|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42694 Posts
On April 02 2017 13:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2017 11:57 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2017 11:45 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2017 11:12 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2017 10:07 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2017 08:35 Shield wrote:On April 02 2017 08:04 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2017 07:17 Shield wrote:Al Gore with a new global warming video. Hopefully the dumbass Trump listens. + Show Spoiler + They can really go head-to-head in the dumbass awards. It would be a close fight. You don't believe in global warming? It must suck to have no appreciation for science. You don't believe politicians seeking fame can do harm to the science? Al Gores radically ludicrous claims haven't gone unnoticed. I should rest easy that we had until 2016 to do huge, global changes, or we're all toast ... it's 2017, relax, we're in unavoidable apocalypse. The Arab Spring has been linked to climate related food insecurity. Global warming is more complicated than heatstroke and drowning. There is a reason the Pentagon considers it the greatest threat to American security. Climate insecurity or climate change insecurity? And is this related to April fools day? I'm not sure you understand your own question. Civilizations are built on a certain number of assumptions. Food prices, growing seasons, sea levels, that kind of thing. Regular and expected things, such as floods on floodplains, are fine because they're assumed within the system. Unexpected conditions are less fine because they disrupt the existing status quo. Climate insecurity is climate change insecurity because the status quo is considered security. If we relied upon growing large amounts of food in a desert then we'd have climate insecurity due to the catastrophe of being unable to get food because of the climate in the desert. Food insecurity such as crops for subsistence farmers and changing climates like the patterns of rainy seasons and dry spells I can understand. They're very established throughout history. The modern phenomenon is people that expect carbon dioxide emissions to flood us, starve us, burn us, kill us in a thousand different proposed ways. And historically, the time periods are drastically different ... just ask somebody if they fear something 50 years in advance or 5 years in advance. So for a broad term, I stand by clarifying with people if they (laughably) claim the Arab Spring is related to middle eastern fears of a future anthropogenic climate change apocalypse compared to their short-term economic situations.
I mean it's not too difficult to understand. Basically a lot of things exist in a narrow climate range and carbon emissions are pushing us outside of that range. As we get further outside of the range shit is going to start going wrong.
I mean obviously I hope it doesn't. It'd be awesome if this is all wrong and it turns out fossil fuels are basically free energy with no consequences and the party can go on forever and we never have to pick up the tab. I'm absolutely on team fossil fuels, it's chemical energy that comes prepackaged out of the ground, that's fucking amazing. But the problem is literally all the people who know how this shit works say that the fossil fuel party needs to end because it's not actually free energy forever, it has consequences. And as disappointing as that is, I choose to believe them. Even though it sucks.
|
On April 02 2017 14:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2017 13:04 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2017 11:57 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2017 11:45 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2017 11:12 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2017 10:07 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2017 08:35 Shield wrote:On April 02 2017 08:04 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2017 07:17 Shield wrote:Al Gore with a new global warming video. Hopefully the dumbass Trump listens. + Show Spoiler + They can really go head-to-head in the dumbass awards. It would be a close fight. You don't believe in global warming? It must suck to have no appreciation for science. You don't believe politicians seeking fame can do harm to the science? Al Gores radically ludicrous claims haven't gone unnoticed. I should rest easy that we had until 2016 to do huge, global changes, or we're all toast ... it's 2017, relax, we're in unavoidable apocalypse. The Arab Spring has been linked to climate related food insecurity. Global warming is more complicated than heatstroke and drowning. There is a reason the Pentagon considers it the greatest threat to American security. Climate insecurity or climate change insecurity? And is this related to April fools day? I'm not sure you understand your own question. Civilizations are built on a certain number of assumptions. Food prices, growing seasons, sea levels, that kind of thing. Regular and expected things, such as floods on floodplains, are fine because they're assumed within the system. Unexpected conditions are less fine because they disrupt the existing status quo. Climate insecurity is climate change insecurity because the status quo is considered security. If we relied upon growing large amounts of food in a desert then we'd have climate insecurity due to the catastrophe of being unable to get food because of the climate in the desert. Food insecurity such as crops for subsistence farmers and changing climates like the patterns of rainy seasons and dry spells I can understand. They're very established throughout history. The modern phenomenon is people that expect carbon dioxide emissions to flood us, starve us, burn us, kill us in a thousand different proposed ways. And historically, the time periods are drastically different ... just ask somebody if they fear something 50 years in advance or 5 years in advance. So for a broad term, I stand by clarifying with people if they (laughably) claim the Arab Spring is related to middle eastern fears of a future anthropogenic climate change apocalypse compared to their short-term economic situations. I mean it's not too difficult to understand. Basically a lot of things exist in a narrow climate range and carbon emissions are pushing us outside of that range. As we get further outside of the range shit is going to start going wrong. I mean obviously I hope it doesn't. It'd be awesome if this is all wrong and it turns out fossil fuels are basically free energy with no consequences and the party can go on forever and we never have to pick up the tab. I'm absolutely on team fossil fuels, it's chemical energy that comes prepackaged out of the ground, that's fucking amazing. But the problem is literally all the people who know how this shit works say that the fossil fuel party needs to end because it's not actually free energy forever, it has consequences. And as disappointing as that is, I choose to believe them. Even though it sucks.
