Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold

[PresidentSamTilden]

Our planet is doomed at this rate. But of course Hillary Clinton did BAD STUFF with her EMAAILLS, so that's fine.

Considering how little people paid attention to the issue during the campaign, I question how much effort Hillary would have actually put into this. Obviously, it's better to have a government that accepts the science, and doesn't promote the few deniers and the "do nothing and see what happens" people. But she wasn't exactly a hardcore climate or environmental activist

[PresidentSamTilden]

Yes SamTilden...Anthropogenic human induced catastrophic unprecidented global warming/climate change/climate weirding is accepted by everybody!  In fact there are almost no deniers so thats why the issue wasn't brought up in the campaign.  I'm not sure how that works but I'm sure it's because Americans are too stupid to be wealthy and able to retire at 40 and be Ivy League Educated!  Surely they'd know then! (They wouldnt tell you though because you're not educated or rich enough to even explain how its all worse than we thought)

I think global warming science defenders doth protest too much and it betrays a deep, fundamental insecurity about their beliefs on the issue.  

I didn't say there weren't deniers? You seem to be living proof, bud.

I'm not insecure, just frustrated that people won't pay attention and do what's necessary to protect the future. And when those people are in my party, it's even worse.

[PresidentSamTilden]

Snowguy716: Your whole argument is based on one thing: you doubt the legitimacy of climate science. And unless you can provide evidence, your claims don't deserve to be taken seriously. You're a denier.

You say that "moderate" climate change papers are dismissed and discredited, however, no evidence is provided. I'd be more than happy to examine what you have to show. All available, credible evidence that I have seen shows that we are heading for above 2C warming, with possibly much more to come ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/02/1402277-global-warming-2-degree-target/).

The other part of your argument seems to be that climate change isn't sexy or it is a detriment to other environmental causes. Bruh, Climate Change is a banner that is tying together environmental movements on a worldwide scale like we've never seen before. It's the Genghis Khan of environmental movements. So I don't get where that idea comes from. Look at what just happened in North Dakota.

[PresidentSamTilden]

So my issue with all of this data is that it doesn't present a unifying reason why the consensus is false. Any cause is acceptable as long as it disagrees with the hypothesis that human emitted Co2 is causing climate change. Let's take a look at a few of the headlines from the section:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, what is causing the warming? Is it other planets? Is it Geomagnetic? Cloud Cover? Richard Nixon?

As a counter, here is a paper that analyzed 11,944 papers on the topic, and concluded that 90+ percent confirm the idea of anthropogenic Global Warming. (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002).

Now, let's take out Occam's razor. What's more likely to be correct: A smaller coalition of denying papers, with many different explanations that contradict each other, or a much larger group that all centers on one conclusion?

[PresidentSamTilden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the whole, I can agree with this statement. If you're a guy who respects science, there is every reason to seek out dissent. I am also a layman, but my father is a chemist, and I'm sure he would agree. It's not fun getting yelled at by people who put in less work to understand it. Obviously, the climate has changed many times in earths history, as evidenced by ice ages and extinctions.

However, there are some issues that drive the theory home for me. One is the warming trend.



Now, if the data has been manipulated or comprimised, than I'm SoL and wrong. However, that is 4 independent agencies coming to the same conclusion - the earth has experienced significant warming, and a clear trend in warming, over several decades. We can also see this in the ice cover from the arctic.



At the same time, we have seen a massive, significant rise in Co2 emissions as a result of industrialization.



Now, could there be other factors involved, or that these are not related? Absolutely. But you have to admit: the fact that this rapid warming trend began around the same time that humanity rapidly expanded in its numbers, territory, and consumption, with a third factor causing it, would be an awfully big coincidence. When you consider the amount of scientists on board with this theory, there is a legitimate cause for concern - especially considering that our emissions continue to increase at a very rapid pace.

Finally, let me briefly mention what is at stake, because this is not a purely academic discussion anymore - it affects all of humanity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-effects/)

So we could easily be looking at famines and massive human displacement as a result of this crisis. Therefore, there is need to take action if it is necessary to do so. I won't even go into the Siberian Methane deposits, and the potential for runaway warming, which is very scary.

I hope you don't take this argument as condescending, because I don't mean it be. You've clearly read a lot and I'm sure you've seen all this before. But I like this argument is because it is simple and logical. There are no absolutely certainties in science, but we need to act with limited information in all aspects of life.

Therefore, I do support large scale government action to curb this potential crisis.

EDIT: One more point that I wanted to add. You pointed out that the climate consensus could be artificially inflated by virtue of it's support. Whether that is true or not, it should be pointed out that denying organizations are inflated by money from groups with republican leaning political agendas. (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/)

[PresidentSamTilden]

The media wants 'definitive' and this just isn't in that basket.

