Climate change reaching unprecedented levels as records tumble

Murrmurr said:
there's a bunch of scientists and researchers who do, and they know there is no way to reach "net zero" by 2050.
Click to expand...
I haven't read that specifically, I try not to hyper-focus on matters that are being handled / mishandled in the public arena, that's a loser for sure.
With all the nay-saying and foot-dragging, I'm not surprised that the "net zero" by 2050 goal is unattainable.

I guess you could say that virtually all of us here on SF Forums will be "fortunate" that we will be dead and gone before the real calamity of humanity starts, but our grandchildren will be around to deal with all that.
 

Nathan said:
I haven't read that specifically, I try not to hyper-focus on matters that are being handled / mishandled in the public arena, that's a loser for sure.
With all the nay-saying and foot-dragging, I'm not surprised that the "net zero" by 2050 goal is unattainable.

I guess you could say that virtually all of us here on SF Forums will be "fortunate" that we will be dead and gone before the real calamity of humanity starts, but our grandchildren will be around to deal with all that.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't pay much attention to it, either. If it was only a California thing, that would be different, and I guess my state is at least trying to do its best. But it's a global problem, and not many countries are willing and many are unable to work together to solve the problems.

But also, we need to clean up the world of science and research....get the corruption out of it.
 
Last edited:
Robb.hisself said:
No. A difference of opinion does not have to be an accusation. Rather it is just a different opinion based on a different perspective. How do you have a discussion with anyone if everyone must first subscribe to the same opinion or perspective? You don't. By that, everyone must chime in and sing the same tune. Maybe what you are expecting is an endorsement of your opinion. You tolerate no descent. That is not a discussion.

What you offer is an opinion because except for the recent climate changes and long dated trends you've noted you still don't have a perspective or handle on what the long term weather cycle of the earth is and means. So, what you are talking about as fact remains simply an opinion based on a rather small length of time compared to earth's historical time line. That is the only fact that I am pointing out to you. I am not disagreeing that there is short term weather change. But, it is comparatively short term and, therefore, can be interpreted differently than you have.

Unlike what you offer - gloom and doom - I am suggesting this 'emergency' may actually be a blessing by which the human race stops its childish behaviors resulting in massive and destructive wars and gets people to come together so that the human race may survive. My long term perspective is actually more optimistic than yours if you stop to think about it. I don't see weather change to be the negative threat that you do.

If you pause for a moment you may realize that yes I do see weather change as a threat to human survival as we know it, but I see its cause differently than you - it is long term more a natural event than one caused by human activity. Then, unlike you, I don't think we can fix what we haven't really caused. But, we can survive this event of weather change as a species if we learn to unite our efforts to do so.

So our only disagreement is to the cause of weather change and its fix. I am not going to go around beating myself or others up for what is a naturally occuring phenomenon. There's no point to that. Rather the human race needs to look ahead rather than back. Your finger pointing is going to disunite rather than unite. And, unity to address weather change is the key ingredient needed.
Click to expand...
I see. So you know better than 99.9% of the world's climate expert scientists? What arrogance.
 

About 1880 was just after the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) that brought a decrease in temps almost equaling the increase we see. This was probably the result of volcanic activity shielding the sun. I don’t doubt that there is present day warming, but I think it could be reversed by more volcanic activity, with major volcano eruptions being forecast by some.
 
First law of ecology (according to ecologist Barry Commoner) :

1) Everything is connected to everything else.

We can't live on this planet, establish an industrial society, and *not* have it affect everything else on the planet, most assuredly including climate. It's only common sense. Folks who want to pretend that change would happen "naturally" without us aren't thinking clearly. We know that everything affects everything- there's no way we couldn't affect the environment- we *are* the environment. In fact, we have been affecting the climate since the invention of agriculture (for which we had to cut down vast amounts of forest), at LEAST. I learned this stuff in Earth Science 101 in college in 1970. It's not a radical notion. We've known this for a long time.
Google is your friend, doubters. You'll easily find what the consensus of scientists is. It's not a matter of opinion. Fact is fact, no matter what the oil industry wants you to believe. The damage is done and it will cause another great extinction. The planet will survive, but it's likely a lot of humanity won't. Perhaps that's for the best, actually. We are problematic creatures. Sadly, we will take a lot of lovely flora and fauna down with us. So it goes.
 
