Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Steve steveson wrote:
The reasons used to say climate change is not caused by humans or fake in some way are sounding more and more like the Saudi clerics proof the world is flat.

I know more than the vast majority of scientists working in the field because tides, ice ages, lack of understanding of the word "trend"!

From Wikipidia:

"No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its statement to its current non-committal position."

Yet people with no scintific background claim to know better.

This subject is generally a fantastic arena for demonstrations of the Dunning-Kruger effect

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
The reasons used to say climate change is not caused by humans or fake in some way are sounding more and more like the Saudi clerics proof the world is flat.

I know more than the vast majority of scientists working in the field because tides, ice ages, lack of understanding of the word "trend"!

From Wikipidia:

"No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its statement to its current non-committal position."

Yet people with no scintific background claim to know better.

This subject is generally a fantastic arena for demonstrations of the Dunning-Kruger effect

Wow. Suddenly the Intenet makes a lot more sense.

 CptJake wrote:

The folks in the interglacial period must have been total ass hats, inducing so much climate change that they lost a lot of land mass.

Are you really trying to make the argument "sea levels have changed before therefore it must be natural now" and using evidence of change over a 125000 year period to show that a change over 50 years is not man made?

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Right. Climate change has happened before, obviously this one is totally natural and not at all influenced by the Industrial Revolution.

Side note, fracking is super good for the environment.

Influenced yes. Largely responsible for in any large quantity, unknown.

We know too little to say anything beyond ''man has accelerated the natural climate cycle by an unknown amount''

We haven't been monitoring anything long enough to make any accurate claims. A century of accurate data and then a bunch of massive generalizations beyond that is not close to enough data. We'd need thousands and thousands and thousands of years of data to get a feel for the smaller natural cycles.

We can, though, make fairly accurate estimates on CO2 levels etc. by looking at ice cores and we can look pretty far back - it is possible to look back 800,000 years with some cores in Antarctica. Over the past 1000 years, this is what the global CO2 and methane levels have looked like:

(taken from http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php)
So stable for about 800 years, then a sudden increase over the last 200 years. I wonder what could have caused this?

Thank you. This is exactly what I wanted someone to bring up. It's pretty obvious that man's effect in the past couple hundred years has been pretty significant.

Water an oil don't mix, so these means that water can't settle into all the places that there is oil. Environmentalists are actually making this worse by trying to restrict drilling and oil usage. The more we drill, the more holes there are for water to flow into and the lower sea levels will be. Even a 6yr old playing with a bucket knows water flows into openings. This is common sense stuff, don't be fooled by liberal hucksters.

 Steve steveson wrote:
The reasons used to say climate change is not caused by humans or fake in some way are sounding more and more like the Saudi clerics proof the world is flat.

I know more than the vast majority of scientists working in the field because tides, ice ages, lack of understanding of the word "trend"!

From Wikipidia:

"No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its statement to its current non-committal position."

Yet people with no scintific background claim to know better.

Just because people aren't qualified doesn't mean they won't open their mouth politicians are a great example of this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Right. Climate change has happened before, obviously this one is totally natural and not at all influenced by the Industrial Revolution.

Side note, fracking is super good for the environment.

Influenced yes. Largely responsible for in any large quantity, unknown.

We know too little to say anything beyond ''man has accelerated the natural climate cycle by an unknown amount''

We haven't been monitoring anything long enough to make any accurate claims. A century of accurate data and then a bunch of massive generalizations beyond that is not close to enough data. We'd need thousands and thousands and thousands of years of data to get a feel for the smaller natural cycles.

Seriously? Right. Okay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:
Water an oil don't mix, so these means that water can't settle into all the places that there is oil. Environmentalists are actually making this worse by trying to restrict drilling and oil usage. The more we drill, the more holes there are for water to flow into and the lower sea levels will be. Even a 6yr old playing with a bucket knows water flows into openings. This is common sense stuff, don't be fooled by liberal hucksters.

Please tell me you're kidding.

Florida looks boned. But its full of yankees so thats ok. The gators will be happy. Hurray for the environment!

 jreilly89 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:
Water an oil don't mix, so these means that water can't settle into all the places that there is oil. Environmentalists are actually making this worse by trying to restrict drilling and oil usage. The more we drill, the more holes there are for water to flow into and the lower sea levels will be. Even a 6yr old playing with a bucket knows water flows into openings. This is common sense stuff, don't be fooled by liberal hucksters.

Please tell me you're kidding.

I think he is, but it can be really hard to tell.

Not kidding about Florida. the gators are going to love it. It turns the whole state into the Keys.

It will help the US if it drowns all the old people. #enviromental win.

 Frazzled wrote:
Florida looks boned. But its full of yankees so thats ok. The gators will be happy. Hurray for the environment!

Isn't florida a swing state? without those 29 flip votes there will never be another republican president. It takes texas and georgia just to balance out californina, and how long can those states stay red when they start suffering the effects of climate change? and start losing land and votes as well.

The gators will be extinct. Swampland is freashwater, the ocean is salt water. But those guys have been around a long ass time, they might be able to evolve fast enough to stick around, especially with less humans around.

