Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Will Have Dire Consequences For US, Federal Report Concludes (cnn.com)
A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts on the health and economy of the country. From a report: The federally mandated study was released by the Trump administration on Friday, at a time when many Americans are on a long holiday weekend, distracted by family and shopping. Coming from the US Global Change Research Program, a team of 13 federal agencies, the Fourth National Climate Assessment was put together with the help of 1,000 people, including 300 leading scientists. It's the second of two volumes. The first, released in November 2017, concluded that there is "no convincing alternative explanation" for the changing climate other than "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases."
The report's findings run counter to President Donald Trump's consistent message that climate change is a hoax. On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" as some Americans faced the coldest Thanksgiving in over a century. But the science explained in these and other federal government reports is clear: Climate change is not disproved by the extreme weather of one day or a week; it's demonstrated by long-term trends. Humans are living with the warmest temperatures in modern history. Even if the best-case scenario were to happen and greenhouse gas emissions were to drop to nothing, the world is on track to warm 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit. As of now, not a single G20 country is meeting climate targets, research shows.
The costs of climate change could reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually, according to the report. The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat. Farmers will face extremely tough times. The quality and quantity of their crops will decline across the country due to higher temperatures, drought and flooding. In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn they produce today, and the southern part of the region could lose more than 25% of its soybean yield. Heat stress could cause average dairy production to fall between 0.60% and 1.35% over the next 12 years -- having already cost the industry $1.2 billion from heat stress in 2010. Further reading: Climate Change Will Cost US Economy Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, Government Says in Sweeping Report (Reuters); Climate Change 'Will Inflict Substantial Damages on US Lives' (The Guardian); Climate Change Is Already Hurting U.S. Communities, Federal Report Says (NPR); Major Trump Administration Climate Report Says Damages Are 'Intensifying Across the Country' (The Washington Post); and Climate Impacts Grow, But U.S. Can Adapt, Says New Report (National Geographic).
The report's findings run counter to President Donald Trump's consistent message that climate change is a hoax. On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" as some Americans faced the coldest Thanksgiving in over a century. But the science explained in these and other federal government reports is clear: Climate change is not disproved by the extreme weather of one day or a week; it's demonstrated by long-term trends. Humans are living with the warmest temperatures in modern history. Even if the best-case scenario were to happen and greenhouse gas emissions were to drop to nothing, the world is on track to warm 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit. As of now, not a single G20 country is meeting climate targets, research shows.
The costs of climate change could reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually, according to the report. The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat. Farmers will face extremely tough times. The quality and quantity of their crops will decline across the country due to higher temperatures, drought and flooding. In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn they produce today, and the southern part of the region could lose more than 25% of its soybean yield. Heat stress could cause average dairy production to fall between 0.60% and 1.35% over the next 12 years -- having already cost the industry $1.2 billion from heat stress in 2010. Further reading: Climate Change Will Cost US Economy Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, Government Says in Sweeping Report (Reuters); Climate Change 'Will Inflict Substantial Damages on US Lives' (The Guardian); Climate Change Is Already Hurting U.S. Communities, Federal Report Says (NPR); Major Trump Administration Climate Report Says Damages Are 'Intensifying Across the Country' (The Washington Post); and Climate Impacts Grow, But U.S. Can Adapt, Says New Report (National Geographic).
Well, now, this is why we are a republic and not a democracy. With respect to climate change laws, everybody can't understand every single little thing all at the same time and everything doesn't apply to everybody all at the same time. Why not delegate problems to analysts who understand them? Statistically it should all come out in the wash. Really, who cares as long as we reduce carbon emissions at a certain rate and the economy can be kept strong? If you really want a democracy, go and write long propositions at a middle school reading level and put them up for referendum. No? The masses might choose something that not everyone likes? Well, then, enjoy your republic.
These models are tested with far longer sets of data and against multiple sources of historic information e.g. tree rings, ice cores etc.
The facts are pretty clear, the climate is changing fast. It already entered a point of no return. Those are facts. Weather cycles show we should be in a cooling period but instead we are warming, so no that's not it.
There are other things besides cars/factories etc. such as the huge amount of livestock which increases methane emissions. Methane is far worse than most greenhouse gasses. There are a lot of things that need fixing to stop this disaster which is already showing its impact in droughts, wildfires and storms that are far more powerful than they should be.
Oil, gas and coal are heavily subsidized. Especially oil for which wars were fought and blood was spilled to keep its price ridiculously low. Green energy is already competitive even without government subsidies. Imagine what a pro-active push to green energy can do to the global economy... More people work in solar than in coal in the US today. There are only benefits to green policies.
It can't be reversed now even with major changes to carbon consumption (not that that would ever happen with both sides taking tons of cash from the energy lobbyists).
Nirvana fallacy. Just because a perfect solution doesn't exist doesn't mean reducing our CO2 emissions can't help.
It might be too late to avoid a 2C temperature raise. But let's avoid a 5C raise. And if it's too late, then let's avoid a 10C raise.
I'll see your anecdotal evidence with my own. Where I am, forty years ago it was common to see the winter temperature drop below -50C for several days at a stretch, spending several weeks below -40C. The last few years, the coldest day of winter kissed -40C once, briefly, but otherwise got no colder than low -30s.
Climate change is occurring. Maybe it's not happening in your particular neighborhood, maybe you're just happy being blissfully ignorant. Either way, the world around doesn't care; the climate will continue to change.
Is that supposed to be some sort of argument?
When the data is against you, science is against you and reason is against you, I guess that's all that's left. Global warming is happening. Climate change is the result. Inventing silly quotes will not change reality no matter how much your political inclinations tell you that reality is wrong.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Whether or not Republican liars like Ken Doll or yourself "believe" in science, it exists. You don't matter, it does. That's a little lesson on the reality of your very, very short existence as a life form on this planet, you trolling moron.
Because it's expensive.
The costs of pollution outweigh the illusionary "savings" that you reap by not preventing or cleaning up the pollution.
Nobody gives a fuck about what's "natural." We care about the consequences to us. Comets colliding with the earth would be natural too, but if we saw one coming in, people would desperately want to Do Something about it, to minimize the damage. Fuck nature.
