Since I promised to stay out of the other thread, but have been summoned

[Getting Traded]

It just shows that the earth goes through cycles and always has. Some parts are warmer at certain times and some parts are colder. The earth has had more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past then it has now. Cycles happen. The earth will not be destroyed or on its way to destruction in 12 years like the IPCC believes. Yes, we should take care of the planet and keep it as clean as possible. No, climate change will not destroy the planet in 12 years. This whole debate just seems silly. Spending 93 trillion to "combat" climate change is ridiculous. All it does is give the government more power. A completely inefficient system given more money will not fix anything.

Jesus H, will you stop with the corporate bs. The levels of CO2 are the highest in 3 million years and climbing. The ocean temperatures are the highest in millions of years and climbing. The Arctic and Antarctic are warming up at higher rates than had been expected. Animals are migrating away from their habitats or losing them. And the flash fires and extreme weather are continuing to increase. Where have you been, Heathme, listening to that crap spewed out by conservative think tanks and the tiny of fraction of scientists who are being paid to say that Climate Change is a hoax.

 

[LogGrad98]

Jesus H, will you stop with the corporate bs. The levels of CO2 are the highest in 3 million years and climbing. The ocean temperatures are the highest in millions of years and climbing. The Arctic and Antarctic are warming up at higher rates than had been expected. Animals are migrating away from their habitats or losing them. And the flash fires and extreme weather are continuing to increase. Where have you been, Heathme, listening to that crap spewed out by conservative think tanks and the tiny of fraction of scientists who are being paid to say that Climate Change is a hoax.

Um

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/ancient-ocean-temperatures-wrong-unparalleled-climate-change-694434?amp=1

It is generally accepted among the scientific community that ocean temperatures were around 15 degrees Celsius warmer 100 million years ago than they are today, during the Cretaceous period.

The Cretaceous period saw the highest global temperatures for the last 200 million years, because of the way the continents were positioned, with ocean circulation preventing the formation of ice sheets.

Kind of shows we don't really know what was going on millions of years ago. Even the most scientific of tests is thought to be wrong. Tough to make statements like that when our methods and the evidence are so uncertain.

 

[Getting Traded]

Um

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/ancient-ocean-temperatures-wrong-unparalleled-climate-change-694434?amp=1



Kind of shows we don't really know what was going on millions of years ago. Even the most scientific of tests is thought to be wrong. Tough to make statements like that when our methods and the evidence are so uncertain.

Did you read the whole article? It said that now it's believed those temperatures were far cooler than had been thought and that it's more cause for serious concern about the current state of affairs.

 

[LogGrad98]

Did you read the whole article? It said that now it's believed those temperatures were far cooler than had been thought and that it's more cause for serious concern about the current state of affairs.

Yes, it pushes alarmist rhetoric and makes a very unscientific claim after the previous scientific evidence was shown to possibly be faulty. Not very rigorous at all. But hey, it fits the narrative right?

 

[Gameface]

Yes, it pushes alarmist rhetoric and makes a very unscientific claim after the previous scientific evidence was shown to possibly be faulty. Not very rigorous at all. But hey, it fits the narrative right?

Do you think these studies are being done in a dishonest way? To a dishonest end?

There are certainly people with an agenda who take these studies and proclaim the sky is falling.

Are they, in your opinion, directly connected to the people doing the studies? Are they the same people?

I consider a study like the one you linked to be pretty good evidence that all sorts of studies are being done and the the results are all considered amongst the people within the community of people who do studies like that and who use these studies to further their understanding of the underlying issue.

But maybe you're saying all the studies are fake and intended to drive an agenda that all the people who conduct studies have conspired to support by faking the results of their research?

Just want to know if you live in crazy town or not, honestly.

 

[LogGrad98]

Do you think these studies are being done in a dishonest way? To a dishonest end?

There are certainly people with an agenda who take these studies and proclaim the sky is falling.

Are they, in your opinion, directly connected to the people doing the studies? Are they the same people?

I consider a study like the one you linked to be pretty good evidence that all sorts of studies are being done and the the results are all considered amongst the people within the community of people who do studies like that and who use these studies to further their understanding of the underlying issue.

But maybe you're saying all the studies are fake and intended to drive an agenda that all the people who conduct studies have conspired to support by faking the results of their research?

Just want to know if you live in crazy town or not, honestly.

Pretty condescending, comes across as "don't agree with my conclusions = crazy town".

But to answer, it isn't the study it's the analysis and what is presented by the media. In this case they show that a technique they used was possibly flawed. No further analysis was done yet, but still a conclusion is drawn that it immediately means the ocean was much cooler (although it could have been hotter too) and that means doom and gloom today. I'll wait until they find a better way to estimate these numbers rather than just going with "yep, see it proves my bias" responses.

But it also shows our understanding of things like this is far from complete and to make sweeping policy changes and disruptive moves that will affect lower income countries far worse than developed nations on such incomplete knowledge is dangerous.

 

[Heathme]

Jesus H, will you stop with the corporate bs. The levels of CO2 are the highest in 3 million years and climbing. The ocean temperatures are the highest in millions of years and climbing. The Arctic and Antarctic are warming up at higher rates than had been expected. Animals are migrating away from their habitats or losing them. And the flash fires and extreme weather are continuing to increase. Where have you been, Heathme, listening to that crap spewed out by conservative think tanks and the tiny of fraction of scientists who are being paid to say that Climate Change is a hoax.

