31 votes

A Grave Climate Warning, Buried on Black Friday

27 comments

  1. [26]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [19]
      Sineso Link Parent
      I'm new to this site, and not trying to pick a fight, but I can't help but notice that a majority of threads and discussion here seem to be from a typical left-leaning ideological perspective...

      I'm new to this site, and not trying to pick a fight, but I can't help but notice that a majority of threads and discussion here seem to be from a typical left-leaning ideological perspective (going by the front page threads).

      A few years ago when global warming was a more prominent subject I did a fair bit of research on the subject. I did not find the science compelling, nor does it seem much different today. I would like to ask: what evidence do you find so compelling that you are willing to call people such as myself "deniers"? Obviously there are many environmental concerns - no one wants to live in a polluted environment - but I'm not convinced global warming is as much of an issue as alarmists claim, if such a thing even exists.

      In 1989 the UN predicted that by the year 2000 "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth". Well here we are 18 years later and it's the same alarmists with the same doomsday prophesies - and the solution of course being the same as always: more government, more taxes, more restrictions, less freedom.

      One of the reasons I have been looking for reddit alternatives is reddit's hostility to outside viewpoints. Its somewhat disheartening to come to a new platform find the same emotionally-based thinking.

      12 votes
      1. [6]
        arghdos (edited ) Link Parent
        Unless you left out the point where you went and got an advanced degree in climate / energy sciences, or well... anything related, this argument is meaningless. As an analogy, you wouldn't walk...

        I did a fair bit of research on the subject. I did not find the science compelling, nor does it seem much different today

        Unless you left out the point where you went and got an advanced degree in climate / energy sciences, or well... anything related, this argument is meaningless. As an analogy, you wouldn't walk into a Doctor's office, get diagnosed with cancer, go home, read WebMD (or heaven forbid, the morass of crap that is the bulk of scientific reporting, even without accounting for blatant ideological intent), come back to your next appointment and say "Well, I read a bunch about cancer, and ultimately I don't find it very convincing, so I'm good." It is entirely reasonable to ask another Doctor for their opinion, if 95%+ of the Doctors you visited said you had cancer, well...

        However, I don't particularly expect that to be convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe in climate change, because I'm sure they've heard (and dismissed, at least implicitly) those numbers before.

        In 1989 the UN predicted that by the year 2000 "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth". Well here we are 18 years later and it's the same alarmists with the same doomsday prophesies

        This appears to be based off a pretty crappy quote from an AP article, notably, it was not from the UN report itself. Hell it doesn't appear to be a direct quote from the UNEP official involved. Anyway, the full thing reads:

        A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

        Which is a bit confusing, but reads to me something like "If we don't reverse global warming by the year 2000, bad things will happen" -- the timeline of when those apocalyptic events might happen is debatable from that quote, but if you read the rest of the article:

        He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

        It's pretty clear that he's not implying that the apocalypse will happen in 2000 (like some other outlets imply). Honestly, I have no idea why that's even a thing that's stuck around in the collective consciousness, we might as well point to a cold day in January as proof that climate change isn't real.

        There is room to debate the uncertainty in the models, unknown variables, and all that sort of stuff. But to disbelieve based on the lack of apocalypse from a misread quote from three decades ago seems... silly.

        same alarmists with the same doomsday prophesies

        Well, they would be alarmists if it wasn't happening:

        Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year – from January through September, with the exception of June – were the warmest on record for those respective months. October, November, and December of 2016 were the second warmest of those months on record – in all three cases, behind records set in 2015

        And if we weren't seeing more extreme weather events:

        2017 ties 2011 for the highest number of billion-dollar disasters for a single year. 2017 arguably has more events than 2011 given that our analysis traditionally counts all U.S. billion-dollar wildfires, as regional-scale, seasonal events, not as multiple isolated events. In 2017, the U.S. experienced several wildfire episodes that each exceeded $1 billion in losses in central and southern California (i.e., the Tubbs, Atlas and Thomas Fires). The only other year - again, since 1980 - in which the U.S. experienced multiple, separate billion-dollar wildfires was 2003: the Cedar and Old Fires, also in California.