Bzzt. You can be responsible to yourself, as well as other humans too. No mysticism, supernatural belief or paranormalism phenomenon are needed. All you need is the the plain hard reality of not wanting people to get away with doing bad things to other, innocent, unconsenting people. Even if you don't believe in Thor or Jehova or Quetzalcoatl, you would have reason to object to me dumping sewage into your home. And if you were inclined to use such language, you might even say I was "morally culpable" for the sewage that I unilaterally chose to put into your home.
The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat.
500 * 10^6 hours / 81 years = 6.173 * 10^6 hours/year
That's 6.173 * 10^6 / 52 = 1.187 * 10^5 hours/week.
Given 10 * 10^6 working age adults in the Southeast, that's...
0.012 hours per week per worker. Not a hell of a lot.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Fake News Fire them all and hire coal lobbyists to make a Real Report!
amirite
No, you are not right.
The caravan is a political stunt, nothing more. A useful tool for everyone of any "side".
SJW's are destroying only their own subset of culture really. What has truly changed as a result of them? Not much.
Antifa are the Lost Boys for the modern age, doing what they think is right with the misguided energy of youth and inexperience, sadly some greatly messing up what were otherwise promising lives.
I'm interested in how you decide which mythical all-destructive forces to believe?
I believe in things that are real. I believe in logic, in reason, in science, in not being OF a party but being above all parties.
I voted for both Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians in the last election. Can you say the same? Or are you still being led by forces you do not understand and have no say in?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Expect some firings among those who worked on the report.
Table-ized A.I.
You only have insane extreme psychopathic fascist nutters, and batshit insane extreme psychopathic fascist nutters.
Look at the *actual* *actions* they both did. Not what they said. Not what anyone said. What they *did*.
In that case, Bush Sr, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama are the same line. The same exact team.
US leaders really are the masters in their field: They don’t even need an external scapegoat. Even when dummy Bush goes, and empties the (conveniently always kept full) villain closet, they just hold their two arms ("parties") up in the puppet theater, make the hand puppets act like enemies, and you fall for it, hook, line, sinker, fishing rod, fisherman and boat.
Then they point at the cloth hand puppets, and make you blame the puppets for what they did. Seriously, the level of delusion here only compares to North Korea.
Oh an, fuck your convenient attitude of first going "it doesn't happen", and then when it does happen, go "now we can't do anything about it."! How fucking convenient for you, criminal! Nice try. You are literally* that guy in the restaurant from the South Park episode, when he violently gets eaten by ManBearPig, and it couldn’t possibly be more satisfying.
___
* Information for people with Aspergers: This is the hyperbolic use of the word.
Maybe it's not happening in your particular neighborhood
Perhaps you need to read my post again?
In my case it was also going up, which I said.
I am just saying it's not going to be going up at the rapid rise they predict, such predictions always starting in a year or two from now, then in two more years new predictions are that NOW in two years or so it's really going to climb.
Climate will indeed continue to change, and currently the trend is warmer. But warmth alone is nothing to fear, and indeed something to embrace over the alternative climate historically has had to offer - which is ice and far greater regions of lifeless existence in the world. Antartica was a tropical paradise once... in your rush to embrace fear you have forgotten how to look all all things that may be, instead of seeing only the future you have been told to see.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... our pinhead politicians fail to understand the difference between climate and this afternoon's weather.
If only they have someone on staff who passed high school science instead of another hack whose specialty is oppo research.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
against climate change. I think we can all agree he makes good points.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why do lying Republican trolls resort to calling 99% of science "alarmist" just because they're the 1% dumbest Republicans, already the least educated subgroup in America? Why should uneducated Republicans exist at all?
Fix that, fix the world. Your disinformation campaign doesn't stand up to even Fox News' own internal peer review, get lost Republican trolls. You don't matter, science does.
This won't matter to half of the american population, because their party and "news" channel keeps telling them it's fake news, and that a cold winter is proof that there is no global warming. And with bots and morons posting youtube links as "proof" of the contrary, you pretty much ensure more people, ignorant on the subject or oblivious to scientific research, will bite.
The most interesting contradiction I find is the religious conservatives want to stop abortion and advocate for family values. Then they default deny climate change which will impact their family after they have died. To me it seems that believing in climate change directly mean that god doesn't exist, but contradicts the “Be fruitful and multiply..." bible verse. “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
You talking about the photo of a polar bear that was supposed to be 'the face of climate change"? That was taken by SeaLegacy, a definitively non-scientific PR environmental group. The photo and label were strongly shot down as being inaccurate by scientists and local residents, the same scientists that do say polar bear populations are declining in many places due to climate change (the local population was doing well at the time). Thing is, the scientists prefer hard data and long-term studies, not cheap photo shoots or one-off examples.
Scientists do not support laziness. If there was clear evidence that predictions were wrong and it was shot down due to bias or conspiracy rather than actual error, there would be a large kerfuffle and a lot of scientists would lose their jobs if clear this were ever to come out.
Each and every scientist would know that the first time they let this pass or got involved, it would mean they are complicit, and their careers would be permanently over as soon as anyone found out. Further, they know that there is enough support and money behind climate change denial that they'd get support and protection, and likely a lot of money, if they would whistle-blow.
I'm sure you say the same thing about politicians, too! Unless you have a law degree and a decade or more of experience, you have NO RIGHT to criticize any politician. Logic and reason be damned, it's all about the degrees a person has achieved. Einstein was spot-on when he responded to the 100 authors opposed to him; it would only take one to prove him wrong, there is no "strength in numbers".
And as far as climate science goes, 95% of the models say that the data is wrong; however, as Richard Feynman so succinctly stated, if your theory (guess) disagrees with experiments/data - your theory is wrong. And in this case, the theories are pretty much wrong - at least 95% of them.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
If you are arguing with me about basic facts like the clear trend of increasing global temperature year over year then you are not skeptical, you're just an idiot. That's the problem. Deniers are trying to deny the problem exists which flies in the face of all evidence. Many of the climate change mitigation techniques should be done for a whole host of reasons. Getting rid of coal energy production and reducing radiation exposure while reducing acid rain sure is hard to honestly argue against and yet you have deniers decrying lost jobs despite new energy options actually producing more jobs.
If you move the argument into what we're going to do about it such as this article tries to do you end up with a constructive argument with plenty of room for actual skeptics which actually doesn't devolve in religious fanaticism.
