Man Made Climate Change

[rwc101]

The Dangerous Number comes from the book Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics by Joel Best. And references a number that takes on a life of it's own.

I do believe that there is a scientific consensus on the issue, but the use of the 97% number is not taken an accurate representation of scientists on the whole as it is presented.

It might be higher and it might be lower, but the 97% number is a dangerous number.

I got those citations from NASA's website. I have a lot of trust for those nerds. You'l never get a 100% accurate statistic on the issue, but the evidence is overwhelmingly strong that it's around 97%.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

I wouldn't say that this is the issue with the left, I'd say it's the issue with people...the left doesn't have a monopoly on loud alarmists by any measure, or on idiots spouting nonsense.

I would say on this issue it is primarily the left.

It started with Al "I invented the internet" Gore and has continued with Alexandria "Green New Deal to Solve every Political problem I see, maybe" Ocsasio-Cortez

 

[Oak]

While y'all argue about how we got here, the capital F at the beginning of our situation is getting bigger.

 

[rwc101]

That's why you use SQL like an adult.

Although I would guess most of this work is done in R on linux

Yeah, I work to help researchers archive their data. R is the big thing now.

 

[WyoDoug]

This is what I was talking about earlier: "the liberal side". This discussion has to always devolve into rank politics, with people doggedly defending their "side" against the "others" with whatever scrap of science or statistics that they can scrape up...both "sides" do it, and it's the greatest impediment we face in building a coalition for better stewardship of our world for future generations.

What's yer point? You are unlikely to show enough evidence to change my view. As someone else pointed out, there have been so many alarmists using pokey science making pokey predictions, many which have passed us by without showing up. All we can do is agree to disagree but I absolutely refuse to support anything on the climate change agenda at the present.

Now is man made pollution or damage to the environment happening? Yes

Is that climate change? Not necessarily. Climate change and environment are two separate issues.

Can we do anything about climate change? Nope. Prove we can.

Can we do anything about the environment? Yes we can. We can clean things up. But be careful what you wish for. You do not want to do some things so fast that this country goes into the "developing nation" stage and basically has an economic disaster that destroys everyones livelyhoods. You have to be sensible about it and do it progressively at a time that does not harm the economy or the security of this country. The US can not do it alone. Until you can get everyone on board, you are wasting your time. Especially with all the trash dumped by third world countries right into the ocean. China even dumps garbage into the ocean which has shown up on beaches in California. So does Japan, one of our allies.

One example on the local level, how many times have you went fishing and saw all kinds of bait bottles and cigarette butts thrown on the ground and left there. Bait bottles take more than 10,000 years to break down. Cigarette butts take about 100 years, not as biodegradable as people say they are. They also have toxins that harm wildlife.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Miley Cyrus Has Finally Found Herself

It took a fire, a wedding, and an eerily familiar episode of 'Black Mirror,' but ELLE's August cover star feels more powerful than ever.

www.elle.com

I'm no longer skeptical of this issue. Good ol air humper herself has changed my mind with this breathtakingly intelligent piece in elle.

Warning: reading may cause brain to explode with knowledge.

 

[RockinU]

I would say on this issue it is primarily the left.

It started with Al "I invented the internet" Gore and has continued with Alexandria "Green New Deal to Solve every Political problem I see, maybe" Ocsasio-Cortez

Politicians with an agenda that is furthered through sensationalism? Yeah, that's not very common at all, but you are right, they have been the squeakiest of the wheels, but it's not like they don't have their counterparts who refuse to even recognize that humans have an impact on the climate system...we see it on this thread.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Miley Cyrus Has Finally Found Herself

It took a fire, a wedding, and an eerily familiar episode of 'Black Mirror,' but ELLE's August cover star feels more powerful than ever.

www.elle.com

I'm no longer skeptical of this issue. Good ol air humper herself has changed my mind with this breathtakingly intelligent piece in elle.

Warning: reading may cause brain to explode with knowledge.

I mean now that I know the earth is female it completely makes sense. Until next week when the earth decides to be gender neutral. Then I'll be confused again.

 

[RockinU]

What's yer point? You are unlikely to show enough evidence to change my view. As someone else pointed out, there have been so many alarmists using pokey science making pokey predictions, many which have passed us by without showing up. All we can do is agree to disagree but I absolutely refuse to support anything on the climate change agenda at the present.

Now is man made pollution or damage to the environment happening? Yes

Is that climate change? Not necessarily. Climate change and environment are two separate issues.

Can we do anything about climate change? Nope. Prove we can.

Can we do anything about the environment? Yes we can. We can clean things up. But be careful what you wish for. You do not want to do some things so fast that this country goes into the "developing nation" stage and basically has an economic disaster that destroys everyones livelyhoods. You have to be sensible about it and do it progressively at a time that does not harm the economy or the security of this country. The US can not do it alone. Until you can get everyone on board, you are wasting your time. Especially with all the trash dumped by third world countries right into the ocean. China even dumps garbage into the ocean which has shown up on beaches in California. So does Japan, one of our allies.

One example on the local level, how many times have you went fishing and saw all kinds of bait bottles and cigarette butts thrown on the ground and left there. Bait bottles take more than 10,000 years to break down. Cigarette butts take about 100 years, not as biodegradable as people say they are. They also have toxins that harm wildlife.