Oh. If it's a choice to believe or not, then they're equal. And I can choose not to believe and continue the party. Because all beliefs are equal!
Except it's not really a choice. It's a scientific theory of the same kind as plate tectonics and general relativity. And evolution for that matter: there's lots of evidence in favor and no viable alternative explanation of that evidence. You could wave your hands and say it's the ice age or solar cycles, but those "alternative theories" stand up about as well to scrutiny as claiming God hid dinosaur bones in the ground to screw with our minds. There is no real choice in believing whether or not global warming is real, just as there is no real choice in believing in gravity or not. You just have to deal with that inconvenient truth.
|
On April 02 2017 14:42 KwarK wrote:
I mean obviously I hope it doesn't. It'd be awesome if this is all wrong and it turns out fossil fuels are basically free energy with no consequences and the party can go on forever and we never have to pick up the tab. I'm absolutely on team fossil fuels, it's chemical energy that comes prepackaged out of the ground, that's fucking amazing. But the problem is literally all the people who know how this shit works say that the fossil fuel party needs to end because it's not actually free energy forever, it has consequences. And as disappointing as that is, I choose to believe them. Even though it sucks.
As Leporello said 2 pages ago, even if all the climate change science is unfounded alarmism, fossil fuel energy is still finite. We already know this, there isn't an unlimited amount of fossil fuels on the planet. So even if you dispute the human effect on climate change, unrestricted consumption of fossil fuels is still an indefensible position unless you're okay with foisting the responsibility of what the hell we do when we run out on future generations.
Whether you actually believe the climate science shouldn't even be relevant because given the finite nature of fossil fuels, conservation of a finite resource until we figure out how to stop depending on it is good policy regardless. Even if we found out tomorrow that climate change really is just a Chinese hoax, that doesn't suddenly make burning all of our fossil fuels a good idea. Our energy management goals would still be the same.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Russia not only worked to help President Donald Trump win the presidential election over Hillary Clinton last November, it also aided his victory in the Republican primary, the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating the allegations of Kremlin meddling was told Thursday.
Clinton Watts, a senior fellow at the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security at The George Washington University, told the investigation that Russia worked to undermine the campaigns of both Republican and Democratic candidates who held less favorable views toward Russia, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
“Russia’s overt media outlets and covert trolls sought to sideline opponents on both sides of the political spectrum with adversarial views toward the Kremlin,” Watts said. “They were in full swing during both the Republican and Democratic primary seasons and may have helped sink the hopes of candidates more hostile to Russian interests, long before the field narrowed.
“Senator Rubio, in my opinion, you anecdotally suffered from these measures.”
Rubio was at one time seen as the front-runner for the Republican nomination but his campaign struggled under a flurry of attacks from Trump. He suspended his campaign in March.
Upon hearing that he may also have been the target of attacks from Russia, Rubio looked taken aback.
Continued controversy has surrounded a House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russia’s attempt to influence the election, thanks to the statements and actions of its Republican Chairman Devin Nunes. As a result, much attention has focused on the inquiry in the Senate, something which was acknowledged in a joint press conference Wednesday between the leading Republican and Democrat in the Committee.
“This investigation’s scope will go wherever the intelligence leads,” said Republican Chairman Richard M. Burr, a supporter of Trump during the campaign, during Wednesday’s news conference. “We know that our challenge is to answer that question for the American people.”