Just because everyone is entitled to their opinion doesn't mean they are all equally weighted for any specific subject. I am not a rocket scientist so I have no business trying to launch actual rockets. Much like Presidents should have some actual governing experience before they try to govern an entire country. Both Clinton and W made the government actually DO a lot. Clinton with Republicans in the house actually balanced a budget and the Republicans somehow managed to convince the military that all the base closures were Clinton's fault! Haha. I digress because anti-intellectualism is actually celebrated these days. Greed is no longer a sin much less a mortal sin as you have prosperity preachers all over the country obvious perverting the intent of the bible and Christianity as a whole. Why do you think so many climate deniers are also right wing religious nutjobs? They think God will swoop in and rapture them. That is not a realistic way to run a country.
Also, there can never be more rain where they need more and less rain where they need less. Droughts and floods can only change one way. You'd think it would be possible for something to change for the better in at least one place, but no, it apparently isn't.
And it will be too warm for corn in corn areas, and too warm for soybeans farther south, but no way can the corn farmers switch and grow soybeans as it gets warmer. You'd think people might adapt, but no, apparently they can't.
Sad.
you can choose to live a life not lived in fear
Well I think you're confounding finding with "fear". Science isn't here to make us feel great or feel fear, it is what it is. The total volumetric thermal energy in the atmosphere is increasing. The amount of energy that strikes the Earth from the Sun and reflects back into space is decreasing. This isn't a new feature, Example This increase was observed in 1949. The first order derivative of that change has been a positive one over the course of the last one hundred years and if the rate of change continues it will lead to a total average energy increase in the atmosphere of two degrees Celsius.
We were supposed to see that exponential growth in heating many years ago
We do see it. Heat waves that hit the middle east, rising sea levels, heat waves in Australia, receding ice shelf, decreased insect populations, ever increasing invasion of spices into regions where previous temperatures would not have allowed them to go. Heck I distinctly remember a year in December where I slapped a mosquito off my arm. It's just difficult to pinpoint any one particular affect of increasing temperatures because all of them are slow to see.
An especially clear example of this is todays NYT feature on Scary Global Warming
I distinctly remember the NYT graph, however it does give range and if you do look over at the website that provided data you'll see that there's a ton of assumptions that we could sit here for days picking apart. My particular region shows an increase anywhere between (min) 8 days and (max) 40 days of 90+ temperatures. But looking at the actual site that provided the data, you'll get a sense that it is indeed conjecture based on methods they feel are appropriate. But that doesn't negate the fact that temperatures will increase even in conservative readings of their data. Again, that's not a fear thing, that's a these are the numbers, this is what the trend looks like, deal with how you so please. But you do have to realize that NYT is obviously going to place some sort of "point" to their story.
We were supposed to see that exponential growth in heating many years ago, maybe even a decade at at this point
We are seeing it. For example, in my area falling numbers within wheat yields have impacted to a small degree acre to pound of flour numbers. Nothing massive here, maybe about 0.2% decrease in yields. However, thinking in terms of joules of energy versus the multitude of acres of wheat, it would take a significant increase in atmospheric energy to change the massive number of acres of wheat to change a 0.1% much less a 0.2%. Again, in the end product flour, it's difficult to see that translation because it's spread all over the place. And it is very, very important that I point out that FN is just one measure and not the end all be all of any debate. So I'm not saying that "Ah-Ha! I got'cha!" All I am saying is that it is "interesting" to see that. But I think that's also the insidious part of climate change is that it can change factors ever so slightly because the effect of climate are very wide ranging. So while exponential energy accumulation may not always in turn evolve into full on heat waves, it can also deposit the excess energy in other ways that in aggregate are near impossible to foresee, but they happen none-the-less.
I would LOVE to see a serious discussion on climate at some point
I'm not sold on that point. I feel you've made your mind up about the debate and rather just yell at how people are wrong rather than show where they are wrong. I'm even typing this and wondering what the hell is the point here con
To expand on that, if the median household income in the Southeast is around $50,000, and there are typically 1.4 workers per household, that would be about $18 per hour, on average. Assuming you lose 0.012 hours per week, that would be about 0.6 hours per year of work (assuming 2 weeks vacation).
So if the cost of climate change abatement is more than ($18 * 0.6) about $11 per year per worker, it is actually an economic loser to try to address it. Better to "accept the loss" of 0.012 hours per week, than spend even more money to try to save that amount of economic activity.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You sound like someone who doesn't know a thing about it.
-- Cheers!
Amazon gets large plot of land on Long Island.
I guess Bezos plus minions care less about sea level rising, and hurricanes etc.
If humanity is just the product of random evolutionary changes, whatever we do is, by definition, "Natural." We are not disrupting the natural flow of the universe no matter WHAT we do!
So if someone burns down your house, assaults your mother, and dumps plutonium into the town water supply, that's the "natural flow of the universe?"
Humans can make choices. It is wise for us to make choices that are in our collective interest as a species if we are going to survive. We are perfectly capable of driving ourselves to extinction if we don't.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
yet property values are going sky high! It's almost like liberals don't believe their own hype since they all seem willing to pay millions for property on the coast. If people really believed global warming then property at sea level wouldn't be more expensive than ever.
Folks are waiting until the last minute. Article from Bloomberg: The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
— Shamans in Tasmania, about 12000 years ago.
Obviously some folks didn't get the irony or read the referenced article. Tasmania, last I heard, is an island and is isolated from the continent.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
The actual report says : "average annual losses of 570 million labor hours"
So back out that divide by 81 years.
The difference between skeptics and cynics is that skeptics are persuaded by data and cynics don't give a shit.
Since cynics don't give a shit, why should we treat them like precious snowflakes? It won't make any difference how we treat them, they still won't be persuaded by the data.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
But the house won't be wrecked by climate change. It will be rising sea levels, or a nasty hurricane. And that will get attributed to "weather" or in Evangelical circles, an Act of G-d. Scientists will point to climate change causing the sea levels to rise and an increase in nasty hurricanes. But it will be impossible to pin it on that particular hurricane. And the sea levels will be claimed to be rising and falling through out Earth's history, so it blame again gets diffused.
And as long as el Presidente Tweetie says stupid things like, where's the global warming during the current cold snap in the N. East, Republicans will continue to believe global warming isn't real, or it isn't man made, or Jesus will save us so we don't have to try to save the Earth ourselves.