My point is that taking a partisan position without objectively evaluating all possibilities doesn't lead to solutions, and I doubt the evidence exists that could change your view. I'm the one that pointed out all the alarmist positions that have damaged the credibility of those proposing human influenced change, but that fact doesn't effect whether or not humans are influencing climate. We can agree to disagree, I myself am undecided on a lot of things, but I understand that unless I keep an open mind, I'm not likely to ever see the truth.

Climate change and the environment are undeniably related, there is no question that environmental factors contribute to climate in a range of time frames, this is demonstrably true. As for whether or not we can do anything about climate change, I'm not sure, but borrowing from your method...prove we can't.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I mean now that I know the earth is female it completely makes sense. Until next week when the earth decides to be gender neutral. Then I'll be confused again.

Best part about 2019 all of those options are now fine, we are just going to judge you by the stupid or intelligent things you have to say.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

I got those citations from NASA's website. I have a lot of trust for those nerds. You'l never get a 100% accurate statistic on the issue, but the evidence is overwhelmingly strong that it's around 97%.

Right. You can never get a 100% statistic.

However, your sample should be representative.

On a side note.

You can skew a lot of statistics in a lot of ways.

* Not taking a representative sample - Common in polls (% of Americans believe - samples taken from CNN (Left) or Fox News (Right) only) - If you can get a different number in the same poll with a different sampling body, then you are not taking a representative sample. Commonly in polls they do not relay where the information comes from and if they do then it buried so that most people will not find it.

* Not taking a random sample - Common in studies looking for a specific answer - Asking residents in Wyoming about how they feel about the wilderness rule and than stating the Americans feel this way. Looking for the answer that it is a good rule or Asking non resident hunters in Wyoming about how they feel about the wilderness rule. Looking for the answer that it is a bad rule.

* Questions - You can write questions that will lead a person to answer one way - (Do you agree the government using necessary means to identify terrorists vs Do you agree the governement should be able to tap phone lines to look for potential terrorists) You may agree with the first and disagree with the second.

* Results interpretation - If you had a poll - Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and other. And they split 33.34 of the vote each. Then the trump team could say that only 33% of Americans agree with Hillary Clinton implying that 66% of Americans support him. The Hilary team could say that 66% oppose Donald Trump, implying that the 66% support here. Neither are inaccurate, but both are misleading.

* Results units - If you did a study and the result came out as 2 kg of methyl ethyl bad shit in 100 acre of corn soil, but then you punish the results in ug. 2,000,000,000 ug comes out in the report. It is then something that you can say that it is 20,000,000 ug/acre of methyl ethyl bad shit and use that to justify your position.

There is a lot of things that have to be taken into account to produce quality statistics.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

What ever happened to global warming? Serious question btw

 

[Ben Lamb]

What ever happened to global warming?

Republican pollster & influencer Frank Lutz held focus groups in the early 2000's to give Republicans a better term to talk about than GW. He came up with Climate Change, which in all actuality, is a much more concise description of what people are talking about.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

What ever happened to global warming? Serious question btw

Serious answer. Re-branding

People were missattributing the wording, i.e. the climate (planet) is getting hotter and cause changes in local conditions (weather). Think the trite picture of the polar vortex in the midwest and people saying so much for global warming. That is a localized change in weather, which is influenced by a climatic shift, an average global temperature rise does not mean that you can't have cold events in specific places. Actually the model suggests we will have more polar vortex's due to global warming not less.

 

[RockinU]

What ever happened to global warming? Serious question btw

This may sound kind of jaded, but I think it didn't sell well. People could be standing in 5 foot of snow saying "don't look like global warming to me", and that made for a bad optic.

 

[Ben Lamb]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

 

[ChrisS]

A pretty commonly agreed upon first step to solving many issues is to "put down the shovel", and I think it's significant to recognize if we're doing that or not.

US carbon emissions as estimated by BP (the source for the graph):
2008 - 5675.7
2009 - 5263.9
2010 - 5465.6
2011 - 5355.7
2012 - 5137.0
2013 - 5260.5
2014 - 5300.4
2015 - 5153.7
2016 - 5053.7
2017 - 5014.4
2018 - 5145.2

we've averaged about 5,260 million tons of emissions per year over the last decade. The biggest drop was right after the recession, which is expected. If the drop of 50 million tons is part of a broader trend to curb CO2 emissions, I don't think so. As a country to make a meaningful impact, we'd have to reduce by 26-28% by 2025, which I think is what the Paris Accords called for ... so a reduction to less than 4,000 million tons.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Now why is florida not under water? And why are the ice caps still ice capping? Serious questions. Cause I was told with strong scientific evidence that these things were to happen already.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

What's yer point? You are unlikely to show enough evidence to change my view. As someone else pointed out, there have been so many alarmists using pokey science making pokey predictions, many which have passed us by without showing up. All we can do is agree to disagree but I absolutely refuse to support anything on the climate change agenda at the present.

Is that climate change? Not necessarily. Climate change and environment are two separate issues.

How about if a republican said it... oh wait, Nixon did in 1970. The "green new deal" may seem out there because of all the shenanigans surrounding it and some of the ridiculous policy conversations (cow farts, yada yada), but the thrust of it is very consistent with policies of previous republican and democratic administrations.

Listen to the address.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Now why is florida not under water? And why are the ice caps still ice capping? Serious questions. Cause I was told with strong scientific evidence that these things were to happen already.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/tropical-storm-barry-2019/index.html