Read the fucking report Foota.Only got so many hours in the day and have read enough climate change garbage over the years to make my head spin. I'm pretty busy working real environmental issues like clean water.
The Planet is *ALREADY* sick... Already suffering from the effects of Climate Change... And very large numbers of human beings are already suffering the painful consequences.
Making your own contribution to cleaning this filthy Planet of ours up then. Well done.
But look, here’s the thing:
Of all the topics we discuss around here, this one is purely scientific. There’s no room for opinion, ideology or politics in discussions about the Planet’s Environment and Ecology.
You either bring facts to the table, or you STFU. Save your opinions and beliefs for discussions on just about every other topic that comes up at the OP.
Now you’ve just acknowledged right there that you don’t have enough time to read the latest “climate change garbage”.
That’s fair enough.
But you *DO* seem to have enough time to routinely dismiss and denigrate any discussions around Environmental Science and the impact of human activities on the Earth’s Ecosphere.
How do you square that?
You don’t read any of the science yourself; but you compulsively dismiss any of the science that other OP’rs *ARE* reading.
Wouldn’t that be the same as you and me arguing about atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, but with me refusing to read-up on anything he may or may not have done?
As I recall, our discussions on Saddam and the necessity to take “decisive action” to address the threat he posed to the World, went on for quite some time.
How long would you have continued to engage with me if I admitted I hadn’t read anything at all about him, what he had done, or was doing?
I’m not talking about me reading the “wrong” stuff about Hussein. I’m talking about me not reading anything at all. Just pulling my opinions out of my belief-shaped arsehole.
The whole Iraq Invasion *WAS* about politics, opinion and ideology. I presented secondary source material that I believed was accurate; and you would challenge that with secondary source material that you believed was accurate.
But when it comes to the issue of “Climate Change” (@Midnight: think of that term as a “Placeholder”), myself and more or less everyone else around here produce scientific source material we’ve found and understood sufficiently; and your only response is a consistent, “I don’t believe it.”
No deconstruction of the evidence (like you can always rely on me to do when you provide “evidence”…), either by your own efforts, or the efforts of others you’ve found via Google.
You’re not even ashamed to admit that you don’t read any of the science, much less try and understand it.
So, how exactly are we supposed to proceed on this basis?
Surely you can provide a sentence or two of real honest to God human suffering caused by climate change occurring TODAY. What you previously quoted from the report were just more projected forecasts.
Of course I can provide a sentence or five hundred on the “…suffering caused by Climate Change occurring TODAY”. And knowing me, that’s almost certainly what I’m about to do…
But before I do, I must strongly emphasise that I do *FULLY* understand what a pointless and futile exercise it will be.
Climate Science is just about as complicated as it gets.
The need to predict weather patterns has driven (and continues to drive) the development of Computing Capability more than any other human initiative (including Space exploration). Because the ability to predict weather patterns has a direct impact on commercial bottom lines, and consequently gets a *LOT* of Private Sector funding.
So… It’s complicated, right?
And yet at every turn of your ideologically-driven mind, you insist upon brief soundbites that won’t cause your mental metabolism indigestion.
So we rational, pragmatic, evidence-based types are required to reduce the massive complexities of Climate Science down to over-simplified phrases… Which you will then dismiss as being not fully accurate, or wholly inaccurate.
You ask for explanations and evidence. You are pointed at the wealth of evidence available to you on the Web. You say you don’t have time to read it. You are given a few lurid “headline items” absent the scientific context within which they were found. And you then dismiss those Misfortune-Cookie-sized statements as having no merit.
Shortly, I’ll start listing some of the human suffering that is being caused “TODAY” by Climate Change fuelled by human activities…
…And immediately after reading that list, you will respond that there isn’t any evidence that the changes in the climate creating this suffering is caused by human activity.
Because you haven’t been reading any of the scientific material that fully predicted that these events would occur; and the research that demonstrated clearly that, whatever else is driving changes to the Earth’s climate, these events have only occurred *BECAUSE* of the human contribution to those changes.
Scientists know far more than a Fox News or Talk Radio presenter that the Earth’s Climate changes naturally over time, without human assistance. And these scientists also know how to separate naturally occurring contributions to Climate Change from Humanity’s contribution.
Sorry Foota, but if you want to participate in any meaningful way in a discussion on contemporary scientific research, you *ARE* going to have learn about the topic you want to participate in.