        There's very certainly a trend here, we're seeing more disasters and the cost is going up.

        and the solution of course being the same as always: more government, more taxes, more restrictions, less freedom.

        Honestly, this is why I favor a carbon-tax based solution -- it's the most market friendly way. Make the cost of emitting CO2 even remotely aligned with the cost required to clean it up, and see what comes out on top.

        I don't expect to convince you here, believe whatever you like to believe.... but I also don't think that leaving a comment that's essentially "just asking questions" about climate change without some sort of rebuttal is right either.

        27 votes
        1. [5]
          mb3077 Link Parent
          One thing that I would like to add regarding "more government, more taxes, more restrictions, less freedom." - The 'more restrictions and less freedom' will only apply to corporations and...

          One thing that I would like to add regarding "more government, more taxes, more restrictions, less freedom." -

          The 'more restrictions and less freedom' will only apply to corporations and industries, as they are the main contributors to climate change. 81% of all emitted green-house gasses are Carbon Dioxide and Methane, which almost all of it is by corporations, not individuals. Source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

          The individual person won't see much change or restriction in their life. Maybe you'll be forced to recycle plastics and drive an electric car, but other than that there's not much an individual can do to greatly contribute to climate-change.

          Taxes may go up - and I admit that I don't have enough knowledge to dictate if that's good or bad or what effect it will have. Maybe someone more educated on the matter can explain it.

          I think that civil discussion is encouraged here, everyone should feel free to contribute regardless of opinion.

          6 votes
          1. [4]
            BuckeyeSundae Link Parent
            It would also apply to the people who own those companies. I mean, this is the heart of the main philosophical difference between political groups, right? When you say 'corporations and...

            It would also apply to the people who own those companies. I mean, this is the heart of the main philosophical difference between political groups, right? When you say 'corporations and industries,' someone on the right doesn't 'the rich and powerful.' They hear 'people trying to make a living like everyone else.' They are usually fairly put off by this particular demonizing approach of the left towards larger companies and very uncomfortable with the broad generalizations of entire industries (which does include smaller companies very often).

            So it's true that the average consumer isn't likely to experience much change, but for anyone working in those industries, and especially for anyone who owns or runs a business in those industries, it is going to mean quite meaningful change. That's not really something to just gloss over as though it doesn't matter.

            9 votes
            1. [3]
              mb3077 Link Parent
              This a good point that I didn't really think about. Regulating industries and corporations will reduce their profits or make them plateau, which will cause a lot of people to lose their jobs. The...

              This a good point that I didn't really think about.
              Regulating industries and corporations will reduce their profits or make them plateau, which will cause a lot of people to lose their jobs.

              The question we should ask is - is hurting these smaller businesses and potentially leaving thousands of workers jobless worth it in order to reduce climate-change? I personally think that it is. But it is something that needs to be discussed on a national level.

              I agree that corporations shouldn't automatically be regarded as 'boogymen' or generalize them as the bad guys, as it is much more nuanced than that. I will be more careful about that in the future.

              5 votes
              1. [2]
                dubteedub Link Parent
                I think there is also a strong argument to be made that a lot of those lost oil and gas jobs will be shifted over to new industries, like solar, wind, biofuels, fuel cells, batteries, hydro, and...

                I think there is also a strong argument to be made that a lot of those lost oil and gas jobs will be shifted over to new industries, like solar, wind, biofuels, fuel cells, batteries, hydro, and geothermal.

                A lot of large hydrocarbon companies are also beginning to shift their resources over to various renewables to account for the necessities climate change, as well as government regulations and policies.

                4 votes
                1. mb3077 Link Parent
                  It is reassuring to know that public opinion is having an effect on these large companies, or atleast their shareholders. That is a great goal if they actually stick to it, but somehow I feel like...

                  It is reassuring to know that public opinion is having an effect on these large companies, or atleast their shareholders.

