Climate Change Report

[Warriorbird]

Why are you incapable of admitting you're wrong about anything?

Sounds like most of us on the PC.

[waywardgs]

Sounds like most of us on the PC.

I'm perfectly capable of admitting that the rest of you are wrong though. That count?

[Warriorbird]

I'm perfectly capable of admitting that the rest of you are wrong though. That count?

Something we can all agree on!

[Latrinsorm]

What part of "Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years" and "The current C02-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales" Are you not getting? Why can't you just admit that you misquoted it on purpose when you typed the same sentence but ended it with "life-time" instead of "timescale"?

Why are you incapable of admitting you're wrong about anything?

It went like this:
1. Terrence asked what we have to do to save the world, and by when.
2. You said the damage was done.
3. I pointed out that this did not mean that further damage couldn't be done.

You paint the problem as a water balloon: once it's popped, good bye. The problem is more like a house fire: if one room burns it cannot be unburned, but the rest of the house can still be saved or lost.

.

I didn't "misquote" anything. What I said is correct, and what you said is correct, it was just unsuited as an answer to Terrence's question. The graphs are a better answer: if we cut emissions to zero in 50 years, we can expect temperatures to rising no more than a degree or so. If we cut emissions to zero in 300 years, we can expect temperatures to rise seven degrees. What we do in the present and future matters; we are not doomed by the past.

[Thondalar]

It went like this:
1. Terrence asked what we have to do to save the world, and by when.
2. You said the damage was done.
3. I pointed out that this did not mean that further damage couldn't be done.

That would be neat if that's actually what happened. Here's what you pointed out:

It states very clearly that the current damage is irreversible on the scale of a human lifetime

The problem is, that's not what the report said at all. It said the current damage is irreversible on a human timescale, which is wholly different than a human lifetime.

You paint the problem as a water balloon: once it's popped, good bye. The problem is more like a house fire: if one room burns it cannot be unburned, but the rest of the house can still be saved or lost.

No, I'm talking about the room that's already burned. That's all I've been talking about. Your attempts at subtle shifts in the context of the discussion will not work on me, young Jedi.

I didn't "misquote" anything.

Just because you put it in italics instead of in quotes doesn't change the fact that you took a sentence out of their text and changed the key word to fit your own narrative.

The graphs are a better answer: if we cut emissions to zero in 50 years, we can expect temperatures to rising no more than a degree or so. If we cut emissions to zero in 300 years, we can expect temperatures to rise seven degrees. What we do in the present and future matters; we are not doomed by the past.

I don't deal in hypotheticals.

[Thondalar]

Sounds like most of us on the PC.

No, not really. You've admitted when you've been wrong, as have I and most of us here. When Latrin is found wrong he finds ways to change the subject, or act like he was talking about something else and we're all just crazy.

[Latrinsorm]

No, not really. You've admitted when you've been wrong, as have I and most of us here. When Latrin is found wrong he finds ways to change the subject, or act like he was talking about something else and we're all just crazy.

To be fair to me, though, we were talking about something else and you are just crazy. If your answer to Terry means what you say it means, it has nothing to do with his question. Is that more likely than you simply misinterpreting the report to fit your bias? I leave that as an exercise to the reader.

The problem is, that's not what the report said at all. It said the current damage is irreversible on a human timescale, which is wholly different than a human lifetime.

They say the damage can't be reversed in 1000 years. I say it can't be reversed in 70 years. How am I wrong? What narrative am I advancing, basic arithmetic?

Here's the bottom line: "What we do in the present and future matters; we are not doomed by the past." That's the answer to what Terry was asking, as described in the report.

[Jeril]

Notice the time that Latrin posted? Coincidence?

[Warriorbird]

Notice the time that Latrin posted? Coincidence?

Did he visit California? HMMMM.

[Parkbandit]

Environmentalists have declared that global warming can’t be stopped without ending the “hegemonic capitalist system,” saying that cap-and-trade systems and conservation efforts are “false solutions.”
“The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current capitalist hegemonic system,” reads the final draft of the Margarita Declaration, presented at a conference including about 130 environmental groups.
“To combat climate change it is necessary to change the system,” the declaration adds.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/23/13...to-capitalism/


And people still wonder why Conservatives don't take this effort seriously...

Like most environmentalist movements.. it has very little to do with the actual environment and much more to do with their own political agenda.