If you do that, you might just stop making foolish statements like the one you made about the permafrozen landscapes of Canada and Russia becoming fit for human habitation.
Meanwhile, as requested, some examples of how Climate Change is negatively affecting human beings today, presented in a form that my four-year old son can comprehend:
Shall we start with the fact that 17 of the hottest years
recorded since records began in the late 19th Century, occurred in the last 18 years
And that the three hottest years ever recorded, were the last three years?https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-01-18/ ... est-record
Now… How much suffering can you recall being caused by these heatwaves?
If *I* recall correctly, ragging on the French (and other European nations) for the number of their citizens dying during heatwaves, used to be a favourite theme of yours. So I *KNOW* you know that all this heat causes suffering.
But have you also connected the increasing heat with increased electricity consumption, which in turn requires increased GHG emissions?
So let’s not bother with the path that leads us through the rain-parched, tinderbox forests within your own nation, and just think about the misery and deaths caused by relentless heat-waves. All of which were predicted by Climate scientists as being the direct consequence of human activities.What about the effect of sea level rises, which are rising fastest along the East Coast of the United States and in the Gulf of Mexico?
Has that caused any suffering yet?
Oh, but wait, those sea level rises are just a part of the Earth’s Natural Cycles, right?Wrong.
Scientists can predict fairly easily how the Climate would warm and sea levels would rise, if our Planet was left to its own devices. They’ve got no-end of ice-core samples that go back millions of years, to use as data for their extrapolations. So it is just a question of subtracting that data from current climate temperatures and sea levels, to see how much of it is caused by human activity.
It’s all there in the “Wrong” hyperlink.
If you want to dispute it, you are going to have to do so scientifically. ‘K?
What about ”Extreme Storms”
D’ya reckon they’re causing any suffering? (Has your Government managed to turn the lights back on in Costa Rica yet?)
Given that scientists are reporting that hurricanes and cyclones appear to be shifting pole-wards from the equator, and actually appear to be converging on North America, isn’t this an aspect of Climate Change you should be particularly mindful of?
Now how much do you know about Ground-level Ozone Pollution?
Well, as a parent, you should know that it causes all sorts of health problems
, particularly among children and the elderly.
Now if I tell you that warmer temperatures increase ground-level ozone… Can I leave you to join the dots?
Now I realise you have precious little time available to read all this science-y stuff, so I’ll end my list there. And this is the bit where you say:I accept that the suffering listed is caused by rises in the Planet’s temperature. I just don’t accept that those temperature rises are being caused by the amounts of carbon dioxide human activities are adding into the Ecosphere.
(Or words to that effect.)
And when you’ve written your version of that, I will respond with:But I already provided you with the scientific research, evidence and explanation of how the human contribution to Climate Change can be easily separated from Nature’s contributions.
You just couldn’t be bothered to read it, or couldn’t understand it.
There! Howzat for saving you Time..!
But if the U.S. Government acts now, it can ease that pain, save lots of money, and generate vibrant new sectors in the U.S. Economy.America is already leading the entire "Civilized WorldTM" in carbon reduction. Time for China, India, Russia........and France to get busy.
No it isn’t.
And for the reason you regularly trumpet around here:”The United States is now the largest global crude oil producer”
Do you see it?
Ultimately, human beings living in whatever nation they have the misfortune to be identified with, can only consume what has been produced.
Like most everyone else, I purchase the petrol for my motorbike and diesel for my car, from my local gas station. I’m not drilling or fracking for oil myself, and refining it for my own purposes. The CO2 emissions I generate, are the result of my being able to buy stuff that produces carbon-dioxide as a by-product of my consuming it.
Therefore whoever is responsible for extracting the most “Fossil Fuels” from the Planet’s safe-keeping, must be equally responsible for facilitating the greatest production of carbon-dioxide.
But I’ve explained previously why it is pointless to consider or keep score on responses to Climate Change on a Nationalist basis.
Individual human beings are real (for a given value of “real”, leastways). The Planet’s Environment and Ecology are real things too. Fossil fuels are real, so is carbon-dioxide. Drought-ridden landscapes, shrinking forests, desertification of once fertile lands: all real.
Nations = not real.
Just something we humans came up with to separate ourselves from one another.
If “Nation” was a standard unit of measurement, then it might have some purpose. But it isn’t, is it?
How do you compare a nation of 1.5 billion humans with a nation of 350 million humans?