                  Shell said its goal was a 50 percent reduction in the carbon dioxide produced by those products by 2050.

                  That is a great goal if they actually stick to it, but somehow I feel like this is an empty promise.

                  Still, some environmentalists and investors are skeptical about Shell’s intentions, noting that the $2 billion a year that it proposes to invest in new energies is still relatively small.

                  Something to consider. They're investing only 7% of their annual budget on renewable energy. But I feel like this will rise as time goes on.

                  Companies like BP and Shell are not oblivious of the fact that renewables is starting to become a profitable market. And to the fact the fossil fuel will begin to stagnate the moment that renewable energy becomes more profitable. So this does give me hope that we will see change from these industry juggernauts.

                  In my opinion it is inevitable that in the near future nuclear energy will completely rule the market. It's simply too efficient to not be used. The only thing that is stopping it currently (that I know of) is public distrust. But this is a non-issue that will go away as the older generation gets replaced by a newer more educated one.
                  There are already great advances in nuclear fusion technology such as the Wendelstein 7-X. (Great thread posted about it today: https://tildes.net/~science/8ry/successful_second_round_of_experiments_with_wendelstein_7_x)

                  It's matter of time before we abandon fossil fuels completely. I just hope we do it before too much damage is done.

                  3 votes
      2. [5]
        dubteedub Link Parent
        It sounds like you have not done a whole lot of research or reading into climate change for quite some time. We know a hell of a lot more information now since the 80s and 90s and the scientific...

        It sounds like you have not done a whole lot of research or reading into climate change for quite some time. We know a hell of a lot more information now since the 80s and 90s and the scientific community has reached a very broad consensus based on the facts.

        Here are some great starting points I would recommend.

        The Climate Report discussed in the OP is linked - FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT

        Here is a brief summary from its opening chapter.

        Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities. The impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future—but the severity of future impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the changes that will occur.

        The assumption that current and future climate conditions will resemble the recent past is no longer valid (Ch. 28: Adaptation, KM 2). Observations collected around the world provide significant, clear, and compelling evidence that global average temperature is much higher, and is rising more rapidly, than anything modern civilization has experienced, with widespread and growing impacts (Figure 1.2) (CSSR, Ch. 1.9). The warming trend observed over the past century can only be explained by the effects that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, have had on the climate (Ch. 2: Climate, KM 1 and Figure 2.1).

        Climate change is transforming where and how we live and presents growing challenges to human health and quality of life, the economy, and the natural systems that support us. Risks posed by climate variability and change vary by region and sector and by the vulnerability of people experiencing impacts. Social, economic, and geographic factors shape the exposure of people and communities to climate-related impacts and their capacity to respond. Risks are often highest for those that are already vulnerable, including low-income communities, some communities of color, children, and the elderly (Ch. 14: Human Health, KM 2; Ch. 15: Tribes, KM 1–3; Ch. 28: Adaptation, Introduction). Climate change threatens to exacerbate existing social and economic inequalities that result in higher exposure and sensitivity to extreme weather and climate-related events and other changes (Ch. 11: Urban, KM 1). Marginalized populations may also be affected disproportionately by actions to address the underlying causes and impacts of climate change, if they are not implemented under policies that consider existing inequalities (Ch. 11: Urban, KM 4; Ch. 28: Adaptation, KM 4).

        This report draws a direct connection between the warming atmosphere and the resulting changes that affect Americans’ lives, communities, and livelihoods, now and in the future. It documents vulnerabilities, risks, and impacts associated with natural climate variability and human-caused climate change across the United States and provides examples of response actions underway in many communities. It concludes that the evidence of human-caused climate change is overwhelming and continues to strengthen, that the impacts of climate change are intensifying across the country, and that climate-related threats to Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being are rising. These impacts are projected to intensify—but how much they intensify will depend on actions taken to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the risks from climate change now and in the coming decades (Ch. 28: Adaptation, Introduction; Ch. 29: Mitigation, KM 3 and 4).