This has nothing to do with the "media", though. NASA has a page on this, the US EPA as well. And again, in the post you quoted, I posted a Meta-Analysis with over 10,000 papers in agreement on the source of the warming.

According to most scientists, the reason for the warming is definitive - it's caused by greenhouse gases emitted by human beings, chiefly Co2.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps! The key word is "could be", however. The greenhouse effect WILL be unless we change our behavior.

At the very least, doesn't it make sense to control this until we can be sure? The best you skepitcal guys can come up with is to say that "we don't know for sure". So, I say control these emissions as much as possible, to make sure we're okay.

I'm calling for a TOTAL AND COMPLETE SHUTDOWN of Greenhouse gasses until we can figure out what the hell is going on! =D

[PresidentSamTilden]

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I'm skeptical of the idea that we can really stop climate change. If I was in charge of everything, I would instead try to focus our resources on trying to adapt to the changing climate.

If we are driving it though, as most scientists believe - doesn't it make sense to at least TRY? Like, if you have a problem in your life, do you just say, "well...I might not be able to do anything, guess I'll focus on just dealing with it".

But also, if GHG are driving it, as most scientists believe, you can adapt all you want - the problem will only get worse, and worse, until no one can survive, unless we curb emissions. I don't think we will get to that point, but is it possible? Absolutely. At some point, we have to solve the root of the issue.

If it really is all magnetic poles or solar variations from 1600 years ago or whatever, then sure, we're screwed, lol. But at least we tried to do something, based on the best evidence that we had...

Or we can just bend over for big oil, coal, and nat gas...at least someone is making money off our destruction, right? sigh...

[PresidentSamTilden]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for investing in alternate energy and things like that. I just don't think that it will "save" us from climate change. I mean, even if hypothetically radical environmentalists somehow get their way in the U.S. (completely destroying our economy and ruining the lives of in the process), what about China and India? I don't know, I'm just not sure that it's even possible to get global Co2 levels down to an amount that will prevent the climate from changing significantly, which I why I think we need to just assume that the climate is going to change and try to adapt. Of course, I have no idea how to go about that either...

Well first of all, as a resident of state that is going to take large land losses as a result of this...I agree with you that adaptation is important and should be looked into. But there's a big difference between that and "it's a Chinese conspiracy".

To quote Elon Musk, "There is going to be some level of damage". But it doesn't have to be total, and environmental policies don't have to totally destroy the economy either. Our lifestyle probably will have to change, though, but do we really need to use as much carbon as we currently do? Idk, I can't just write the species off to extinction, lol. We can beat this thing, or at least, give it our best shot.

A 4% investment of Global GDP over a 20 year period would probably solve the crisis. A carbon tax, which was supported by Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson (and dem socialist Bernie) would probably help quite a bit towards that goal. It might sound crazy, but hey, when the banks needed that kind of money in 2008, they got it. It is possible...the will just isn't there yet.

[PresidentSamTilden]

Well, I hope you're right. FTR, I do also support a carbon tax, and I don't recall ever saying "it's a Chinese conspiracy". If that's how my post came across, I need to get better at talking.

Not at all! That was a random shot at Trump and the probable future direction of our national climate policy. We liberals do that from time to time, haha

Trump is on the record as saying this, in case you didn't know.

[PresidentSamTilden]

Put in place a carbon tax!  My carbon footprint is very small for an American.  The true believers that berate me for my "denialism" but brag about how many times they fly each year and where they go will pay for it... not me.

It's wild that with all this disagreement in this thread, most of us agree on this basic policy idea that would make a world of difference in dealing with the problem. If the US initiated this policy, it would be a huge event, and others would likely follow.

I wish we could put this to a national referendum like they do in Switzerland. I'd bet it would pass. But, instead, our government is firmly against pursuing this policy. We ultimately chose between two major candidates who were not in favor of it, and totally uninterested in discussing it.

[PresidentSamTilden]

No. I certainly don't agree with any sort of carbon tax.

Taxing is simply not a solution. Taxing either makes it worse for the people who are poor, or if they are subsidized, does not achieve anything.

We need advances in technology to make alternatives to carbon viable. These technological breakthroughs will not only reduce carbon emissions, but will spur economic growth for many years, because everybody will want to have the new, efficient technology.

I don't think that's an appropriate response to what looks like a looming disaster. It's the equivalent of FDR saying after Pearl Harbor, "well, we can't disrupt the free market by mobilizing our nation for war. Guess we'll just have to hope for a group of vigilantes to form and deal with the Japanese".

We need something much better than that. If anything, a Carbon tax isn't going far enough...but it's a good place to start.