No, sorry, it's your lot that's legalizing it in the US. Progressives are vehemently opposed.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Ok, sure.
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrh...
Prediction: An increase in CO2 will result in net increase in global temperatures.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital...
There's the global temperature
https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
Only the results over overlapping timeframes are relevant. As you can see, the prediction is matched with observation and has not been falsified.
Are you satisfied? Of course not! Because this was never about facts, this was about your fears that science might contradict something important to you.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Actually, they do.
No, we're not supposed to be underwater right now. That was never predicted. No, there was nothing about the ice caps melting by 2015, that's far too specific. Individuals might have gone out on a limb, but then individuals will believe almost anything.
If you want to accuse it of being a far left conspiracy, you can join the New World Order brigade, the antivaxxers and the ancient aliens nuts. Because those are the people who dispute global warming. And they're essentially the only people who do. So if you don't want to be in that crowd, think.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Unless you can show us your credentials to be making authoritative statements about climate science (a PhD in it from an accredited University will do), you need to shut the fuck up about things you know NOTHING about.
I'm sure you say the same thing about politicians, too! Unless you have a law degree and a decade or more of experience, you have NO RIGHT to criticize any politician.
False equivalence. I don't agree with Rick Schumann's tone, but he's in the right here.
Scientists and politicians have a different covenant. Scientists observe the universe and present explanations for what they see. Politicians present their proposals to an electorate and seek a mandate for carrying them out. You don't vote on science. You do vote on public policy.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Where does it say that? (I'm not challenging you, just curious.)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Ah. Must be why the first study was in 1896, and why there have been a steady stream of studies since. After 1960, mostly from NASA. During highly Republican regimes, no less.
Odd.
So you're suggesting Ronald Reagan was an EU communist spy?
Otherwise, I can't see how you can relate what you said with where most of the work was done.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The following is not science:
Whether climate change is driven (in part or in full) by human activities is a science question and will ultimately be decided by scientific criteria (exactly when such a reliable decree comes down the pike remains open to debate, though increasingly less open, year over year, year after year, on current trends).
Extrapolating the economic cost of heat stress ventures deep into the dark, unreliable heart of economics (which is referred to as "the dismal science" for a good reason) is a mug's game.
Even glib, prognosticating economists can't make these projections without taking into account future human ingenuity. Economics with a side-order of futurology—what could possibly go wrong?
I'm getting ever more grumpy about this constant bait and switch: we're really, really, really confident of our climate model this time, so let us now describe with infinite confidence the future we envision using our entirely non–Magical 8 Ball (this involving two additional academic fields, one barely respected, the other openly derided; moreover, the vast majority of the dignified-to-a-fault, hard-science authors of this publication have any specific training—or tainting—in either of these shabby fields, and that's why you should believe every word we write).
That a recent study conducted on beliefs showed that most people who believed global warming was a hoax also believed in the New World Order, ancient aliens, that vaccines caused autism, that JFK was murdered by his own government and/or that their government was trying to replace them with muslims.
I'm honestly curious why we even bother to discuss things, in that case. I have no objection to you believing whatever you like, but as people like that most certainly DO object to me holding to my views, I see no benefit in bothering to debate things. No, I don't hold those conspiracy theorists in high esteem, but why should that bother them? If they were secure in their views, it would be irrelevant.
Does it really cause that much distress to anyone if we use solar rather than coal for power plants? You get exactly the same amount of power, or maybe more with solar these days. How is that interfering with your lifestyle? Does it really cause a problem to argue that Brazil and Indonesia should stop producing cash crops and replant rainforest? Wow, a few products you weren't even buying anyway go up in price by all of five cents. The agony. Let me see if I can shed a tear... wait... wait... sorry, no.
For crying out loud, it has bugger all impact on anyone here. Not even your 401K will be affected, since the stock brokers will all transfer together, causing the stocks they switch to to skyrocket in price. Ok, you might actually make quite a lot of money on that.
That's it. That's all the affect YOU will ever notice. You becoming a little bit richer, in a few years.
I mean. The tragedy of having more money to spend.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Well I think you're confounding finding with "fear". Science isn't here to make us feel great or feel fear, it is what it is.
That is what science is supposed to do, but in modern times is often "goal oriented science" to be done just to back up a desired selling point.
The thought that I am confounding anything ignores the headline here: "Climate Change Will Have Dire Consequences For US, Federal Report Concludes"
How is that not obviously meant to instill fear?
Even if the worst things in the report this article talks about come to pass, I find none of them dire. Lets look at just one of them:
The Midwest alone, which is predicted to have the largest increase in extreme temperature, will see an additional 2,000 premature deaths per year by 2090.
How is that dire? Do you know how many people live in the midwest?
It also is pretty transparent just from this thingle sentence that the target of the report are the people in flyover country who do not yet embrace the global warming faith, yet another indicator the report is far more marketing than science.
I feel you've made your mind up about the debate and rather just yell
How am I yelling? I am merely revealing motives to alarmism, in quite a calm way. I think you'll find my use of capital letters to be grammatically correct and not of the current fashion to impart drama.
You mention psychology in your post. Is calling people things like deniers going to convince anyone of veracity? That leads to a very obvious negative response from most people. The fact such hyperbole is used so often indicates to me the people using it are not truly serious nor concerned, as do so many actions from those proclaiming the loudest there is cause for great concern.
Science isn't an absolute
We are often told it is in the case of global warming. The very people that question it are called "deniers" as if asking questions about science is forbidden; the fact that climate science is an absolute is implied a thousand times a day. (by the way, yes of course that is hyperbole on my part, as I find it amusing, and as the old saying goes - they started it).
I think this part really underscores your feelings of climate change. A fear of being told what to do...Clearly it isn't having the impact you so fear.
I find this paragraph very interesting; as I said quite explicitly a number of times, I choose not live in fear. I find it interesting you wish to convince others into the idea they feel fear even thought they state categorically they do not. Puzzling.
You are right about one thing, people will do what they will do. What I do, is help people understand what is, when others are trying to obscure the matter, so they can make truly informed choices. How is that a philosophy based in fear? Myself, I find information is the gateway to living the least fearful life, because what you understand well you can adapt for properly. Nothing is so calming as being prepared and informed.