        Here is another recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which came out a couple months ago.

        Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}

        Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C) higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}

        Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}

        Climate models project robust differences in regional climate characteristics between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C, and between 1.5°C and 2°C.8 These differences include increases in: mean temperature in most land and ocean regions (high confidence), hot extremes in most inhabited regions (high confidence), heavy precipitation in several regions (medium confidence), and the probability of drought and precipitation deficits in some regions (medium confidence). {3.3}

        Estimates of the global emissions outcome of current nationally stated mitigation ambitions as submitted under the Paris Agreement would lead to global greenhouse gas emissions18 in 2030 of 52–58 GtCO2eq yr−1 (medium confidence). Pathways reflecting these ambitions would not limit global warming to 1.5°C, even if supplemented by very challenging increases in the scale and ambition of emissions reductions after 2030 (high confidence). Avoiding overshoot and reliance on future large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can only be achieved if global CO2 emissions start to decline well before 2030 (high confidence). {1.2, 2.3, 3.3, 3.4, 4.2, 4.4, CrossChapter Box 11 in Chapter 4}

        If you are looking for something more accessible, Reuters did a very interesting visual representation into how climate change is affecting water temperature and ocean life in its investigation of Ocean Shock.

        https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/ocean-shock-warming/

        One of the reasons I have been looking for reddit alternatives is reddit's hostility to outside viewpoints. Its somewhat disheartening to come to a new platform find the same emotionally-based thinking.

        If you have any outside viewpoints based on facts, I would be happy to hear and discuss them with you.

        14 votes
        1. [4]
          Sineso (edited ) Link Parent
          I admit there are many studies which make a case for climate change. The problem - which is what these sorts of debates inevitably lead to - is the question of authority. To my mind, having read...
          1. I admit there are many studies which make a case for climate change. The problem - which is what these sorts of debates inevitably lead to - is the question of authority. To my mind, having read the Climategate emails, the IPCC is not a reliable source. Yes, I am aware there were a plethora of investigations into these emails that all found no wrongdoing. The problem is that I didn't just read the results of these investigations I also the read the emails themselves, and the political and unscientific motivations behind the individuals working at IPCC is absolutely apparent.

          2. You say we've reached a consensus? How so? I hope you aren't referring to the "97% of scientists agree" bit which is an outright lie (and it doesn't take a degree in climate science to see why). It's this figure that initially woke me up to the level of dishonesty going on.

            The main paper behind the 97% claim, authored by John Cook, uses dishonest trickery. A 2016 peer-reviewed paper lists 5 methodological issues with the 97% figure. To quote their abstract:

            Cook et al's highly influential consensus study finds different results than previous studies in the consensus literature. It omits tests for systematic differences between raters. Many abstracts are unaccounted for.
            Source

            Cook responds that same year with his owner paper responding to Tol, adding a new dimension, "expertise", to overcome his inaccuracy. He writes:

            Tol comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.
            Source

            These are published in the same paper in the same year. If the scientists can't even agree about the level of consensus, how are we supposed to?

            Below are quotes from a Forbes article which cites the HadCRUT4 near surface temperature data set, and the Merged Ice-Core Record Data from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, among other sources:

            The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested.
            Source

            Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.
            Source

            So have I replied to the sources you listed in your post? No, I haven't. What I have done is demonstrated there is enough ambiguity going on here that the topic should be approached with a degree of skepticism.

          3. You are quoting a government report at me. How much do you trust the government? You do understand the food pyramid was in textbooks for years, right? You have heard of the sugar conspiracy I hope, how smoking was once 'physician' approved, the countless FDA lies and fuckups, the decades of lies surrounding psychedelics and marijuana, MK Ultra, the list goes on and on. From the government's mouth has been a never-ending stream of lies.

            This is the main difference between our opinions. Not so much our interpretation of climate data, but of our meta-level trust in authority.

            Thus when I read in a telegraph article:

            When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

            I think "they falsified the data, how typical." You on the other-hand will think "these idiots don't understand science, how typical." How are we to cross such a divide?

