Making responsible choices means I'm falling for corporate propaganda? Ok. But the larger point is correct - there are bigger drivers.
Printable View
Almost this entrire post is wrong or at least partially informed. Even in the 60s scientists said GW would be a problem and they out voted their peers 6 to 1 on heating vs cooling. The media however ran with cooling due to I think cooler temps in recent years. 30 years later and it's a much bigger consensus at around 98% of scientists agree with GW.
The polar bear thing is just factually incorrect from what I can find. Curious though I did a check on that website and found it is a borderline extremist website dedicated to only pushing a set political agenda. All the fact check sites give them poor ratings for producing fake or misleading information frequently.
True. But the warming we are experience right now is without precedent. Xkcd has a really good visualization of it here:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
It is most certainly a debate. I showed where the planet was warmer in the past, without all the emissions. Do we tend to ignore certified data just because we happen not to like it?
True, Gus. We can both sit here all day and throw data back and forth..But since no one has yet explained why the earth was so much warmer than it is now from 900a.d til 1300a.d. I will remain one of those dull creatures that does not fully believe it.
I'm going to suggest that we move forward with more of the OP intent of discussing what we can do to help with what's basically a known issue and not try to convince anyone about the science. This will help keep us out PP area. When someone posts a link to the dailycaller web site, at that point, you have to realize and move on. The xkcd visualization is amazing and frightning, BTW, thanks for posting that.
I've already learned a few things reading this thread and that alone has made it worth reading. Our family is always looking for ways we can minimize our impact.
It’s maddening to me that there are people out there who have done ZERO research on the subject and believe they know more than the scientists who have devoted their life’s work to it. If we choose to go against the scientific community on the subject of climate change, what else do we not believe? Antibiotics? Gravity? The technology inside your phone? Nuclear decay? Surely you just can’t cherry pick climate change when you know close to nothing on the subject. So what else are they wrong about?
As a family, we have tried to limit red meat intake. We are down to about once a month with it and not only does it benefit the environment, it also makes for healthier eating becausee red meat is absolutely horrible for you. I also tried, unsuccessfully, to convince my wife to get a Tesla model 3. We ended up with a traverse...
Why wouldn't we want to take care of the planet whether there is global warming/climate change or not? There are limited resources on this planet and we should all do what we can to use them responsibly. I typically recycle more than I throw out - and would have less to recycle if packaging was better, I'm getting better at putting my bags back into the car so I can always use my own bags instead of the plastic ones from the store. Not sure I'm willing to give up my beef but I don't have it that often so I'll keep eating it.
It certainly isn't a debate at all. That would be like having a heart specialist tell you what's wrong with your heart but saying "O well my acupuncture therapist says X instead so I guess it's not really settled."
Regarding the data though, as has been pointed out is incorrect or misleading at best. We know the climate going back much further than that and can use it to find patterns and make predictions. Hence how we know something changed and that has affected the rate of change we currently see.
It is known and has been addressed. How about instead of being "one of those dull creatures that does not fully believe it", you could at least choose to listen to those whose jobs it is to know this stuff. The ones who have studied for years at school, on the job, and have access to any information they need to look into this and not the ones who push back against it when their special interests get in the way.
One other thing that gets people confused as was evidenced when Bill Nye tried to talk with Tucker Carlson was that the change wouldn't normally be a problem. As many have said the planet goes through changes naturally, the issue is how quickly it is now happening and how that has changed the limits of what is now considered moderate to extreme.
This this this.
This is also my thinking to a T.
Here is a site that debunks some of the top climate change denial claims in layman's terms. Quick and easy to navigate.
https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/1...-or-less-each/
So we're going to have a (still ongoing) 2018 Midterms thread, a 2020 Presidential thread, a thread for Brexit, and now this. Didn't I propose just bringing back the PPB forum like a year or so ago? How is this thread different from any you would find on a politics board? Everything seems so familiar.
To make this thread work, I probably would've just titled it something like "Ideas to Improve the Environment" and made no mention of global warming at all, with a warning that any reference to global warming would receive an infraction. Which is probably too restrictive for some to enjoy/participate. Which brings us back to how DBR doesn't see a need for political threads, and there are plenty of forums elsewhere to discuss this...
To be fair, he did cite a known scientist (though unfortunately, one who's a bit of a a huckster).
For those near Duke, there's a pretty interesting (or at least there was, unsure as to its current status) section of the Duke Forest devoted to climate science called the Free Air Carbon Enrichment facility. I had the fun and fortune to work as a research assistant during my undergrad days with several PhDs conducting experiments. There were a number of test plots of forest that were kept at elevated levels of ambient CO2 (550 PPM, I think) or whatever atmospheric concentration levels are expected by mid-century. There were also a number of control plots with ambient CO2 levels ---- the purpose being to assess how eastern forests might react in the future under elevated atmospheric CO2 conditions relative to current conditions. Lots of findings were published in Nature and other journals of reputable environmental science.
It's quite a place ---- like something out of Star Wars and if it's still up and running, worth a visit. Assume it'd need to be coordinated through NSOE. I used to climb that tower in the middle to take readings at different levels of the forest!
Attachment 9013
Here's a little overview: https://facedata.ornl.gov/duke/