Currently I see the prediction of warming to be be pretty fuzzy - it will probably warm some, but that may yet be counteracted by things like deep solar minimums, or other environmental reaction we have not yet thought of or understood, or even just a few fairly large volcanos implementing the "blocking the sun" idea for us for some time. Also of course we are near a cusp of very rapid alternative energy uptake, especially solar heating and electric cars in much wider use - so CO2 use will very naturally reduce a great extent anyway without any extra effort.
What does seem pretty clear though is that the thing we were all supposed to worry about the most - runaway warming from CO2 - is simply not occurring, nor will it occur. Since that will not happen the need for immediate action is eliminated and we can adapt to whatever changes may occur on a more leisurely timescale.
If you read a lot of actual papers on climate study instead of just reading dramatic head
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It can't be reversed now even with major changes to carbon consumption (not that that would ever happen with both sides taking tons of cash from the energy lobbyists).
Nirvana fallacy. Just because a perfect solution doesn't exist doesn't mean reducing our CO2 emissions can't help. It might be too late to avoid a 2C temperature raise. But let's avoid a 5C raise. And if it's too late, then let's avoid a 10C raise.
By the time the temp increase passes 5C we are moving into great Permian extinction territory. By the time you get to 10C every life form heavier than 5 kg is likely going to become extinct ... at least that's what happened back then.
God wouldn't have put gobs of money on the earth if they weren't meant to step all over everyone getting to it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The first graph shows temperatures rising from 1895 to 1943.
The second graph shows temperatures rising from 1957 to 2005.
Conclusion: Temperatures are rising, no surprise there. The graphs are similar because ever since the industrial revolution, global average temperatures have been rising.
I don't know why you or this "Willis Eschenbach" would think that 1895-1943 is a "Natural" period, unaffected by CO2 emissions. Well I do, actually. You're climate-trolling, of course.
And, as Dr. Spencer shows, when the data doesn't match the theory - which one wins? How long do we cling to predicted results from models that don't match reality?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
https://nca2018.globalchange.g...
it's just a shame that the consequences of climate change can't be confined to the countries, or better yet the people. who deny and ignore the problem. Maybe we could convince them all to move to Florida (and the Maldives for non-American denialists?)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Eat shit and die. Human-caused climate change deniers are on the same list of idiots as anti-vaxxers. They're cancerously stupid, cancerous because it seems to be spreading like a disease. Our civilization and likely our species as well are likely doomed because morons keep ignoring the facts, or worse, calling it some 'liberal conspiracy'. Meanwhile the nutjob religious ultra-right-wing types keep encouraging the morons because they want the Apocalypse to happen, regardless of how fucktarded that entire notion is. So how about you, that other guy, and the rest of your climate-change-denying jackasses go throw yourselves into a wood chipper and get mulched? Preferably head first.
Dude, your sig shows that your sources are probably not unbiased since you're basically saying "anyone who wants stronger regulations on business, some kind of nationalized healthcare and gun regulation is a Nazi!" You're basically saying "Liberals are Nazi's Nyah nyah nyah"
Well the Nazi's were also Kinder, Küche, Kirche, which describes your average evangelical as well.
But getting back to your links, D Roy Spencer's book was published by Encounter books:
Encounter Books is an American conservative book publisher. It draws its name from Encounter, the now defunct literary magazine founded by Irving Kristol and Stephen Spender.[1]
Also D Roy Spencer has said this: In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[45]
So your source is a SINGLE Conservative Creationist.
but no way can the corn farmers switch and grow soybeans as it gets warmer. You'd think people might adapt, but no, apparently they can't.
Dude, do you even understand farming? Soils VARY! A soil good for corn isn't necessarily one that's good for Rice or whatever.
Here in Illinois we have BOTH corn and beans, and if it's too warm to grow one, it'll be too warm to grow the other too. It's not about adaption, there are physical limits to what can be grown. and it's not just heat, it's about rain, humidity, soil composition, local parasites, local pollinators, drainage, etc etc.
So people like you saying, "well they can just start growing oranges up in the midwest" are ignorant and are a part of pthe problem.
Willis Eisenbach? Where do you find these crackpots with a high opinion of themselves. He's not a scientist! His BA is in Psychology. He's just some upper class twit who's bummed around the south pacific on the family money.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqnh...
He even puts "worked on my fathers Summer house" on the CV as experience!
Willis Eisenbach? He's not a "climate scientist" His BA is in Psychology. He's just some upper class twit who's bummed around the south pacific on the family money.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqnh...
He even puts "worked on my fathers Summer house" on the CV as experience! Basically he's a humped up building contractor with an overly high opinion of himself.
In my cases since 1960 the number of days of temperatures over 90 degrees has risen by exactly one - from six to seven. The graph shows a wildly wandering line just to get there.
The interior of the country is more strongly effected, it's how climate works. So ask somebody from say Illinois or Iowa if they see more days with over 90 temps in recent years than say in the 70's.
By the way...I'm from Illinois...and yes. And by the way the range of armadillos now extends to Illinois...and southern pest species....like kudzu...have been moving north as the climate has become more warm.
While I agree in not living in fear, your arguments are similar to those who say we don't need to do anything.
Yeah, I know. It's impossible for anyone to ever do anything different in response to any changes in climate or weather. Too bad. If only people could adapt in some way, then we wouldn't all be doooooomed.
Economic specifics in text above Figure 19.21 at US Southeast chapter 19
The figure is interesting as it has a heat map of annual % hours lost because of climate change over the US.
The base figure US Hours lost heatmap
Actually, the number is 570 billion hours per year (see the full chapter 19) though the slashdot wording, taken from the CNN worded, which paraphrases the executive summary of chapter 19, does not make that clear.
Grr, 570 million hours per year.
Won't happen fast enough because there's no profit to be made from it. We need to fix our shit here, first anyway.
And the data? Or do you judge everything by examining the CV of the person? Data stands on its own - and the data is quite hard to refute.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
How convenient it must be, to be able to declare anyone that does not agree with you "a cynic" and issue yourself a free get-out-of-burden-of-proof card.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You've cited exactly one prediction, with plenty of questions remaining about it. For example, how big a rise was he predicting — and how big is claimed by the measurements both back then and today? Can we trust the accuracies of both, given how small the claimed changes actually are?
By now, with countless billions spent on "climate science" world-wide, you should've had many more predictions to offer — and obvious ones too, without the legitimate follow-up questions like above.