To bring it home for you, without that landmass to slow down hurricanes, they'll be able to grow some more before they hit Texas.

We haven't had a major storm in years. If this is climate change count me freaking in.

All the hurricanes decided to go to NY .

Again...win win!

Hey, I like my house!

 Frazzled wrote:
We haven't had a major storm in years. If this is climate change count me freaking in.

I've been waiting for the so-called 'end of outdoor winter sports' to happen... but currently my back door is frozen shut with a 4' snow drift in front of it.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
We haven't had a major storm in years. If this is climate change count me freaking in.

I've been waiting for the so-called 'end of outdoor winter sports' to happen... but currently my back door is frozen shut with a 4' snow drift in front of it.

And are you out playing Winter Sports?

 Frazzled wrote:
We haven't had a major storm in years. If this is climate change count me freaking in.

I think you may have forgotten Hurricane Ike (third costliest Atlantic hurricane, $30 billion in US damages) and Hurricane Rita (fourth costliest Atlantic, $12 billion unadjusted), and I'm just including Texas within the last 10 years.

To add on to the issue, Florida goes for the pretend it isn't happening approach to deal with climate change. it's a long read, but here's the start of it.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html

The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years.

But you would not know that by talking to officials at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the state agency on the front lines of studying and planning for these changes.

DEP officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.

The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department with about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget.

sirlynchmob wrote:
To add on to the issue, Florida goes for the pretend it isn't happening approach to deal with climate change. it's a long read, but here's the start of it.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html

The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years.

But you would not know that by talking to officials at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the state agency on the front lines of studying and planning for these changes.

DEP officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.

The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department with about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget.

Yep. California is just drying up on it's own. Rainfall is obviously not an effect of global warming. Florida only looks at Florida's well being.

Woooo!!!! NY is gonna become Atlantis. Have we voted in a king yet? I nominate me.*




N52 reference, for those who don't read it.

 djones520 wrote:
Here is a global sea level chart that runs through 2012. As it shows there was a significant drop in sea level changes following the 2010 that the story points to.



That story also points to a single region, and tries to make the case that the sky is falling. Which is a no-no, since the same type of people like to throw it in the oppositions faces when they point to regional effects that seem to run counter to the agenda.

We have a 20 year trend over which sea levels have risen 6cm, and you're claiming a 6 month 0.5cm downturn, which was already mirrored earlier in the overall pattern and already appears to have petered out, as reason to dismiss the entire trend. Ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ethics violations seem to be a recurring theme in the climate change debate;
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/24/un_climate_science_panel_head_resigns_over_sexual_assault_allegations/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Oh sure, the studies we back were paid for are almost entirely funded by companies with a direct financial gain in denying climate change... but the other side has a scientist who has been accused of sexual assault! That's totally the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Sea levels have risen and lowered and climate has changed since way before Evil Humans industrialized the planet.

Yes. The difference, of course, is the rate of change.

I suspect those who deny it changes/is changing are as ignorant as those who attribute the lion's share of the change to humans.

I think you're actually kind of right there. In fact, I'm almost certain that relative to the vast body of technical climate change the tiny amount of knowledge that you and I have is effectively zero.

The difference, though, is that I'm accepting the consensus conclusion of the scientific fields that is actively compiling that vast body of knowledge, whereas you are dismissing the consensus of that expert group based pretty much entirely on the principle "I can if I wanna and you can't stop me".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bullockist wrote:
I love you and your map .

I hate how we focus on the last few hundred years in this debate and miss out the millenia before

There's actually extensive research into millenia long climate change. What this shows is that while climate has changed greatly over time, that change tended to be very slow. Look at that graph and see the change over the Cretaceous - that roughly 200m change happened over 80 million years. Take the current rate of change of 6cm over 20 years, and over 80 million years it'd 240,000m !

Which is impossible, obviously, and surely a pretty good sign that what's currently happening is really very unlike the changes observed in history.

 daddyorchips wrote:

Spoiler:

Ah, political cartoons. I don't have an issue with the laundry list of simplistic utopian platitudes, that's all just background noise anymore. It's idea that those items will "create a better world" that I don't see any evidence for.

In fact, the only thing that really is making any real difference is increasing gas mileage + emissions standards on new cars, but that isn't on the list. Now, if we could get Mexico to get on-board, the air in Mexico City might actually become breathable again.

 Breotan wrote:
It's idea that those items will "create a better world" that I don't see any evidence for.

I could find questioning that climate change would achieve those things, cause that's what people who question climate change do, but how exactly does "healthy children" not create a better world? Or energy independence? Or clean air and water? Those things sound like they would work out well

Same dance, different song.

 Frazzled wrote:
It turns the whole state into the Keys.

Hemingway's Six-Toed cats everywhere!

If we lose Florida we loose a critical battleground state in the 2114 election cycle!

So far I am not seeing a down side.

climate change is the same lie that the hippies created, god created the world 6 thousand years ago and dinosaurs are a big hoax, all the evidence is falsified, lies I tell you!!

(sarcasm)