If you really are "Older Than Dirt" then you must recall all the years the "so called scientists" warned us about Global Cooling and that we were going towards our deaths when we all will freeze to death. Then suddenly the "so called scientists" started preaching on Global Warming the earth is going to burn up and we all will die.

I believe it is all about making money and not about good science and well researched and documented science. Extrapolation is one of the worst ways to forecast future events. That is in fact all they have, the true data they have to small of a sample to create a legitimate forecast of the future. Do your own research, but the sample size they use is too small when you consider the age of the earth. Most the numbers the use are estimated historical temperatures based on questionable techniques.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
If you really are "Older Than Dirt" then you must recall all the "so called scientists" warned us about Global Cooling and that we were going towards our deaths when we all will freeze to death. Then suddenly the "so called scientists" started preaching on Global Warming the earth is going to burn up and we all will die.

I believe it is all about making money and not about good science and well researched and documented science. Extrapolation is one of the worst ways to forecast future events. That is in fact all they have, the true data they have to small of a sample to create a legitimate forecast of the future. Do your own research, but the sample size they use is too small when you consider the age of the earth. Most the numbers the use are estimated historical temperatures based on questionable techniques.
Click to expand...
I remember the climate cooling scientists. It was only back in the 1970s so it wasn't so long ago really.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
If you really are "Older Than Dirt" then you must recall all the years the "so called scientists" warned us about Global Cooling and that we were going towards our deaths when we all will freeze to death. Then suddenly the "so called scientists" started preaching on Global Warming the earth is going to burn up and we all will die.
Click to expand...
That was not a consensus of many World Scientists, period.

...Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.[1]

Global cooling - Wikipedia
 
ohioboy said:
That was not a consensus of many World Scientists, period.

...Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.[1]

Global cooling - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Oh like Wikipedia is not another tool of the climate change pushing narrative!

fears meme.jpg
 
chic said:
I remember the climate cooling scientists. It was only back in the 1970s so it wasn't so long ago really.
Click to expand...
i’m 72. i learned of the greenhouse effect in my earth science class in 1971 ish (college). i clearly remember warming. it was common knowledge. sorry about formatting here - posting from car.
 
Outside of members posting ones own summary ideas and perspectives, it is rather futile on casual web forums like this for science savvy to try to argue at length with average society educated persons with mediocre science understanding of specific controversial science subjects. Like as in over their head's understanding level...

In this narrow climate warming controversy, what science know is in various relative degrees about Earth climates through geologic time or the complex chemical and geologic cycles of the atmosphere, ocean, and land. Unless a person studies that kind of science at least a modest amount, one might believe most any nonsense. And of course simply posting authoritative science links or pointing them to authoritative books won't help because the last things they are going to do is try to read science they only prefer to publicly deny and be done with.

Instead more likely is someone will bait another to be dragged around by the nose ring through their sand box with a list of common denier diversion questions. And for every 20 science links one my post, a single denier scientist link as someone employed by fossil fuel corporations or their political and media interests is enough for a denier to just ignore it all as another reason they won't bother reading or understanding your whatevers.
 
Last edited:
David777 said:
Outside of members posting ones own summary ideas and perspectives, it is rather futile on casual web forums like this for science savvy to try to argue at length with average society educated persons with mediocre science understanding of specific controversial science subjects. Like as in over their head's understanding level...

In this narrow climate warming controversy, what science know is in various relative degrees about Earth climates through geologic time or the complex chemical and geologic cycles of the atmosphere, ocean, and land. Unless a person studies that kind of science at least a modest amount, one might believe most any nonsense. And of course simply posting authoritative science links or pointing them to authoritative books won't help because the last things they are going to do is try to read science they only prefer to publicly deny and be done with.