So, you admit, it was never a scientific argument for you... And you project your own insincerity on the opponents.
Yeah, not important at all — I've got my own Elysium up there and ready, and really care not what happens to Earth. Right.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
How cute! You've cited one individual with a (seemingly) successful prediction to prove, that Climate Science is actually science, but are now dismissing multiple other individuals as "out on a limb", because their predictions have proved spectacularly wrong.
You can't have it both ways — cherry-picking some predictions as solidly scientific, dismissing others. The discipline's record remains in shambles and even its practitioners and adherents admit, it is "not always" falsifiable.
It is obvious, that Climate Science is not, so to speak. Perhaps, you need to argue from a more religious point of view, as these guys are doing (and as was predicted you'd do many years prior).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Yes, people can do different things, but realize that warm weather crops might not grow well int he midwest even if it is warmer. (and most likely drier) And where will you go to get the massive amounts of corn and soybeans. Lower yields or fewer food animals will lead to higher prices.
It's disruptive and will cause problems, that can't be shrugged off with "adapt". Even small changes can cause major socio-economic disruption. Examples? Boll Weevil, Dust bowl. Little Ice Age.
And in the past climatic changes were sometimes dealt with by mass migration! That's part of the reason for increases in immigration from Central America.
I swear, some slashdot nerds are so ignorant of things other than programming or Star Trek, that they should just shut the hell up about any topic other than code or Star Trek.
Oh really, then you're okay with someone who's never written code in their live commenting on the Linux Kernel mailing list?
You'd be okay with some contractor from fiji doing surgery on you?
Expertise matters! Data does NOT stand on it's own. You know as well as I do that non-experts can misinterpret things because they don't have the expertise to understand basic concepts of the field. You know how the masses confuse the web with the internet in general? That's the same thing with Climate and weather.
Besides, right-wing anti-government cranks are quite capable of misquoting, misinterpreting or being selective on data.
Exactly right. If they believed their hype, the following would all be true:
1. The most expensive land would be far from the ocean, deep inland.
2. Long distance travel would be banned in favor of telecommunication instead.
3. Cities, the major source of carbon pollution, would be disbanded and the population dispersed.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Approx. Elevation: 13 feet (4 meters)
Seal level rise predicted by 2100: 1 to 10 feet.
So within the lifetime of everyone buying property, only a small part of that area is predicted to be flooded in even the worst case scenario.
It's disruptive
But forcing everyone to use non-carbon energy isn't disruptive?
Yep, that is the correct way to deal with the problem.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It's too late to change the rise in temperature, because the melting tundra will produce more Carbon emissions in a day than the human race produces in a year.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Good. Coastal cities are slimebeds of globalist trade. Let them wash away.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If they look at a function and say "hey, how is that bounds-checked"? Then yes - that is completely valid and OK. I don't have a problem with "amateurs" checking pros - after all, we've recently see (yet again) that peer review doesn't work all to well...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Forcing? No one is forcing anyone. There's encouragement but not forcing.
Fossil fuels are a FINITE resource and they're used for things other than fuels. We need to be making the amount left, last as long as we can. Non-carbon energy is one of the ways we will do that.
Yes, it will be disruptive, but it's positive disruption that actually improves things in the long term. Really, do you want the resource wars of Fallout to become reality? Do you? No?
Then quit your "no-ones-going-to-tell-me-what-to-do-climate-change-isn't-a-problem" bitchin.
Well,
when we started to have geography in school, around 6th or 7th grade, one of the first bigger topics was development aid and how the first world fails to help the third and fourth world to develop (That was around 1980/1982). One prime example was that a group of "scientists" and "development helpers" decided that they found a perfect spot to grow peanuts in some remote starving african area. Everything was perfect: altitude, temperature span, average rain fall. The project was a disaster and pinnacle of stupidity, after all most "helpers" worked at the place. Reason: average rain fall per year is meaningless. At that particular place all the rain come in a 2 or 3 days. Some years it did not rain, other years it rained 2 or 3 times as much: in less than a week of time span.
So yes, farmers might adjust. Politicians and societies might make big water planning projects, like the old Khmer empires or like the Netherlands. But: do you really think something like this will ever happen in the US? A politician standing up and proclaiming we need a water and irrigation (and in conjunction power production) grid that spans the whole of the US?
The Netherlands has pumps hundred of years old, still pumping water, driven by wind. But they had an advantage: basically every one grew up seeing decades or century spanning projects being conducted and being successful, be it winning of land, extending Amsterdam into a sea fortress etc. And: they had KINGs that took it as their pillar of life to conduct such projects and traders that realized how important infrastructure is.
There are not many countries in our world that will work hard on infrastructure to mitigate climate change.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
But forcing everyone to use non-carbon energy isn't disruptive? ... and will always be the case.
No it is not. The power comes out of the power plug in your wall
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If they look at a function and say "hey, how is that bounds-checked"?
A real amateur like I described isn't going to know what "bounds" are! The code will be as much gibberish as ancient egyption would be to them.
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
You are not john galt
you are not lazarus long
you are not some great man held down by idiot sheeple who needs to protest against the "collectivist boogeyman" you'd see at a John Birch meeting. You are Eddie Deezen in Wargames.
You have an amazingly narrow and idiotic understanding of people and science. There's nothing else to say. Trust your "experts", and as they constantly try to adjust and correct for data and errors pointed out by the "unwashed/uneducated masses", realize you are in fact wrong.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Ahhh... respondant has to be a liberal, as it has all the telltale signs - name calling... no actual solution... etc...
Meanwhile, the OP of this subthead that just got called an idiot has it right - we currently have no technologically viable way NOT to burn the fossil fuels that we've been burning. We just don't know how. We can't build a solar solution until we can store the electricity, and we do not have the "magic battery" that will do that. Neither do we have said magic battery that will allow for viable electric cars, "viable" being defined as "just as cheap" and "will go just as far in a day of driving as my own car" which current electrics will not. Why not? Because while even the most expensive, best performing electrics will travel at the same speeds for maybe 300 miles, I refuel in 5 minutes or less, and they have to stop for over half an hour to get a partial charge. My 1st day of a vacation is usually marked by a big initial push to get to the attraction I'm destined for, and so the 1st day is sometimes 800 - 1200 miles of driving. Just can't do that to match my leaving from Eastern Virginia and sleeping in Texas before midnight. Maybe someday, but not today.
