Is all this recent Climate Change stuff pure hysteria?

[Father Heathen]

Interesting. This is your thread -- you started it, and apparently started it with a question. And when you get sensible, thought-out responses, this is how you choose to answer? Makes me think you're not serious.

Their question was rhetorical. They have no intention of allowing bothersome facts and logic shake their blind, unwavering faith in their narrative.

 

[Salvador]

I can remember being a young boy in primary school learning, in great scientific detail, about what climate change is, why it is happening and the role that human beings play in causing it.

This was something like circa 1998.

Since then, there have been modest yet genuine attempts to rectify the issue through carbon emissions schemes, changes to the materials corporations use, et al. It's modest, but progress has been made.

On the other hand, apocalyptic visions for the outcome of our impact of the world and a complete exaggeration of how we are all in imminent danger seems to have exploded into the forefront of the international media this year.

Personally, I think the biggest problem humans face today is that too many people in the West get off on being outraged.

Unfortunately, climate change fear mongering is rampant ,

As I written previously about climate change, "There were 4000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 during the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth; today there is approximately 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2, compared to approximately 200 ppm a couple of hundred years ago. (1) A doubling of atmospheric C02 has increased overall air temperatures by a mere 1 degree Celsius over the last few hundred years; this is hardly a need of grave concern. (2)) The environmentalist radicals need to stop their fear-mongering and hatred towards industrial green house gases.

(1) Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

(2) Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

There'd likely be beneficial impacts of global warming, like Antarctica become a habitable continent or Iceland becoming green land.

Even if climate change were to flood lots of low lying coastal areas, then people living in these flood prone areas would just simply need to move to higher ground."

A previous analysis Temperatures According to Climate Models showed that only one of 42 CMIP5 models was close to hindcasting past temperature fluctuations. That model was INMCM4, which also projected an unalarming 1.4C warming to the end of the century."

Temperatures According to Climate Models

Please let us agree that global warming of a mere 1.4 degrees over the next 80 years should be rather quite "unalarming".

 

[Milton Platt]

I can remember being a young boy in primary school learning, in great scientific detail, about what climate change is, why it is happening and the role that human beings play in causing it.

This was something like circa 1998.

Since then, there have been modest yet genuine attempts to rectify the issue through carbon emissions schemes, changes to the materials corporations use, et al. It's modest, but progress has been made.

On the other hand, apocalyptic visions for the outcome of our impact of the world and a complete exaggeration of how we are all in imminent danger seems to have exploded into the forefront of the international media this year.

Personally, I think the biggest problem humans face today is that too many people in the West get off on being outraged.

Take the time to read the research and not the bait click headlines and media distortion. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Salvador]

Take the time to read the research and not the bait click headlines and media distortion. The evidence is overwhelming.

The most accurate climate change model projecting global warming of a mere 1.4 degrees over the next 80 years is evidence that we should not get too hysterical about climate change.

 

[Father Heathen]

Take the time to read the research and not the bait click headlines and media distortion. The evidence is overwhelming.

He'd rather copy and paste a wall of text form some dubious, uncited source.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why waste time and money testing a city's water supply for toxins when we could simply wait and see whether or not the city's population becomes gravely ill?

Because you won't have to go through all the propaganda and gouging that goes on by people using a contrived fear as a tool to accomplish some agenda over something that may or may not be the cause.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

He'd rather copy and paste a wall of text form some dubious, uncited source.

...and handwave everyone telling him inconvenient but empirical facts as a "socialist" (despite not actually being able to provide a meaningful definition of the term). Don't forget that!

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I'd much rather wait to see how things actually turn out in the end.

Qualified opinions don't mean jack squat if the end result doesn't come to fruition in regards what they're saying.

People can only cry wolf so many times before they become ignored and disregarded.

That's a dangerous ideology when the projected outcome could cost lives.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That's a dangerous ideology when the projected outcome could cost lives.

Could? Has.

 

[ChristineM]

Unfortunately, climate change fear mongering is rampant ,

As I written previously about climate change, "There were 4000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 during the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth; today there is approximately 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2, compared to approximately 200 ppm a couple of hundred years ago. (1) A doubling of atmospheric C02 has increased overall air temperatures by a mere 1 degree Celsius over the last few hundred years; this is hardly a need of grave concern. (2)) The environmentalist radicals need to stop their fear-mongering and hatred towards industrial green house gases.

(1) Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

(2) Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

There'd likely be beneficial impacts of global warming, like Antarctica become a habitable continent or Iceland becoming green land.

Even if climate change were to flood lots of low lying coastal areas, then people living in these flood prone areas would just simply need to move to higher ground."

A previous analysis Temperatures According to Climate Models showed that only one of 42 CMIP5 models was close to hindcasting past temperature fluctuations. That model was INMCM4, which also projected an unalarming 1.4C warming to the end of the century."

Temperatures According to Climate Models

Please let us agree that global warming of a mere 1.4 degrees over the next 80 years should be rather quite "unalarming".

