endus so why are you making multiple "So... what you're saying.." posts misrepresenting what he's saying? The answer has already been given above.

I posted in this thread BEFORE Endus posted. How could my first post have been a counter to one of his?

Isn't the topic of this entire thread, nay, this entire forum to get people to look at things from a different point of view?

Just look at the ire and negative responses that that one sentence drew from people. I was told I was "ignorant", "just a f***ing stupid excuse", compared to people that think the earth is flat, been called a liar, and now "full of shit". All that stemming from my original post where I quoted no one.


Just because you don't like a statement does not make it incorrect.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, climates have always changed. So what? They haven't changed in the ways we're currently seeing. It's like saying "sometimes rocks cleave along straight lines naturally" in a thread about castle construction in the Middle Ages. Yes, it's technically true, but there's literally no contribution to the discussion, unless you're trying to push a ridiculous conspiracy theory (in that case, that castles are natural formations).

Was a conspiracy suggested or even pushed in any of my posts?

[Noxx79]

I posted in this thread BEFORE Endus posted. How could my first post have been a counter to one of his?

Isn't the topic of this entire thread, nay, this entire forum to get people to look at things from a different point of view?

Just look at the ire and negative responses that that one sentence drew from people. I was told I was "ignorant", "just a f***ing stupid excuse", compared to people that think the earth is flat, been called a liar, and now "full of shit". All that stemming from my original post where I quoted no one.


Just because you don't like a statement does not make it incorrect.

- - - Updated - - -



Was a conspiracy suggested or even pushed in any of my posts?

It's raining outside.

[Endus]

I posted in this thread BEFORE Endus posted. How could my first post have been a counter to one of his?

Isn't the topic of this entire thread, nay, this entire forum to get people to look at things from a different point of view?

What "different point of view"?

If the "different point of view" you're pushing is that climates have always changed naturally and therefore we shouldn't worry about this shift, then you're a climate change denier, and you're lying to people.

Just look at the ire and negative responses that that one sentence drew from people. I was told I was "ignorant", "just a f***ing stupid excuse", compared to people that think the earth is flat, been called a liar, and now "full of shit". All that stemming from my original post where I quoted no one.

Because, to compare to flat-earthers, your comment was equivalent to saying "If you look at the horizon, it looks flat." So it's no wonder that people would call you a flat-earther. Because even if you aren't one, you're defending their willfully ignorant point of view.

Was a conspiracy suggested or even pushed in any of my posts?

When you clumsily hint that climate change is natural and not anthropogenic, yes.

- - - Updated - - -

Plus, Allybeboba, it's not like you don't have a posting history that we can easily check.

Of coarse there is "climate change". We are just not the cause of it.

Hell, you've directly cited conspiracy sites yourself in pursuing this agenda, in the past;

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...e#post34962139

So don't act all aghast when some of us recall your prior behaviour, and how this is an evolution from that past.

[want my Slimjim]

Sad to see more people believe In this propaga fairy tale. We're going to have to push harder, so the western world doesn't crumble.

[Beazy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL3EjH9-WSs

Just check out Youtube and see that calving videos have been increasing exponentially over the years.

Believe what you want, but if you don't believe the climate is melting ice, what is?

[Garnier Fructis]

Was a conspiracy suggested or even pushed in any of my posts?

Weasel words only work on people that haven't long since wised up to it, dude.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL3EjH9-WSs

Just check out Youtube and see that calving videos have been increasing exponentially over the years.

Believe what you want, but if you don't believe the climate is melting ice, what is?

Photoshop.

[Allybeboba]

What "different point of view"?

If the "different point of view" you're pushing is that climates have always changed naturally and therefore we shouldn't worry about this shift, then you're a climate change denier, and you're lying to people.



Because, to compare to flat-earthers, your comment was equivalent to saying "If you look at the horizon, it looks flat." So it's no wonder that people would call you a flat-earther. Because even if you aren't one, you're defending their willfully ignorant point of view.



When you clumsily hint that climate change is natural and not anthropogenic, yes.

- - - Updated - - -

Plus, Allybeboba, it's not like you don't have a posting history that we can easily check.



Hell, you've directly cited conspiracy sites yourself in pursuing this agenda, in the past;

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...e#post34962139

So don't act all aghast when some of us recall your prior behaviour, and how this is an evolution from that past.

This is awfully close to you harassing me wouldn't you say? I am quite positive that is against the code of conduct.

Anyone and everyone is free to look at my posting history if they like. I have nothing to hide.

[Garnier Fructis]

This is awfully close to you harassing me wouldn't you say? I am quite positive that is against the code of conduct.

Anyone and everyone is free to look at my posting history if they like. I have nothing to hide.

Which, incidentally, is exactly what he did. And you're accusing him of harassment? How about you address any of the actual counterpoints he's making, instead of continually latching onto the easiest thing to respond to and ignoring all the rest?

[Allybeboba]

Which, incidentally, is exactly what he did. And you're accusing him of harassment? How about you address any of the actual counterpoints he's making, instead of continually latching onto the easiest thing to respond to and ignoring all the rest?

As a moderator he is held to higher standard than other members.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to get anyone in trouble. But, I will not be bullied.