We're building out wind and solar for the grid as fast as we can, and hopefully some smart guy will invent a magic battery to really make them work. Fingers crossed. But until it happens, we have absolutely no alternative but to burn the fossil fuels that we're burning. We have to manufacture things, we have to grow food and then transport it, we have to burn the fuel just to get to work or play. And of course our play is someone else's work, so if they say we shouldn't play, then those providing the playgrounds - movie theaters, etc. will lose their work and impact the economy.
What we need to do it _stop_ burning fossil fuels altogether. I think we'll get there, but only if the economy is allowed to remain healthy enough to have the $$$ left over for research - battery research - and eventually produces the magic battery (or supercapacitor...)
The experts DO know more than the masses, it's what makes them experts. Your problem isn't experts, because ALL of us rely on various experts in modern society. It's just that you just don't like what the experts are saying about climate because of your socio-political bias so you denigrate the experts.
I'm from Illinois. We know climate change is a thing, even the conservative farmers know it's starting to affect their crops. Long heat waves, less moisture in the ground, all sorts of things. For goodness sake the range of armadillos has moved north into Illinois! Kudzu is coming north. The range of African-ized bees keeps spreading north because the north is warmer than it used to be.
Really, do you want the resource wars of Fallout to become reality?
You seem to be making up stories and deciding to believe them. I guess it's emotionally satisfying?
Believing stories that I know are made up is harder for me. But if I wanted to, why wouldn't I make up a story where everything turns out fine, and decide to believe that? It's more consistent with how things have gone the last 500 years or so.
Irrelevant. What was requested was one prediction from one citation. I provided one prediction from one citation. You don't get to change the question after the fact. Either acknowledge I answered the first question exactly as requested, meeting the specification in full, and then ask a new question regarding further issues, or acknowledge that you've no interest in the facts at all.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
First, that was the issue raised. I did not answer questions not asked. And, no, no climate scientist has argued what you claim. You provide no link because there are no credible sources for your claim. There is no cherry-picking, repeated attempts to find any by skeptics - real skeptics - have resulted in them actually siding with climate scientists.
What you are doing is changing the question in order to falsify the answer. You don't get to do that. Acknowledge that I was right, that the original question was wrong, and THEN ask a new question. Or, by deed or default, admit that there are no questions at all.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Yeah, but not world wide. Far north and far south you still will have tempered regions, question however is what kind of weather (aka storms) you have and what and how much you can grow. Around the equator it mostly will depend on your distance to the sea ... at least during the last glacier periods at the equator the temperature was more or less the same as right now. So except inside of Africa, I doubt those areas will get much warmer. However: again the question is changing rain patterns. Phillippines and Indonesia had a drought last year and partly this year and heavy floodings several times this year (I don't remember last year). Thailand is unusually dry to, at least in the north west.
No, literally every life form over 5 kg does seem to have become extinct during the Permian extinction event world wide and the oceans became largely dead zones. You can try to make a 10C increase in temperature sound like a minor event, nothing to worry about, just a Chinese hoax. Personally I would rather avoid that scenario if I could and not just because of the climatic changes. Keep in mind we haven't even begun to discuss the social and political upheaval (a.k.a. famine and wars) caused by scenarios like the entire interior of Africa becoming uninhabitable.
No you don't remember because it never happened. Nobody with any scientific credibility said NYC would be underwater by 2022. The might have said that they will be washed over by a storm surge like that which Sandy gave them but not that it would remain underwater. Mostly where you get that is some hyperbolic statement by someone trying to whip up fools like you who buy it lock. stock and barrel.
You can only hear THE SKY IS FALLING!! so many times before calling BS. In 90s liberals said New York and LA would be underwater by 2015. It didn’t happen.
No one with scientific credibility in the field ever said that. You're listening to the wrong people.
Is that supposed to be some sort of argument?
When the data is against you, science is against you and reason is against you, I guess that's all that's left. Global warming is happening. Climate change is the result. Inventing silly quotes will not change reality no matter how much your political inclinations tell you that reality is wrong.
Then why do climate alarmists resort to hysterical name-calling by labeling people who don't buy into their religion heretics, errr, deniers?
If it were about actual science, skepticism wouldn't be met with ridicule.
Skepticism is one thing but when the same old argument has been refuted thousands of times it's no longer skepticism but denial. A true skeptic is willing to listen to the arguments from all sides and consider which is more credible. No matter how skeptical you may be you can't change the physical reality.
If humanity is just the product of random evolutionary changes, whatever we do is, by definition, "Natural." We are not disrupting the natural flow of the universe no matter WHAT we do! So, we need to get over worrying about this whole, "Climate change" thing. It's not as if we are somehow morally culpable to anyone. So... why should we really care?
(Unless, of course, we are morally culpable for our stewardship of the planet. But that would presuppose some higher being to which we are morally culpable - which is not scientific, and so, CANNOT be true. So, let's just get over ourselves a bit and live life!)
The issue isn't about anything moral or bullshit like that. The issue is can our modern worldwide civilization survive the changes that global warming/climate change will cause. If we want to preserve this civilization we need to do something about that. Humans won't go extinct but we might have a massive collapse of population and have civilization fall back to a 19th or even 18th century level just because there won't be enough people to support the kind of civilization we have now.
Since there is absolutely no theoretical link between higher CO2 levels and global temperatures, ...
Where in the world do you get that shit? The link between CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) and other global temperatures lies in the absorption spectrum of said gases. They absorb infrared radiation and slow down it's progress out of the atmosphere. It would be astounding if an increase in greenhouse gases did not cause an increase in global temperatures.
You are downvoted unfairly.
You are absolutely right. We need to take measures handling climate change consequences, not only measures preventing more drastic climate change.
We are breathing out now, literally, more CO2 than we produced by all burning in 1950 and by that time we were already up 0.5 degrees Celsius compared to XIX century.
We are already experiencing effects of climate change and instead of shouting "I told ya!" and in addition to calling for changes in regulation that will affect climate change in 10 years only, we need to invest a lot now in federal measures to handle existing consequences.
Oil burning will be there with us for a long time. Oil is a strategic fossil fuel - everything in military runs on oil, because oil is most autonomous way of having an energy supply in the battlefield. Nuclear subs are the only exception to that.