When we peaceful Europeans are trying to get you to see the abject horror of living in a Society that has a mass-shooting (4 or more killed) virtually every day
… You respond that the U.S. has a much bigger population than any European nation, and therefore any comparison is moot.
Why do you not apply the same ruling when considering how human activities (not Nations’ activities) are negatively impacting the Environment on which all humans depend to survive?
You (and many other USAmericans) need a Reality Check Foota.Between 1970 and 2005, U.S. fossil fuel production averaged a steady-ish 55 quadrillion BTU’s each year
But since the Rest of the World really started getting serious about “Climate Change”
, the U.S. has been steadily increasing its fossil fuel production, and is now extracting 75 quadrillion BTU’s of fossil fuels per year (with further rises currently inevitable).
And it is here that the undoubtedly International problem does crystallise down to a national problem.
In the years 2015 and 2016, oil corporations spent $354 million lobbying U.S. politicians
In return, those private oil companies received $29 billion in subsidies. A return on investment of about 8,200%. Not bad going, eh?
But it isn’t just the Corporate Welfare they received that made it such a good investment. It is also the fact that those political “contributions” (in the Real World, we would call them “bribes”) persuade U.S. politicians *NOT* to back legislative initiatives aimed at reducing pollution and GHG emissions.
Moving out of the Beltway, “Big Oil” has also been spending (and continuing to spend) similar amounts of money on “persuading” the American Public that “Climate Change”/”Global Warming” is a hoax.
It’s basically just an assault on the American Way of Life, right? A plot by tree-hugging communists to deny you your God-given right to drive an SUV with a gas-guzzling engine.
Yale is one of your nation’s better universities, right?
In a 2017 study carried out by Yale
: three out of every ten Americans surveyed say that Climate Change is mostly due to natural changes in the Environment; one in eight say that “Global Warming” is *NOT* happening; and only (a presumably different) one in eight Americans understand and accept that nearly all Climate Scientists are convinced that human-caused global-warming is happening.
That seven out of eight Americans are not aware that 97% of Climate Scientists agree (with “high confidence”) that human activities are the greatest driver of Climate Change, must be explainable.
Just about everywhere else in the World, that ratio is the reverse: only a few hold-outs still denying that the Global Community of Scientists are more united on this point than on any other scientific subject.
So what gives?
It is the Religion of the United States.
And like any Religion that builds a pyramid of status hierarchy around itself, it is seriously damaging U.S. Society, and in turn, seriously damaging Global Society.
Just as U.S. tobacco-goods manufacturers spent billions of dollars trying to suppress and dismiss the science that showed how spectacularly damaging smoking is to human health; and just as U.S. auto-manufacturers spent fortunes suppressing research into just how dangerous their vehicles were to human beings…
…So too are the major fossil-fuel corporations spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to conceal the scientific evidence behind Anthropogenic Climate Change.
This isn’t Tinfoil-Hat-Style Conspiracy Theory. It’s all perfectly observable, and indeed, makes perfect sense.
“Big Oil” executives have a legal duty to put the interests of the corporations they serve ahead of all other interests. That’s the Law.
And if they do nothing to prevent the use of fossil fuels going the same way as the use of cigarettes, the corporations they are responsible for will go out of business.
They will lose their status of privilege and wealth in Human Society; and could even be prosecuted by holders of their corporation’s stocks, for failing to act sufficiently in their corporation’s best interests.
So they use whatever means are at their disposal to try to stop that happening.
And since the major threat to “Big Oil” is the massive and accumulating amounts of scientific evidence demonstrating just how much damage their product is doing to the Planet, all they *CAN* do is to try and suppress or delegitimise that evidence.
The result of which is the sort of drivel that you spout off around here about “Climate Change”.
Because you have been taught to think of it as a Nationalist and Economic issue, rather than about the extinction of our species.
I realise that this must be *FAR* more information than you have time to read… But as ever, I am quietly confident you’ll read through it all, because you’ll be looking for any direct assaults on your ego that you will be obliged to respond to. (There’s one, right there!)
But even if you don’t… Please can I encourage you to get a proper command of your brief?
By all means continue to question the validity and effectiveness of corrupt politicians’ “responses” or “solutions” to Anthropogenic Climate Change.
But if you’re going to attack the Science, you really do need to be armed with Science of your own.
Otherwise, you just make yourself look foolish.
And really, that’s my job.