One of the more interesting derails to me in the Vigorous Debate thread was the talk about climate change. So inspired by the new and genteel Politics forum, I thought I'd start a thread and hope reasonable people can have an intellectually honest discussion without flinging too much poo.

I concede that since the Industrial Revolution got rolling, any intellectually honest person who's done any research on this topic would have to say that carbon emissions have risen, and average global temperatures have also risen. I don't contest any of that, and maybe accepting that as a given puts me far to the left of the present-day right wing derposphere.

My problem is when people on the left talk about climate change, they get carried away with agreeing with each other, and don't propose workable, empirical solutions. What they do propose could have untenable unintended consequences for industry or the economy as a whole. I see climate change as a trade-off; it's the cost of a modern, technological society.

Here are my main points, just waiting to be refuted:

1: Global temperatures aren't "supposed" to be anything.

Throughout the history of this planet, average temperatures have changed wildly, in both directions. I see global warming champions point to the rising temperatures, as if it's "supposed" to be one thing, but all those carbon emissions are making it Something Else, and that's Bad.

2. I don't think higher average global temperatures necessarily cause more extreme or inclement weather.

Every time a bad hurricane or tornado or wildfire or earthquake or tsunami rolls through, global warming people say "Welp! It's getting worse and worse because of global warming!"

According to wikipedia, the deadliest natural disaster in the world (excluding pandemics and famine) was a flood in China in 1931. The deadliest natural disaster in America was a hurricane that hit Texas in the year 1900.

I don't think
Katrina and Maria are evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger ... wildfires are intensifying ...
???? ...
must be man-made global warming!

I think it's possible that rising temperatures could lead to rising sea levels as polar ice melts, but sea levels are another thing that isn't static over the course of the planet's history. Succinctly, I think the relationship between climate change and inclement weather is poorly understood.

3. I'm not prepared to stop driving and using electricity, are you? ...Hypocrite.

If you want to learn more about energy, read this long but fantastic blog post about electric cars. Basically, about 40% of the world's total energy flow is dedicated to producing electricity, and 2/3rds of that comes from burning carbon-emitting fossil fuels, which is mostly coal. Transportation is almost a third of developed countries' energy flow, and runs nearly entirely on oil.

Now, there are emerging technologies and alternate energy sources (for electricity production AND transportation) that show promise. I support the innovation that the private sector can bring to market. If Elon Musk really builds a more efficient and cheaper alternative, I'd probably buy one. I'm rooting for him to shift the paradigm and change the world.

But in the meantime, I think it's asinine to punish the industry and economies of the developed world (who are also fueling the research and innovation) for carbon emissions. This is a trade-off I'm willing to make to live in 2019. And if climate change really does shift the landscape, then the changing economic conditions will reflect that.

So change my mind.

Why is this merely "possible" in your opinion?

OK? I'm not "supposed" to avoid jumping off the GW Bridge but I'm still not going to do it.


You must know there is voluminous research on this very topic. Why seek expertise on a gambling forum? your wording sounds like an angle shoot.


I don't drive and use less then 1/3 the average hh of electricity use in US. would be wining to cut that more then in half again tomorrow. You don't have to eliminate travel & electricity production to keep emissions in check. I hate jobs, cars, mcdonalds and happy rich people.

Also who cares if I am hypocrite - irrelevant.

Howd i do?

FWIW, I'm sure that almost everyone will agree that you can't point to global warming as the "but for" cause of any specific storm.

Other than your comment about your willingness to do your part to reduce emissions, not too well.

Correlation and causation.

I think there's probably a lot of natural variance in global temperatures, maybe not all of rising temperatures is directly due to carbon emissions

Bolded is irrelevant. You said it was merely "possible" that rising temps (regardless of cause) could lead to rising sea levels.

In other words, in the sentence I quoted, you weren't expressing a lack of conviction about whether human activity is increasing the temperature of the planet. You were expressing a lack of conviction about whether rising temperatures contribute to an increase in sea levels.

These are very two distinct questions.

I mean, yes, this is true, in that it is a true statement. But it's kind of missing the point?

Current life forms on earth, upon which we are very dependent for survival, maybe wouldn't fare too well in some of these other environments that existed during earth's history.

Are you truly a skeptic of the climate change data, or just don't think any of proposed solutions are worth it?

Perhaps I should have explained this better, I was trying to be brief.