Source
Rumor has it that Russia also hacked Rubio's firmware to glitch upon effective roasting from Chris Christie.
|
On April 02 2017 13:04 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2017 09:29 Leporello wrote:
It's still wrong to take the Republican position. Even if you think burning the world's fossil-fuels (made from fossils, a million-to-billion year process) will not irrevocably harm the environment and the future of mankind, you're still just essentially arguing a completely selfish and ignorant position.
One of the more amusing stances on the issue (from my PoV) is this argument: 1) We're in the middle of a series of ice ages. 2) We do not know what triggers the initial cooling of an ice age. 3) CO2 can offset the initial cooling of an ice age. 4) An ice age would be disastrous to human civilization. 5) Therefore we should maintain an elevated CO2 level to reduce the risk of an ice age. It's science-backed, derived from the longer term (10^4s of years) climate record.
Yeah, and that one is actually fine scientifically, except for (2). Because we are pretty certain that what cases these ice ages are a combination of fluctuations in the position of the rotational axis of the earth and fluctuations in the earths orbit. It is possible to calculate those and predict when ice ages will appear in the future, and those calculations fit very well to the historical ice ages we observed.
If i recall my astronomics lectures correctly, we probably want more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in about 15000-50000 years to counter an incoming ice age. Before then, we don't want them.
I am pretty sure that the people at that time will be able to produce those if necessary.
|
United States42694 Posts
On April 02 2017 18:51 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2017 14:42 KwarK wrote:
I mean obviously I hope it doesn't. It'd be awesome if this is all wrong and it turns out fossil fuels are basically free energy with no consequences and the party can go on forever and we never have to pick up the tab. I'm absolutely on team fossil fuels, it's chemical energy that comes prepackaged out of the ground, that's fucking amazing. But the problem is literally all the people who know how this shit works say that the fossil fuel party needs to end because it's not actually free energy forever, it has consequences. And as disappointing as that is, I choose to believe them. Even though it sucks. As Leporello said 2 pages ago, even if all the climate change science is unfounded alarmism, fossil fuel energy is still finite. We already know this, there isn't an unlimited amount of fossil fuels on the planet. So even if you dispute the human effect on climate change, unrestricted consumption of fossil fuels is still an indefensible position unless you're okay with foisting the responsibility of what the hell we do when we run out on future generations. Whether you actually believe the climate science shouldn't even be relevant because given the finite nature of fossil fuels, conservation of a finite resource until we figure out how to stop depending on it is good policy regardless. Even if we found out tomorrow that climate change really is just a Chinese hoax, that doesn't suddenly make burning all of our fossil fuels a good idea. Our energy management goals would still be the same.
There's actually an awful lot of it though and we're constantly finding more. There's so much that shit like coal is just being left in the ground because it's not as good as the oil and gas and even a lot of oil is too costly to extract at the current price point. We would eventually run out of easy to extract oil, although even then as it becomes more scarce and the price rises then new deposits would become accessible all the time. And it's not like we need to save it for the dolphins or whichever sentient life comes next. The problem isn't scarcity, the problem is people who know what they're talking about say it's going to kill us all.
|
The posters going on about finite resources are in the ballpark, but I don't think they are quite there. I'll be brief cause I'm in a hurry.
Fossil fuels obviously cause emissions
Those emissions obviously have some kind of effect on the Earth
Wind/Solar/Hydro/etc have no emissions
" " could make most energy free (Yeah right. But at least cheaper)
" " jobs jobs jobs
Focusing research on alternative energy sources could lead to some amazing ideas if oil companies are on board
Sooooo what's the downside again? Maybe some economic and political upheaval as adjustments are made. Kick the fucking lobbyists out and do it.
So my position is that it doesn't matter what your opinion is on global warming. If you think coal and the like is where we should be going, you're just an asshole.
|
The long term effects of climate change are a much more important issue for policy than the way in which liberals carry out their argument. And just look at the Donald Trump administration for an example of what happens when you prioritize sticking it to liberals over good governance.
|
On April 02 2017 21:54 Ayaz2810 wrote:
The posters going on about finite resources are in the ballpark, but I don't think they are quite there. I'll be brief cause I'm in a hurry.