Please let us agree that ice sheets and glaciers melting, people (and animals*) dying of the effects of climate change is quite "alarming"

* Flora and fauna are particularly effected by climate change (some are already extinct),

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Unfortunately, climate change fear mongering is rampant ,

As I written previously about climate change, "There were 4000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 during the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth; today there is approximately 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2, compared to approximately 200 ppm a couple of hundred years ago. (1) A doubling of atmospheric C02 has increased overall air temperatures by a mere 1 degree Celsius over the last few hundred years; this is hardly a need of grave concern. (2)) The environmentalist radicals need to stop their fear-mongering and hatred towards industrial green house gases.

(1) Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

(2) Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

There'd likely be beneficial impacts of global warming, like Antarctica become a habitable continent or Iceland becoming green land.

Even if climate change were to flood lots of low lying coastal areas, then people living in these flood prone areas would just simply need to move to higher ground."

A previous analysis Temperatures According to Climate Models showed that only one of 42 CMIP5 models was close to hindcasting past temperature fluctuations. That model was INMCM4, which also projected an unalarming 1.4C warming to the end of the century."

Temperatures According to Climate Models

Please let us agree that global warming of a mere 1.4 degrees over the next 80 years should be rather quite "unalarming".

The temperature has already risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. With that, we are already seeing dangerous and costly ecological disruptions. Also, this will be in addition to all the other negative effects of human industry: toxins in the environment, deforestation, species extinctions, etc.

Alarming.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'd much rather wait to see how things actually turn out in the end.

Qualified opinions don't mean jack squat if the end result doesn't come to fruition in regards what they're saying.

People can only cry wolf so many times before they become ignored and disregarded.

Of course, there's always the possibility that if things happen the way that qualified opinion suggests it will, it will probably be too late to do anything about it...but oh, well.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Could? Has.

True! My mistake.

Though I was speaking in the general sense.

 

[bobhikes]

What makes you think that?

Personally, I think the biggest problem humans face today is that too many people in the West get off on being outraged. (was your quote)

That is not even a blip on my radar, it mostly just noise the that emits from the remnants of the Big bang. It will always be with us and never have any real effect. But for you its the biggest problem either you have a very small world view, are being sarcastic or have a very skewed judgement system. I gave you the benefit of Doubt that you are a highly intelligent individual but with a sheltered life.

 

[Salvador]

Please let us agree that ice sheets and glaciers melting, people (and animals*) dying of the effects of climate change is quite "alarming"

* Flora and fauna are particularly effected by climate change (some are already extinct),

The temperature has already risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. With that, we are already seeing dangerous and costly ecological disruptions. Also, this will be in addition to all the other negative effects of human industry: toxins in the environment, deforestation, species extinctions, etc.

Alarming.

More weather-related deaths happen when the weather is too cold rather than weather-related deaths happening from the weather being too hot.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

 

[Subduction Zone]

More weather-related deaths happen when the weather is too cold rather than weather=related deaths happening from the weather being too hot.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

That ignores the deaths from increased severity of storms in general and other sources of death arising from climate change. For example climate change will increase the number of crop failures which in poor countries would lead to higher rates of starvation. That will not show up in the cherry picked data that you linked.

 

[Salvador]

That ignores the deaths from increased severity of storms in general and other sources of death arising from climate change. For example climate change will increase the number of crop failures which in poor countries would lead to higher rates of starvation. That will not show up in the cherry picked data that you linked.

I always thought crops like Carbon Dioxide.... ....Plants need CO2 to live, so more of it might be a good thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I always thought crops like Carbon Dioxide.... ....Plants need CO2 to live, so more of it might be a good thing.

They like fertilizer too, but if you bury them in poop they will die too. Carbon dioxide is only part of what plants need to flourish. AGW will cause drought in many areas. Try growing a crop without water.

 

[Salvador]

They like fertilizer too, but if you bury them in poop they will die too. Carbon dioxide is only part of what plants need to flourish. AGW will cause drought in many areas. Try growing a crop without water.

"Past research into the possible impact of climate change on agriculture has produced wildly varying results, with almost any set of consequences—positive or negative—seemingly possible. At one extreme, it has been estimated that climate change might reduce agricultural productivity so much as to cut the value of agricultural land by almost 20 percent. At the other extreme, the outcome might be increased productivity that pushes the value of agricultural land up by almost 30 percent."

Deschênes, Olivier, and Michael Greenstone. 2007. The Economic Impacts of Climate Change: Evidence from Agricultural Output and Random Fluctuations in Weather. American Economic Review 97(2): 354–385.

http://econ.ucsb.edu/~olivier/DG_AER_2007.pdf

 

[ChristineM]

More weather-related deaths happen when the weather is too cold rather than weather-related deaths happening from the weather being too hot.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

And? Does that mitigate close on 200,000 additional deaths attributed to climate change last year?

Does that mitigate the extinction of species?

I guess not knowing the people who died must make it ok for some people to make excuses because the facts dont agree with them