Climate Change "Controversy"

[Ker_Thwap]

I'll bite. Careful not to read into that graph more than it actually states. First, no one vaguely intelligent is arguing that man is not impacting the climate at all. It's inconceivable that 7 billion people aren't impacting the climate in some manner. What's being debated is the degree of change, and if it's "bad" or not.

That not so clever graph merely points out that a bunch of studies concluded some degree of change. It lumps the studies that predict a .5% change which impacts no one in any meaningful manner in with the studies that predict a 900% change and we're all going to die. When you lump such wildly varying studies under a single umbrella, you lose point of the purpose of the studies.

Science is awesome, but stop abusing statistics to make your political points. That goes for everyone on both sides of the aisle.

[Tgo01]

Science is awesome, but stop abusing statistics to make your political points. That goes for everyone on both sides of the aisle.

You'll never catch a Republican doing this!

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The "controversy" exists in every place that the Koch brothers pay for it to exist. It's not a hard sell, given that the people targeted are already distrustful of scientists, the UN and other government organizations, "the liberal media," universities and empricism in general. Sociological research shows that often, trying to correct people's misinformation often leads to an even more entrenched belief in the misinformation--and it's super easy to politicize an issue when one party blatantly rejects reality in favor of fantasy, and ties it in to various tribal mentalities.

Evangelical Christians often reject climate science because they delusionally believe the world is going to end within their lifetimes anyway and it doesn't matter, or that the planet is somehow immune to humanity's influence because--who knows?--God's creation must be perfect and immune to damage. Responsibility to protect "God's creation"? Oh, hells naw.

Mainstream Republicans love to see monied interests in the green energy sector, which is only viable because of government investment--which they revile whenever public funds are spent on something that isn't one of their priorities. Mainstream Republicans *love* to fixate on Al Gore, and whatever money he's made for himself by investing in green energy, to the tune of about $100 million total dollars, claiming that any advocacy he does now is purely self-interest, while simultaneously ignoring the multi-trillion dollar a year oil industry, and its total special-interest dominance of our congress.

Fox and conservative radio virtually never report on IGCC, NASA, NOAA or EPA reports, addressing them only when unavoidable--with absolute skepticism, scientific denialism and sometimes outright conspiracy theories.

There's really no fixing the issue until the problem becomes so apparent to even the total layperson, that conservative efforts to hand-waive them away are seen for what they are (similar to what's now happening with income inequality). One can only hope that that point isn't where China has totally destroyed their own environment, and the planet continues to warm beyond our ability to repair.

You are bat shit crazy.

If you want to take the most extreme, ridiculous and exceptionally liberal view of opinion not in line with your own, I think your dissertation above covers it.

So Evangelical Christians all think they are perfect and or the world will end in their lifetime? Yeah, that's not an exaggeration or intentional misinterpretation of their beliefs.

Mainstream Republicans are opposed to green energy, revile Al Gore and his hypocrisy, ignore the oil industry and simultaneously (while ignoring them) allow their special interest groups to dominate congress. Not only do you contradict yourself at the end there, it's exactly what people who vote partisan and not issues/candidates would say.

I suppose by using "virtually" you can pretty much state anything you want. Virtually all liberal media ignores anything to do with Obama and what could be considered a scandal, blunder or outright lie.

So all ills of our country can be attributed to conservative efforts to hand-waive them away. Got it. Then you throw in something we really have limited influence on, China's environmental programs. Got it.

Could you summarize neatly for me, like you did in your original post, how if we did everything in the liberal agenda, what exactly would be accomplished? Thanks!

[waywardgs]

I'll bite. Careful not to read into that graph more than it actually states. First, no one vaguely intelligent is arguing that man is not impacting the climate at all. It's inconceivable that 7 billion people aren't impacting the climate in some manner. What's being debated is the degree of change, and if it's "bad" or not.

That not so clever graph merely points out that a bunch of studies concluded some degree of change. It lumps the studies that predict a .5% change which impacts no one in any meaningful manner in with the studies that predict a 900% change and we're all going to die. When you lump such wildly varying studies under a single umbrella, you lose point of the purpose of the studies.

Science is awesome, but stop abusing statistics to make your political points. That goes for everyone on both sides of the aisle.

This search he did was to answer a simple question: is there controversy about the reality of ACC? If there is, we'll find papers about it. The specifics/extent are beyond the scope of the question. You say no one vaguely intelligent argues this... I see people arguing this all the time. Am I to assume that those people are all idiots?

[waywardgs]

There are an awfully lot of "oftens", "usuallys", and "assumes" in that paragraph.

That's the point. If he's right and the vast majority of science involved in this research now start with a BASELINE assumption that yes, ACC is a reality, and it seems he is, then we can bury the question and move on to concerning ourselves with the specifics and extent of the problem and what to do about it.

My point is, ACC isn't a "hotly debated" topic in the scientific community.

[Ker_Thwap]

I often catch Republican's, Democrats, Libertarians, Pastafarians, Communists, Fascists doing this. Let's end it there, and just state unequivocally, that if you abuse statistics, you're like a fascist. Book burning Nazi cows!

[Ker_Thwap]

This search he did was to answer a simple question: is there controversy about the reality of ACC? If there is, we'll find papers about it. The specifics/extent are beyond the scope of the question. You say no one vaguely intelligent argues this... I see people arguing this all the time. Am I to assume that those people are all idiots?

His search was simplistic. That may have been what he was "hoping" to answer, but he did no such thing. When you see people arguing this all the time, I'll suggest you read more carefully into what they are actually arguing. Are they denying wholesale, or are they denying only it's impact on needed political/functional aspects of their life? There's a big difference.

[waywardgs]

His search was simplistic. That may have been what he was "hoping" to answer, but he did no such thing. When you see people arguing this all the time, I'll suggest you read more carefully into what they are actually arguing. Are they denying wholesale, or are they denying only it's impact on needed political/functional aspects of their life? There's a big difference.

Fair enough. I'm more interested in the "wholesale deniers" category. The specifics are debatable, the impact is debatable, the reality of ACC doesn't seem to be. And yes, I see this ALL THE TIME, and it's baffling.

[Tgo01]

Have scientists ever given any solutions? I mean besides scientists like Al Gore who insist the only way to solve global warming is to get rich in the process?

But seriously, all I ever hear is how the Earth is heating up because of human activity, are solutions ever given other than "More green!"?

Has anyone done the research and decided what the magic number is? Reduce global greenhouse gases by 10%? 20%? 99%?

[Ker_Thwap]

Have scientists ever given any solutions? I mean besides scientists like Al Gore who insist the only way to solve global warming is to get rich in the process?

But seriously, all I ever hear is how the Earth is heating up because of human activity, are solutions ever given other than "More green!"?

Has anyone done the research and decided what the magic number is? Reduce global greenhouse gases by 10%? 20%? 99%?

We could nuke China, I imagine that would help a whole lot... What?