Fossil fuels obviously cause emissions
Those emissions obviously have some kind of effect on the Earth
Wind/Solar/Hydro/etc have no emissions
" " could make most energy free (Yeah right. But at least cheaper)
" " jobs jobs jobs
Focusing research on alternative energy sources could lead to some amazing ideas if oil companies are on board
Sooooo what's the downside again? Maybe some economic and political upheaval as adjustments are made. Kick the fucking lobbyists out and do it.
So my position is that it doesn't matter what your opinion is on global warming. If you think coal and the like is where we should be going, you're just an asshole.
The downside is if you think coal production and fracking is useful today and will power the next decade of research into stuff like alternative energy, technology, and agriculture, there's a segment of politically-active people who will pretend to want cooperation but really think everybody who doesn't think likewise is "an asshole".
On April 02 2017 14:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2017 13:40 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2017 13:22 Nyxisto wrote:On April 02 2017 13:04 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2017 11:57 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2017 11:45 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2017 11:12 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2017 10:07 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2017 08:35 Shield wrote:On April 02 2017 08:04 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
They can really go head-to-head in the dumbass awards. It would be a close fight. You don't believe in global warming? It must suck to have no appreciation for science. You don't believe politicians seeking fame can do harm to the science? Al Gores radically ludicrous claims haven't gone unnoticed. I should rest easy that we had until 2016 to do huge, global changes, or we're all toast ... it's 2017, relax, we're in unavoidable apocalypse. The Arab Spring has been linked to climate related food insecurity. Global warming is more complicated than heatstroke and drowning. There is a reason the Pentagon considers it the greatest threat to American security. Climate insecurity or climate change insecurity? And is this related to April fools day? I'm not sure you understand your own question. Civilizations are built on a certain number of assumptions. Food prices, growing seasons, sea levels, that kind of thing. Regular and expected things, such as floods on floodplains, are fine because they're assumed within the system. Unexpected conditions are less fine because they disrupt the existing status quo. Climate insecurity is climate change insecurity because the status quo is considered security. If we relied upon growing large amounts of food in a desert then we'd have climate insecurity due to the catastrophe of being unable to get food because of the climate in the desert. Food insecurity such as crops for subsistence farmers and changing climates like the patterns of rainy seasons and dry spells I can understand. They're very established throughout history. The modern phenomenon is people that expect carbon dioxide emissions to flood us, starve us, burn us, kill us in a thousand different proposed ways. And historically, the time periods are drastically different ... just ask somebody if they fear something 50 years in advance or 5 years in advance. So for a broad term, I stand by clarifying with people if they (laughably) claim the Arab Spring is related to middle eastern fears of a future anthropogenic climate change apocalypse compared to their short-term economic situations. The problem about catastrophic events and related risk is that you're not going to find data for them if you look back in time. That's what makes them catastrophic in the first place. Ask the dinosaurs how that strategy worked out for them. Probably one of the reasons some Conservative people don't believe in them. Meteors pose a serious problem to tradition based decision making. The financial crisis in 2008 wiped out more wealth than pretty much all financial crises combined before. Do you think it was smart to ignore the warning signs because our historical common sense told us that all will be well? When you assess risk you better include the unknown tail events that you've not encountered before. Right, blaming the dinosaurs for past catastrophes ("ask the dinosaurs") is about as apropos an example as I would use to describe the current situation. So I'm kind of glad you brought it up. Everybody raised the warning signs when climate science was overtaken by advocacy and witch trials, and I see parallels to 2008 with everybody proclaiming Fannie & Freddie were fine, community reinvestment act was great to combat redlining, and all the rest. You all are picking the worst ways to convince the doubters. But I'm getting used to this seeing all the lessons not learned from Trump's successful campaign, and I think something as grand as a Trump re-election or massive protest movement would have to occur another three or four times to shake some of this underlying assumptions bullshit. Global Warming back in the thread? Must be April Fool's Day (and hope you all enjoyed your Saturday) What is it that you doubt? I imagine it's not actually that humanity has a large and noticeable impact on our environment, or that the impact on our immediate environment has long term consequences on things like climate. If I understand the reasonable position correctly it's just that you think we should think harder/more carefully about identifying the important factors, how our solutions both address the problematic factors AND their economic impact, and avoid needless politicization and the "picking winners and losers" by the government. Which I think is actually pretty reasonable. One problem, that's not the Republican party's position at all. Maybe among the types that come here, but that's not Trump's position, the party's position, or the majority position in the party. I think it's fine if that's what conservatives here are essentially saying once you get past all the rhetorical jabs, but y'all can't pretend that's what the party is standing for or the reasoning behind their opposition.