            Both of us can pick and choose quotes all day:

            The Fourth National Climate Assessment offers no hard evidence, just vague assertions and claims that past climate change is no evidence about future climate change," wrote Dr. Ken Haapala, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. "It earns the distinction that it does not meet the standards of the Information Quality Act, and each page should be stamped: 'Based on speculation, not hard evidence.'

            The problem is epistemological. I am not so gullible to trust globalist mouth-pieces of the U.N. Read How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed and tell me how this isn't 100% political. The whole industry is corrupted. Why shouldn't I trust the whistleblowers?

          2 votes
          1. dubteedub (edited ) Link Parent
            So you admit that numerous investigations found that the emails were taken out of context and used as a smear campaign by climate change deniers just ahead of the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit...

            To my mind, having read the Climategate emails, the IPCC is not a reliable source. Yes, I am aware there were a plethora of investigations into these emails that all found no wrongdoing. The problem is that I didn't just read the results of these investigations I also the read the emails themselves, and the political and unscientific motivations behind the individuals working at IPCC is absolutely apparent.

            So you admit that numerous investigations found that the emails were taken out of context and used as a smear campaign by climate change deniers just ahead of the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in 2009, you just refuse to accept them because... reasons?

            You say we've reached a consensus? How so? I hope you aren't referring to the "97% of scientists agree" bit which is an outright lie (and it doesn't take a degree in climate science to see why).

            No, I am not referring to whatever strawman report you are making. Let's start with the two reports I actually linked above that you clearly did not parse through at all, along with this:

            Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

            "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

            American Association for the Advancement of Science

            "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

            American Chemical Society

            "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

            American Geophysical Union

            "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

            American Medical Association

            "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

            American Meteorological Society

            "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

            American Physical Society

            "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

            The Geological Society of America

            "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

            U.S. Global Change Research Program

            "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

            Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

            “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

            “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

            https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

            The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.

            http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

            Forbes is not a reputable source. It is a place for opinion pieces, like the one you linked is by a former energy lobbyist and right wing persona who has called climate change a hoax.

            So have I replied to the sources you listed in your post? No, I haven't. What I have done is demonstrated there is enough ambiguity going on here that the topic should be approached with a degree of skepticism.

            So thanks for admitting you refuse to read any evidence presented, glad that I wasted my time trying to actually have a debate.

            And no, there is not ambiguity. You are basing you opinion on a very small minority of "evidence" and not actually considering the very real and very broad consensus of the scientific community.

            This is the main difference between our opinions. Not so much our interpretation of climate data, but of our meta-level trust in authority.

            I choose to base my opinions on facts and science. You seem to base your opinion on how you feel about things.

            It sounds like you are probably looking for a conspiracy forum to reinforce your beliefs.

            11 votes
          2. Rocket_Man Link Parent
            To me this conversation is somewhat of a lost cause at this point. You're convinced there's a strong and ongoing controversy despite the fact that many if not all our institutions say otherwise....

            To me this conversation is somewhat of a lost cause at this point. You're convinced there's a strong and ongoing controversy despite the fact that many if not all our institutions say otherwise. Of course you don't trust any institutions. Comprehensive data exists and yet all it takes to discredit it is a single scientific letter of criticisms. As far as I can tell there's probably nothing you'll trust. These things will always have uncertainty involved with them. All you're doing is hiding in that uncertainty to maintain a denialist point of view. I honestly cannot think of anything that would convince you. Maybe a comprehensive review, but I'm sure you'd find someone that has a criticism within a citation that supposedly blows the top off the whole thing.

            9 votes
          3. Rayven Link Parent
            Ok. So who do you trust? Seriously. Is there any scientific authority whose evidence you will consider? Why do you trust that source? I’m truly interested in your answer to this. Climate change...

            Ok. So who do you trust? Seriously. Is there any scientific authority whose evidence you will consider? Why do you trust that source?