What I mean by this is that global warming people treat the year-to-year deviation in temperature as though we're getting farther and farther away from what global temperatures "should" be, when in reality global temperatures fluctuate for all kinds of reasons that may or may not be related to carbon emissions.


Ok, show me.

I'm trying to think critically here and promote healthy discussion like what everyone wants this forum to be.

I think the talking points I've raised show the misgivings a lot of other lurkers may have about this issue.

I'm not scared of getting dunked on if I learn more and enrich myself.

I drive a 110 horsepower hybrid, get about real-life 37 mpg.

My point is that people that want to reduce emissions by forcing trade-offs that most people won't make are viewed as Luddites.

love the troll timing doing it right now, nothing climate going on where I'm at, certainly it's not cold as hell over here.

We get it, you don't care. Goofy basically nailed it, this whole ecosystem we survive on is being ****ed up and well that's gonna be bad for us in some regard. Many species are already dying off for whatever reason that we likely caused and could've not done or stop doing now but whatever don't care.

At the end of Jurassic Park (the book, not the movie) one of the protagonists is criticizing the idea that when people talk about nuclear war ending "life itself" they don't actually mean all life, what they mean is "human life" because as the theme of the book goes "life finds a way" and eventually after nuclear winter single cell organisms that survived would start reproducing and eventually evolve into whatever so life would go on, just not human life.

I think you're getting tripped up because a lot of climate change people talk about how this warming effect is "unnatural" as opposed to "natural" but if, for example, there were huge volcanic eruptions that covered the earth in soot and plunged the earth into an Ice Age, isn't that "natural" and should humans accept the consequences of that as opposed to purposefully trying to change the outcome of the phenomenon called climate change?

The answer, I think, is just be pragmatic in terms of human consequences. Global climate change is real, it's going to and already has had consequences for people, and, at the high end, going to have enormous consequences for human beings, so we ought to go about reducing those consequences. Does that mean we've gone from a state of where we are subject to the whims of nature to one where we're actively managing the global climate? Maybe

I mean Venus' climate isn't supposed to be inhospitable to human beings by decree of some law of God, but it is.

Most people will screw you over to benefit themselves, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to not have that as a culture.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/



Where do you think the water from the melt goes? Into Poland Spring and Deer Park bottles? c'mon bruh

Definitely more the latter than the former

Don't interact with people here doing word salad, go look at the f'n NASA link

OP I have a 15 year old daughter and a 14 year old son. With all due respect **** Off.

Lol I hadn't considered that, I really was just inspired by the climate derail in the other thread

I'm not bringing snowballs on to the Senate floor or anything today

I don't want to wade fully into this muck but I feel compelled to nitpick that death total is a horrible way to measure the magnitude of a storm/natural disaster for obvious reasons (improved forecasting & warning systems, improved structures and materials, improved roads, community planning, etc.)

Details here, this is combining studies trying to gauge temperatures from the last couple thousand years along with the black line, which is actual temperature recordings since we started measuring it:



Yes, there is some natural variation, and then there is the speed with which current variation is happening, which hasn't been seen since the end of the last ice age (10k years ago). Good news though, ice ages are done! We stopped them!

Yea, there's no way just eyeballing CO2 concentrations and global temps you'd think that the current upward curve is just some natural variation

More generally: your skepticism appears based on you, a guy posting on the internet, deciding that you shouldn't pay attention to the concurrence of the vast majority of scientists who study this topic.

Why? Have you hoovered up enough GOP propaganda that scientists find the conclusions they're paid to, and that somehow The Evil Science Lobby has pulled over this conspiracy on everyone that just happens to, magically and coincidentally, oppose the largest industries in the world, who I'm sure have no hand whatsoever in spreading skepticism?

When you talk about doing something to stop it when the market cost becomes large enough - what the ****? At what point is "the market" going to step in to avoid the displacement of millions of people in Bangladesh who have no money and thus no power as market actors whatsoever?

Expand on this please

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Two different folks I Have discussed Climate Change with

One says to me I reply how do you know that from the weather channel?
His reply I reply Scientists say Climate change is real
His reply silence

The other person a Christian whom does not believe in Climate Change though he still calls it global warming . He knows I no longer believe in god

Him My reply is How can you not believe in Climate change science proves it and you cant offer any proof of a higher being. What if your wrong?
Him …...