Landfills build, burning your trash pollutes the environment, slash and burn agriculture destroys patches of rainforest. Of course the impact of humanity is noticeable. And of course the modern green movement/AGW movement has needlessly politicized and demeaned their political opponents to make the face of the movement climate advocacy and the jack-boot of government crushing industry, instead of climatology and openness. To the point, yes Trump is wrong to blame it on a China conspiracy, like much of what China is wrong on. He'd to better to focus on the important factors and economic impact, the cozy green-lobby relationship with government and government agencies, and the state of the public response (I'll need to update my figures, but two years ago it stood something like 60% think research shows average temperatures on the rise, and 40% of that 60% say it's due to human activity.)
That's all. Come back to the table with the science, and leave behind the knives, to tell us it's not about selfish agenda, tell us historical problems are solved, you're working hard to clear out fundamental conflicts of interest, and can justify the real and high costs to not only the US, but also other countries whose cooperation would kill their economies.
|
danglars, There's plenty of people who did come ot the table with science, without knives, and they were dealt with. The reason some people are pushing so hard is that some people on your side started by pushing an ignore science agenda.
having a careful constructive discussion takes two sides, and many on your side refused to do so, and were not denounced. thus yields the partisanship of where we are now.
I can easily agree that there are many greens who take it too far. do you agree that many on your side also took it too far and ignored the science?
|
On April 02 2017 14:06 Zambrah wrote:
So most climate deniers I've seen simply... deny it?
What has to be said to make a climate change denier reevaluate their beliefs that climate change is a pressing concern for humanity.
Not that it's going to cause global catastrophic hyper-hurricanes within the next year, but that the world is becoming ever so slightly warmer due to excess co2 emissions and that the planet's environment is rather sensitive to these small shifts when they occur over a relatively long period of time (which is the part that differentiates weather from climate.)
...
Climate change is just one of those things I really can't understand, I get the anti-SJW stuff to a certain extent, I get fiscal conservatism, but climate change and evolution denial I just really can't wrap my head around.
The non-mainstream views on climate change are quite a bit more diverse than commonly portrayed, ranging from "the earth is not warming" to "all the proposals that claim to solve the problem actually don't". It is therefore unlikely that a single argument could convince everyone unless it backtracks from the mainstream position.
I also believe this to be an example of the "split Overton window" phenomenon I discussed upthread - there are two conversations who consider each others' viewpoints to be unthinkable; the "climate conservatives" want to keep the weather like it was in the '60s because they think the alternatives are unthinkably disastrous, and the "climate liberals" think that coordinating to control the weather is unthinkably expensive. There's also a small population of moderates, the people we'd need to form a functional compromise, who are considered unthinkable by both sides. They're lumped in with the "climate deniers" by the conservatives and considered too radical by the liberals.
|
On April 02 2017 22:55 Danglars wrote: He'd to better to focus on the important factors and economic impact, the cozy green-lobby relationship with government and government agencies, and the state of the public response (I'll need to update my figures, but two years ago it stood something like 60% think research shows average temperatures on the rise, and 40% of that 60% say it's due to human activity.)
Citation needed. Are you actually trying to say only 60% of climate research shows temperatures on the rise?
|
the question is just wrong anyway. Yes climate thing is real but how does it affect us is the real question. No one KNOWS ask 100 scientists on the subject and get 100 different answers. So its retarded to fix the problem that may exist. Just let science slowly make evrething more green and thats all we need nothing else. Doomsday prophecies from al gore are just ridicolous.
|
On April 03 2017 01:51 sertas wrote:
the question is just wrong anyway. Yes climate thing is real but how does it affect us is the real question. No one KNOWS ask 100 scientists on the subject and get 100 different answers. So its retarded to fix the problem that may exist. Just let science slowly make evrething more green and thats all we need nothing else. Doomsday prophecies from al gore are just ridicolous.