            I’m truly interested in your answer to this. Climate change shouldn’t be a left/right issue at all. Climate change doesn’t give a crap what you or I believe. The effects will be felt by everyone, political ideology be damned.

            So how do we have this conversation?

            1 vote
      3. [2]
        dubteedub Link Parent
        I would also add that a couple of other folks have raised a complaint that Tildes is left-wing. I will just say that this is a very small site at the moment, and if you want to share "right-wing"...

        I would also add that a couple of other folks have raised a complaint that Tildes is left-wing. I will just say that this is a very small site at the moment, and if you want to share "right-wing" articles or other viewpoints, the community here has been very open to discussing them. No one is stopping you from sharing the content you want to see.

        8 votes
        1. Adys Link Parent
          I can't pretend to know @Sineso's political affiliation, but "climate change" isn't a leftwing / rightwing thing. Maybe in some of the deluded states of america it is, but for most of the world,...

          I can't pretend to know @Sineso's political affiliation, but "climate change" isn't a leftwing / rightwing thing. Maybe in some of the deluded states of america it is, but for most of the world, there is no question climate change is real, and that is not a leftwing / rightwing thing.

          There are political differences which tend to center around "what do we do about it?". For example, if you tell me being pro carbon tax is left-wing, I'll agree with you.

          But let's make this seriously clear: Acceptance of climate change is not a "left wing" mindset, it's hard truth. And I question anyone's ability to have coherent thoughts on the subject if they refuse to accept it on the grounds that "well it's not what the politicians I vote for say". I certainly wouldn't entertain a bullshitfest like that (like what's happening elsewhere in this thread).

          But if you want to talk to me about conservative policies I'll be more than happy to discuss their pros and cons. Policies, not "alternative facts from an alternative reality where climate change is opt-in".

          9 votes
      4. Adys Link Parent
        Welcome! So for your first post, you chose to take on climate change. Okay. As a general tip, if you think something is going to be a controversial stance, maybe wait until your second post...

        I'm new to this site

        Welcome!

        and not trying to pick a fight

        So for your first post, you chose to take on climate change. Okay.

        As a general tip, if you think something is going to be a controversial stance, maybe wait until your second post instead. Get a feel for the community, start talking to people and interacting with them on less controversial things.

        This isn't to say you're forbidden from doing what you're doing, but that it's just a terrible approach. Kinda like joining a book club and immediately shitting on what people are reading right now. It doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means you have zero tact.

        seem to be from a typical left-leaning ideological perspective

        I think it's fair to say tildes' community is left-leaning as a whole. But I also personally think it's overall a pretty high quality community that is completely willing to discuss rightwing viewpoints and even agree with them if they make sense. Part of the problem is the current american rightwing is so stupidly right-shifted that there isn't much to talk about, but that doesn't mean liberal policies are always correct.

        For example, you want to talk about this?:

        more government, more taxes, more restrictions, less freedom.

        Then have at it. Talking about what "the solution" is/should be is absolutely going to be welcomed, and I don't believe you'll find hostility. If you do, please do point it out at least.

        But, climate change denial is not a policy disagreement. It's an american thing, and it's a shitty thing that american right-wing politicians are encouraging because it makes their job simpler when they don't have to find a solution about climate change and can pretend it doesn't exist.

        It's not my job to convince you that climate change is real. I wouldn't succeed. Society has failed you for you to end up being a "climate skeptic" simply because you are against the proposed solutions, and well, I can't do shit about it. But don't throw the baby with the bathwater and think that the actual solutions can't be discussed here.

        5 votes
      5. BuckeyeSundae (edited ) Link Parent
        First, I hear you about the left-ward lean (though I am part of it). We all got blind spots, and it's especially likely that the left-ward tilt many of us have opens us up to very similar blind...

        First, I hear you about the left-ward lean (though I am part of it). We all got blind spots, and it's especially likely that the left-ward tilt many of us have opens us up to very similar blind spots. Being aware of that possibility is our best defense against them, and that's hardly foolproof, sadly. I would expect there to be some things about this topic I hadn't considered.