Instead more likely is someone will bait another to be dragged around by the nose ring through their sand box with a list of common denier diversion questions. And for every 20 science links one my post, a single denier scientist link as someone employed by fossil fuel corporations or their political and media interests is enough for a denier to just ignore it all as another reason they won't bother reading or understanding your whatevers.
Click to expand...
But we can read. And there's a boatload of articles out there, and videos as well. Some of them are even written by scientists, researchers and scholars. Interestingly, some of those people disagree with each other. And what makes that interesting, if not confusing, is that they all support their arguments by citing a myriad of evidence, findings, and data accumulated over decades of study.

If they can't all agree 100%, then neither can we. Not yet, anyway. Meanwhile, based on what we've read and heard, opinions abound.
 
David777 said:
Outside of members posting ones own summary ideas and perspectives, it is rather futile on casual web forums like this for science savvy to try to argue at length with average society educated persons with mediocre science understanding of specific controversial science subjects. Like as in over their head's understanding level...

In this narrow climate warming controversy, what science know is in various relative degrees about Earth climates through geologic time or the complex chemical and geologic cycles of the atmosphere, ocean, and land. Unless a person studies that kind of science at least a modest amount, one might believe most any nonsense. And of course simply posting authoritative science links or pointing them to authoritative books won't help because the last things they are going to do is try to read science they only prefer to publicly deny and be done with.

Instead more likely is someone will bait another to be dragged around by the nose ring through their sand box with a list of common denier diversion questions. And for every 20 science links one my post, a single denier scientist link as someone employed by fossil fuel corporations or their political and media interests is enough for a denier to just ignore it all as another reason they won't bother reading or understanding your whatevers.
Click to expand...
Yes. The lack of scientific literacy in this country (USA) is shocking. It's disturbing and depressing. It's where our emphasis should be in education, if we're to have any kind of future at all. I guess arguing with conspiracy theorists and science deniers is a waste of time and energy.
 
Murrmurr said:
Don't leave it up to them. You know lawmakers are elected, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, but once in, seems they're harder to get rid of these days. My one vote doesn't seem to mean much in the face of the big bucks of an established incumbent. Their campaign treasure chests are overflowing from the same groups with the lobbying money.
 
Last edited:
There’s one thing we can always count on in climate change threads. Eventually the true believers will tell those who aren’t convinced that they’re just too dumb to understand it.

If we were only better educated or smarter or not so stupid we'd believe everything a 'scientist' says, just like they do. :ROFLMAO:
 
AnnieA said:
Yes, but once in, seems they're harder to get rid of these days. My one vote doesn't seem to mean much in the face of the big bucks of an established incumbent. Their campaign treasure chests are overflowing from the same groups with the lobbying money.
Click to expand...
Every vote counts, but yeah, money is a politician's best friend.

Some of the ways Americans can possibly make a difference is to use your voice; organize or join a group and then make a lot of noise with them, start a petition or find petitions online and on the streets and sign them, write and telephone useless politicians repeatedly (their contact info is online), call them out on social media (including on their own accounts), and publicly "out" the companies that support useless politicians and make them lose money...tell everyone to stop buying their products, stop investing in their stocks, and even to stop working for them.

If more of us did as many of those things as possible, it would make a difference. Wouldn't happen overnight, but we would see change.
 
David777 said:
Outside of members posting ones own summary ideas and perspectives, it is rather futile on casual web forums like this for science savvy to try to argue at length with average society educated persons with mediocre science understanding of specific controversial science subjects. Like as in over their head's understanding level...

In this narrow climate warming controversy, what science know is in various relative degrees about Earth climates through geologic time or the complex chemical and geologic cycles of the atmosphere, ocean, and land. Unless a person studies that kind of science at least a modest amount, one might believe most any nonsense. And of course simply posting authoritative science links or pointing them to authoritative books won't help because the last things they are going to do is try to read science they only prefer to publicly deny and be done with.

Instead more likely is someone will bait another to be dragged around by the nose ring through their sand box with a list of common denier diversion questions. And for every 20 science links one my post, a single denier scientist link as someone employed by fossil fuel corporations or their political and media interests is enough for a denier to just ignore it all as another reason they won't bother reading or understanding your whatevers.
Click to expand...
David you always amaze me! Especially since you seldom if ever provide 'source information' for your hypothesis/ theories...just like most everyone else!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top