that's unsound. you don't need to know how it will affect you exactly, or even that approximately, to recognize that there is an issue with some damage and that mitigation issues are warranted. you also need to know how fast you can change, and how fast oyu have to change, what the lead times are, etc. the unforeseen consequences risk levels.
and what are these "doomsday" prophecies? could you be more specific as I didn't see the gore vid.
|
On April 03 2017 00:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2017 22:55 Danglars wrote: He'd to better to focus on the important factors and economic impact, the cozy green-lobby relationship with government and government agencies, and the state of the public response (I'll need to update my figures, but two years ago it stood something like 60% think research shows average temperatures on the rise, and 40% of that 60% say it's due to human activity.)
Citation needed. Are you actually trying to say only 60% of climate research shows temperatures on the rise?
the state of the public response (I'll need to update my figures, but two years ago it stood something like 60% think research shows average temperatures on the rise, and 40% of that 60% say it's due to human activity.)
I bolded the relevant section. Pew, 2014.
|
On April 02 2017 23:13 zlefin wrote:
danglars, There's plenty of people who did come ot the table with science, without knives, and they were dealt with. The reason some people are pushing so hard is that some people on your side started by pushing an ignore science agenda.
having a careful constructive discussion takes two sides, and many on your side refused to do so, and were not denounced. thus yields the partisanship of where we are now.
I can easily agree that there are many greens who take it too far. do you agree that many on your side also took it too far and ignored the science?
Based on your past responses, the majority of which curtly dismiss the topic with "unsound," I must say you miss how you and others are perceived. Furthermore, you and others more often treat the insolent behavior as justified given the weight of science and size of the coming catastrophe.
|
Science could speak softly, loudly, or insult your mother and it could still be right.
|
On April 03 2017 02:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2017 00:05 Mohdoo wrote:On April 02 2017 22:55 Danglars wrote: He'd to better to focus on the important factors and economic impact, the cozy green-lobby relationship with government and government agencies, and the state of the public response (I'll need to update my figures, but two years ago it stood something like 60% think research shows average temperatures on the rise, and 40% of that 60% say it's due to human activity.)
Citation needed. Are you actually trying to say only 60% of climate research shows temperatures on the rise? Show nested quote +the state of the public response (I'll need to update my figures, but two years ago it stood something like 60% think research shows average temperatures on the rise, and 40% of that 60% say it's due to human activity.) I bolded the relevant section. Pew, 2014.
Who cares what 60% of non-experts think about a subject when discussing the science behind it...
|
On April 03 2017 02:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2017 23:13 zlefin wrote:
danglars, There's plenty of people who did come ot the table with science, without knives, and they were dealt with. The reason some people are pushing so hard is that some people on your side started by pushing an ignore science agenda.
having a careful constructive discussion takes two sides, and many on your side refused to do so, and were not denounced. thus yields the partisanship of where we are now.
I can easily agree that there are many greens who take it too far. do you agree that many on your side also took it too far and ignored the science? Based on your past responses, the majority of which curtly dismiss the topic with "unsound," I must say you miss how you and others are perceived. Furthermore, you and others more often treat the insolent behavior as justified given the weight of science and size of the coming catastrophe.
I do not miss how we are perceived; but perceptions are often wrong, as has been amply proven by a vast amount of literature in the fields of psychology and sociology.
An unsound perception that has been proven wrong should not be given a great deal of weight. and some people will persist in such unsound perceptions no matter what; it is not surprising that those who are proven wrong and persist anyways are treated with some disdain. yes, we should try to address those perceptions, but sometimes people for reasons of their own or simply stubborness, persist anyways; especially on the internet where you mostly hera from the stubborn troublemakers.
and I didn't see an answer to my pointed question.
|
We had someone I think from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research answering questions about man made CC and it's impact on this site once.
I looked it up.
Here you go
Sadly he stopped posting in late 2013.
If you have any of your conspiracy theories, please look up whether he tried to answer it fist. If I remember correctly he was very honest and polite in his responses. He also compiled them in his OP, what a champ.
Also to quote the IPCC in it's 2013 fifth assessment report on CC.
The report indicates, through a comprehensive study of the different physical factors and compositions, that there is 95% certainty that humans are the dominant cause of climate change since the 1950s.
A new report should be due at the end of this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