        For instance, I think it's a totally fair point to say that much of the reporting of these climate studies is exaggerated. Because it simply is. The media market thrives on controversy, and for decades journalists have believed it is hard to make 30 or 50 or 100 year climate projections sound sexy without playing up the extreme ends of the projections. Science journalism has been ass for ages.

        In every climate change study that offers projections, there is going to be a range of expected possibilities. Sometimes some of these studies will be wrong on the far too aggressive prediction side of things (where, again, it is totally fair to point out how exaggerated the effects were estimated to be). But the important thing is to try, as exhausting as it might be, to take the evidence holistically and to evaluate based on what all the studies are saying. It's the same basic theory as using poll data to predict outcomes of elections. Sometimes you'll be off (especially if there is a systemic polling error like people in one part of the country are less likely to tell the truth). But in the main, you're probably fairly close. Closer than being blind, at least.

        So what has the science been saying holistically? I think it's a fair question. I don't think it's wise to dismiss all potentially tainted science if we can look at the methods and see that they're up to scientific rigor. P-hacking is definitely a big part of the conversation here, but the key trait of a p-hacked result is that it isn't easily repeatable. That's where the multitude of studies and the holistic analysis becomes fairly important. Scientists have been largely in consensus that the climate would start warming noticeably by 2000 since the 1970s. And this is a consensus that has only grown over the decades. Now, it's fair to say that not all of those being interviewed would necessarily have engaged the research on the topic they're talking about, but that's where that "no stance" option becomes important.

        How much is caused by humans? Much harder to say, but given the amount of carbon in the atmosphere that is our fault, how much carbon we are continuing to pump out, and the effect that a high PPM of carbon particles can have on warming generally (see also: greenhouse effects), it seems to be intuitive to conclude that humans have at least some of the blame for the warming climate we are now observing happening in real time. There is plenty of room for reasonable debate when it comes to whether that's 30% or 70% (and that debate has profound influence on how urgently we ought to react to the current trends), but it seems like even you aren't saying here that it's 0%.

        I would love for there to be more room for market-based rather than government-based solutions that help mitigate the effects of the warming we're seeing. I tend to be a "all tools are good tools if they move the needle closer to the end goal" sort, so maybe that's not too surprising to hear. I tend to think that markets are easier to sustain than government attention and control (and usually significantly better at self-adjusting when they're set up properly).

        But what is that end goal? That's the rub, I imagine. The end goal I have in mind is fewer carbon particles in the atmosphere, especially compared to current consumption. Maybe the specific approach that we talk about wouldn't be enough to make a meaningful impact on the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, especially to justify its cost. That's important to discuss. I am not blind to the opportunity cost of what we're talking about here.

        So hopefully we have a fair amount of common ground in what I've said. From what you've said it's a little hard for me to guess at what all you might agree with and what you might quibble with, but I imagine that we still agree on a lot more than normally gets highlighted in a typical climate change discussion.

        4 votes
      6. [3]
        hhh Link Parent
        What!? Did you not read the report or anything about it at all? It is a known fact global warming exists, is caused by humans, and will have disastrous consequences. It's not whether you believe...

        What!?

        Did you not read the report or anything about it at all? It is a known fact global warming exists, is caused by humans, and will have disastrous consequences. It's not whether you believe in it or not, it's whether you understand it. This report was approved by 15 US government agencies, agencies, which, remember, are currently under Trump.

        Not trying to be rude, but please educate yourself. What would the thousands of climate scientists (99%) who agree on this have to gain by lying?

        Here's a short excerpt about the IPCC report released a few months ago which backs up the US report:

        "'One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes.'

        The report highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2°C.

        'Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems.'

        Limiting global warming would also give people and ecosystems more room to adapt and remain below relevant risk thresholds, added Pörtner. 'The good news is that some of the kinds of actions that would be needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C are already underway around the world, but they would need to accelerate,'

        The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require "rapid and far-reaching" transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air."