Hey Bulletproof, I found someone that lives in "crazy town".

Eenie-meenie, it is so ridiculous that you deliver your screeds with a straight face. Scientists barely know what happened a few hundred years ago, let alone 3 million years ago. It is all speculation and guesswork. Creating hypothesis and then proposing a theory why things are the way they "might" have been. Any scientist that says the world is going to end because of climate change and the government must step in and tax us out of existence for a theory is an alarmist and probably getting paid handsomely. I will continue to be skeptical and question that forever.

 

[One Brow]

Any scientist that says the world is going to end because of climate change and the government must step in and tax us out of existence for a theory is an alarmist and probably getting paid handsomely.

Said with a straight face by someone who only trusts the tiny minority of scientists that are getting paid handsomely by the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Heathme]

I don't understand why you feel the need to misrepresent what continued global warming/climate change will entail. The destruction of the Earth? Nobody is making any such claim. Why are you so ridiculously overstating in this fashion? The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. There have been periods in the Earth's history that have resulted in mass extinction events. The mass extinction at the end of the Permian period resulted in the loss of some 95% of marine life, and 70% of terrestrial life. But the Earth still continued to revolve on its axis, circle the sun, and life rebounded. Debated are the causes behind this Great Dying, some 250 million years ago:

http://www.eartharchives.org/articl...ction-when-all-life-on-earth-almost-vanished/

Only in very recent years have we begun to locate and identify asteroidal fragments that would be big enough to have a devastating impact on life on Earth. The Tunguska event of 1908, in Siberia, which may have represented the impact of a small comet, and the meteor impact of 2013 in Chelyabinsk, Russia, the largest impactor in our lifetime, were minuscule in comparison to the hypothetical impactor that ended the Cretaceous Period some 65 million years ago, and led to the rise of mammals in its dinosaur-killing aftermath. Yet, relatively small events like Tunguska and Chelyabinsk do help raise our awareness of the potential danger of much larger impacts, hence the Near Earth Objects program(NEO):

https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/about/target_earth.html

Regardless of how many times life has experienced mass extinctions, regardless of the cause or causes of such events, the Earth itself survived quite intact, and life itself survived, and thrived. Yet you feel free to completely mistate the consequences projected in the wake of the extent of change envisioned by anthropogenic global warming. You believe a complete mischaracterization somehow advances your argument? The destruction of the Earth itself?

It will be a very, very, very long time before our Sun goes nova. That is the one event that would extinguish the Earth itself.

I agree with you that the earth goes through cycles. There is no impending doom to our planet.

Here are a few articles for you Red showing the "catastrophe" that will happen in 12 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/8/17948832/climate-change-global-warming-un-ipcc-report
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...d-12-year-ultimatum-climate-change-180970489/
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/...ming-ipcc-climate-report-and-what-to-do-next/

This one just shows how ridiculous the hype is:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...nge-clock-ticks-louder-biological-one-n993331

 

[One Brow]

This one just shows how ridiculous the hype is:

How is reporting on people choosing to not have children "hype"?

 

[Red]

I agree with you that the earth goes through cycles. There is no impending doom to our planet.

Here are a few articles for you Red showing the "catastrophe" that will happen in 12 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/8/17948832/climate-change-global-warming-un-ipcc-report
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...d-12-year-ultimatum-climate-change-180970489/
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/...ming-ipcc-climate-report-and-what-to-do-next/

This one just shows how ridiculous the hype is:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...nge-clock-ticks-louder-biological-one-n993331

Thanks for replying. Yes, I read some of those articles at the time of the IPCC report. They are alarming, and deservedly so, in my own humble opinion.

I did read the NBC article about not having children just yesterday. It touched on something I think about often. Namely my young nieces and nephew, and their kids. I never had any of my own, so, in general, I think about the likely crisis they and the younger generation will face. Earlier in this thread,( woops, it was actually in your thread) I said something to the effect that if you yourself are relatively young, may you live long and prosper, and that you, not me( I just figure I got 10 years tops, but of course no man knows the time or place as the saying goes) will learn if the warnings and projections by climate scientists were justified. Or not.

Where I live is long "overdue" for a really bad hurricane, so if a cat 4 or higher can sustain itself in the waters of southern New England, well, maybe I will live long enough to feel the effects of global warming. Otherwise, it's pretty tough to get even anything higher then a cat 2 in our waters. But, southern fish are appearing in increasing numbers here, as our waters are warming, and the erosion I see from the ocean is remarkable. And, for reasons I forget at the moment, the sea is expected to rise higher here then elsewhere.

Anyway, of course I can understand why young parents might question whether to have children in a world facing what we may be facing. I do not see climate scientists as my enemy, or the enemy of humanity. In this thread,( sorry, it was in your thread) I mentioned instances from the history of science where strong consensus paradigms were overturned. But I doubt that will be the case where human caused global warming is concerned. I don't find those thoughts on the climate change clock and children ridiculous. I find them sad, however. Sad that such thoughts are happening at all. But understandable.

 

[One Brow]

I found this interesting. Bernie doesn't want you to watch this video.

Why not? Outside of the usual right-wing confusion about socialism being incompatible with capitalism, it seems pretty on-message for Sanders.