So, considering the record disasters that has happened just this year, what else do you need as proof? The oceans are warmer than ever, every year there are forest fires like never before, the temperatures are up. It is hotter than ever! Meanwhile in the temperate zones, the seasons are becoming irregular and in the tropics, the rainy season versus dry season has gone haywire. The oil companies have known this was going to be a problem through research. but instead of doing something about it, they pushed a propaganda of doubt on this issue. Well, can’t hide it any longer. It is obvious the predicted effects are here and something needs to be done. So, as a doubter, what else do you need that it is real?
Just a reminder to tread lightly here. I’m going to allow this thread for a bit but will be removing links to Climate change denialism and long unscientific rants.
There are people who deny altogether that the climate is changing in any material way beyond normal vagaries of weather, and people who acknowledge that there is some large-scale change to climates but deny that it is caused by burning of fossil fuels and other insertions of carbon into the atmosphere. Is this thread for both of those?
Fossil fuels. I thought it was obvious. And to be honest, isn’t it the two faces of the same coin? Some may say there is no climate change and there are those that can see the change, but deny it is because of fossil fuels. Either way, it is denial of epic scales.
Good luck with this one, besides the denial points not being allowed much nowadays, I do know that there are still a few posters that 10 years or so ago, refused to believe that glaciers were receding, Although I wonder if they still keep on mistakenly believing that there has been no change or mistakenly think that there was an increase in the overall mass of cap ice in the world in the meantime.
https://psmag.com/environment/how-climate-change-is-affecting-glaciers-around-the-world
In Antarctica, scientists have long known that the western part of the continent is losing ice, but, until now, they had considered the ice volume in the eastern part more stable. Climate change deniers have even pointed to the fact that East Antarctica sometimes gains ice, to undermine the weight of scientific evidence that points to global warming’s harmful effects, as the New York Times reports.
But glacier scientists at NASA have recently found that East Antarctica, too, is systematically shedding ice, if not as quickly as West Antarctica. For example, Totten Glacier, East Antartica’s largest, has shrunk by a quarter of a meter a year since 2009, a rate that’s twice as fast as before, according to the Earth Observatory. Glacial melting contributes to sea-level rise, which in turn creates more frequent flooding worldwide.
Austria glaciers retreat ‘more than ever’: measurement (phys.org)
Half of the Earth’s 215,000 glaciers and a quarter of their mass will melt away by the end of the century, according to a study published in the journal Science in January.
Sorry. I didn’t know about these policy changes. Since these rules are in place, I’m guessing I’ll get minimal reply from actual Climate deniers. Shame really, this used to be a great place to put people straight, it’s the Straight Dope after all, and making people understand the error of their ways through open discussion. Oh well.
People aren’t going to acknowledge until they’re the ones actually suffering.
It’s one thing for a climate-change denier to read about deadly heat in Louisiana and Texas. It’s another thing for him to be a worker actually sweltering in that organ-wrecking heat himself.
Sadly, most climate-change deniers - just like deniers of other things - aren’t going to be in those shoes.
I can move it to the Pit if you like.
Let us know.
Good point. Like a frog in boiling water.
Never mind, I’m guessing the thread will die on its own.
Leave it for now, in case someone answers and we have a real debate.
Awww. I would had wanted to point in the Pit to the ones that never have acknowledged how grossly wrong they were. (1/2 /jk )
Lol! Not good at roasting people. But I would gladly watch others do it.
Move it to the Pit!
Done.
I’m not a ‘denier’, but for the record we should acknowledge that there are different arguments going on:
- Climate Change isn’t happening (or, “Climate is always changing! nyuk nyuk”).
- Climate change is happening, but it’s not going to be that bad.
- Climate change is happening and might be bad, but you haven’t proved that paying to fix it today is worth it as opposed to paying for the damage later. This is the ‘social cost of carbon’ debate. And it’s not easy.
- Climate change is happening, and we should do something about it, but the solutions being proposed and acted on now will do very little to fix the problem and will cost us a lot of money.
It’s very tempting to go after the dumbest argument on the other side, but some arguments are not so dumb. I believe the last one is true; Climate change is happening, and it’s going to cause increasing damage, but what we’re doing about it has been completely polluted by politics and turned into a bunch of half-baked policies that will do nothing, or do very little, or make things worse.
It’s hard to argue with that when you look at the numbers for fossil fuel use, which continues to go up, and which is forecast to continue to increase for the foreseeable future - at least until 2045. An a prediction I made a long time ago appears to be coming true - restricting energy in the west will drive manufacturing east, so while we pat ourselves on the back for lowering CO2 output, China and other countries will increase theirs even faster, since the same goods are still being made. And if their industries are dirtier, we may have made the problem worse with things like carbon taxes.
Why, Sam_Stone, it looks like you can’t stomach that most of the right wing are carrying the idiot ball, with most following the first three arguments.
Unfortunately, it is also dumb to ignore that a lot of you want to save by going for the bargaining stage of conservative grief is that a lot of the “leaders” making the damaging argument are also doing a lot of fearmongering.
To begin here, the pollution from politics comes from polluters and conservatives that flows from their denial and propaganda.
Later documents obtained by Hüzeir shed new light on the ever-more granular understanding Shell was developing of the risks climate change posed to global stability. A confidential October 1989 Shell publication titled “SCENARIOS 1989 – 2010” outlines a high-emissions “global mercantilism” scenario in which average global temperatures rise by “considerably more” than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The report warned that “many species of trees, plants, animals and insects would not be able to move and adapt.”
But its starkest language was reserved for the implications for people.
“The changes would, however, most impact on humans [sic]. In earlier times, man was able to respond with his feet. Today, there is no place to go because people already stand there. Perhaps those in industrial countries could cope with a rise in sea level (the Dutch example) but for poor countries such defences are not possible. The potential refugee problem in GLOBAL MERCANTILISM could be unprecedented. Africans would push into Europe, Chinese into the Soviet Union, Latins into the United States, Indonesians into Australia. Boundaries would count for little – overwhelmed by the numbers. Conflicts would abound. Civilisation could prove a fragile thing.”
Despite its knowledge of the looming risks, Shell went on to participate in confrontational lobby groups promoting climate denial and obstructionism in the 1990s and 2000s, such as the Global Climate Coalition and American Petroleum Institute.
So, until I see the conservative deniers come with serious ideas on how to counter that influence, and not help the polluters like they do nowadays, your last argument is also dumb.
@NiceGuyJack What makes you think the deniers are actually looking for or will accept any proof?
Thank you for showing us the different levels of stupidity that make up the denier side.
BTW, where exactly do you stand on the issue?
I think he already came with the 4th position, the one that agrees that humans are causing global warming, and that we should do something about it, but he is favor in favor of the fearmongering that doing something that will inconvenience the big polluters will cause a lot of damage.
So…The “Take no personal responsibility at all” choice.
No, it’s the 'build nuclear power as fast as we can, and be prepared to use natural gas for a long time" ccamp. Because, you know, that would work.