        3 votes
        1. dubteedub Link Parent
          No, in fact he told me in his comment above that he did not read the report or any of the links I shared because they do not align with his worldview / the fact that he does not trust the government.

          Did you not read the report or anything about it at all?

          No, in fact he told me in his comment above that he did not read the report or any of the links I shared because they do not align with his worldview / the fact that he does not trust the government.

          3 votes
        2. Sineso Link Parent
          See my previous reply to dubteedub where I question the IPCC and respond to the "97% of scientists of agree" bit.

          See my previous reply to dubteedub where I question the IPCC and respond to the "97% of scientists of agree" bit.

    2. [4]
      CALICO Link Parent
      I've been eyeing the Cascadia region (Washington, Oregon, BC, Yukon) for a potential long term place to live in the future. It's hard to settle on anywhere specific, as projections can vary and...

      I've been eyeing the Cascadia region (Washington, Oregon, BC, Yukon) for a potential long term place to live in the future. It's hard to settle on anywhere specific, as projections can vary and the full extent of what we're in for before the end of the century is yet to be determined. But with the East Coast of the US facing rising sea levels and stronger more-frequent hurricanes, and the Midwest and Southwest facing desertification, drought, and wildfires, it seems that the Pacific Northwest and some of the western Canadian territories might make a decent enough refuge from the worst of it.

      What I'm really not looking forward to are the potential military conflicts over the world that climate change might bring about, to say nothing of the irreversible loss of biodiversity. Over the next 100 years or two, assuming we don't halt and reverse what we're doing, the US seems likely to move north into Canada and China seems likely to push into Russia to escape the worst of what they're facing; Canada and Russia being northern, colder, and having much space to be utilized, especially with the thawing of the permafrost.

      6 votes
      1. [2]
        hhh Link Parent
        37% chance of an earthquake/tsunami(?) screwing your stuff up in the next 50 years though
        1 vote
        1. Amarok Link Parent
          Also multiple active volcanoes that are overdue for a Helenesque incident, including Yellowstone. I looked into Cascadia myself at one point. ;) Where I live, change is manifesting itself as a...

          Also multiple active volcanoes that are overdue for a Helenesque incident, including Yellowstone. I looked into Cascadia myself at one point. ;)

          Where I live, change is manifesting itself as a rather distressing increase in precipitation. Parts of my property have been in a semi-swamplike state that has never happened before in the last 50 years.

          2 votes
      2. Adam_Black_Arts Link Parent
        As a lifelong resident of the Northwestern US, I'd like to point out that you're forgetting the alarming increase in wildfires we've been dealing with the last 10 years or so.

        As a lifelong resident of the Northwestern US, I'd like to point out that you're forgetting the alarming increase in wildfires we've been dealing with the last 10 years or so.

        1 vote
    3. mb3077 Link Parent
      I think that there is enough land in northern US to fit all the migrants coming from the south. But population density will probably greatly increase. I wonder how bad the agriculture will be...

      I think that there is enough land in northern US to fit all the migrants coming from the south. But population density will probably greatly increase.
      I wonder how bad the agriculture will be affected by climate change. What will happen to all the farm land and rural communities once it is not profitable anymore to grow corn wheat and soybeans?
      I think that more people will flock to cities as the population density increases, it would be like the industrial evolution all over again.

      2 votes
    4. PopeRigby Link Parent
      Thank God I'm in Washington

      Thank God I'm in Washington

  2. nsz (edited ) Link
    I'm sure the irony is not lost on the report authors. EDIT: found a link to the original report

    I'm sure the irony is not lost on the report authors.

    EDIT: found a link to the original report

    9 votes
  3. mb3077 Link
    As soon as the effect is felt on the market, policies will start to be made. It is profitable for politicians to ignore climate change right now, but when the market starts pressuring the...

    As soon as the effect is felt on the market, policies will start to be made.
    It is profitable for politicians to ignore climate change right now, but when the market starts pressuring the government they will quickly flip.

    Sadly though by the time that happens it would already be too late.

    5 votes