No major military country will sacrifice their military needs more than required by current slow-moving disarmament tendency (does it even exist now?) . Anybody who would argue with this does not know how things work
What we can do and should do is handling existing problems that are 100% happening instead of future consequences.
Do both things: reduce greenhouse gas emissions AND spend more on infrastructure to prepare for warmer Earth.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Answer his question:
bq. For example, how big a rise was he predicting — and how big is claimed by the measurements both back then and today?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
No, it's not. First of all, FSM is a satire, as you know, second, it does not involve any scare. Third, it's very fringe satire, and only pimply juvenile imbeciles ever use it in their opportunistic fight with "the man".
(why am I forbidden to copy/paste this, stupid NYT?)
2018:
https://www.timeanddate.com/we...//historic?month=9&year=2018
Tested may-through september - 5 days >= 90
year of birth, (do not ask, it's impolite to ask old people about their age):
4 days>=90 (can't show you the website not to reveal the country)
Which is expected, given that the proposed arbitrary measure of severity of local climate changes (I am more interested in number of flood days, number of tornado days, number of 100-people-a-day-immolated-alive days per year).
In my area, for example, let's pick a different measure: number of days where temperature drops below -20C = -4F (that's when schools used to close in my childhood - important economic factor given that the parents will likely skip work as well to look for the children):
winter 2017/2018: 30 days -4F or lower
year of birth: 34 days -4F or lower
Looks like we get worth in summer and better in winter equally in the area of interest. I am not really sure what this proves. It's just some data-wrangling fun :-)
I do not know the worth climate and how it will be but on the Internet it will always be September climate. So, no, LOVE whatever you want, you won't get much of it anywhere nowadays.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Strawman ?
And Trump is acting like a moron equating climate and weather.
What I love about Slashdot is absence of censorship. Reddit would ban three times already all three of us for our comments (what a shithole, I wish slashdot had more users, of course, that would convert slashdot to reddit, because Eternal September, do not get me started)
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I am struggling to understand what is your complaint here. Are you some kind of creepfan of freezing nose-frostbiting climate?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
To Slahdot admins: would you please retire "Flamebait" and "Troll" modifier? Every single article on the front page in the that rectangle of mosly commented articles is already flame by definition. Are you downvoting people who bring the article to a front page?
This does not make sense. And Troll is a stupid designation, it is used 100% of time against people with minority political opinions.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Yes, cheaply. I just recently ran onto a fellow who is quitting his job, as he's getting abused at $11.50 an hour as a cook. That's outrageously low pay for a skilled workman of any sort, and being a moderate Republican that does not toe the party line concerning minimum wages, I think that it ought to be $15 / hr. But anyway, people like him, when the world goes to ultra-expensive cars just because they're electric, are going to be in poverty, or further into poverty, and here's a clue: Poverty kills. It isn't just inconvenient, but people die because they're poor. They don't get enough to eat, they don't get the right kinds of things to eat, they exist in poorly heated homes or not cooled homes in the deep south, they don't get access to preventive medicine, some are even homeless which exposes them both to the weather and to criminal attack. I've read that while smoking can take 7 years off your life, living in poverty can take 10. So, while electric everything may be an inconvenient expense for me, it will be a life-or-death situation for millions of others that don't have a nice pension and annuity and a bit of Social Security after a career as an engineer.
No, I say "no fair" simply dismissing avoiding expense as a selfish luxury. It's extremely important to a lot of people. An electric society is desireable, but only if it doesn't kill a bunch of people by throwing them into poverty.
The leftist agenda is to enslave the people to be able to tell them what to do, how to live, etc. Live in "no cars" communities where you have to walk 3 blocks to where you park your car, use bicycles when you're back is screaming with the latest arthritis attack, eat what they tell you (see Michelle O's school lunch nonsense for that one), etc. etc. Leftists just want to control you and don't want you to be able to resist their doing it. The litmus test for "liberal" is "anti-gun." They want to take them so you can't shoot their asses off when they tell you that you have to live in a 900 sq. ft. apartment instead of your house on an acre because it's somehow "good for the environment." My house on an acre has geothermal heat and an electric bill that the 900 sq. ft. apartment probably doesn't achieve 'cuz it's electric resistance heated. Yeah, the left has an agenda, and you're guaranteed not to like it.
But those bitches are expensive...
Yes, climate change might not kill everyone off until one or two centuries from now. However, that is pretty much guaranteed if we don't take serious action in the next 20 years.
A supervolcano eruption might happen next year. It might happen 100,000 years from now. That 0.001% chance of an eruption isn't worth worrying about if we seal humanity's fate in the next 20 years.
No time to follow the actual link in my comment?
I didn't use the word "insult" in my comment, so I'm not sure why you'd think that's what I was trying to say. Perhaps you are reading something into it which wasn't there?
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
âoe Nirvana fallacy. Just because a perfect solution doesn't exist doesn't mean reducing our CO2 emissions can't help.
It might be too late to avoid a 2C temperature raise. But let's avoid a 5C raise. And if it's too late, then let's avoid a 10C raise. âoe
Well, I see it like this.
At this point, it is akin to frantically attempting to apply the brakes after you have already crashed the car. It is a wonderful gesture, but not very effective.
All it takes is a few degrees to start the ice thawing. Once it has started, it becomes a self sustaining engine that we cannot stop unless we figure out how to cool thing down again.
The more ice that melts, the more trapped gasses ( such as methane ) it releases which effectively becomes a feedback loop.
So, the 5C or 10c thing is not the problem because we are going there no matter if we want to or not.
We have already crashed the car so to speak and the process has been set in motion.
Our focus now should be figuring out how to survive it in the long term.
I don't discount experts; I also do not discount amateurs and new names. Science does not have an upper priesthood; data is data, science is science, and findings form amateurs should be as critically examined and accepted as those from the long-term researchers. You don't like it, though - because it challenges your doctrine. What about McIntyre, who blew apart the Mann hockey stick? What about Nic Lewis who just pointed out the major math error in the Resplandy ocean heat paper? Not experts in "the field" but their contribution is enormous - because it acts as a check on the "high priests" of AGW.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You can only hear THE SKY IS FALLING!! so many times before calling BS. In 90s liberals said New York and LA would be underwater by 2015. It didn’t happen.
No one with scientific credibility in the field ever said that. You're listening to the wrong people.
Agreed. He listened to the media and the government.
/. Give it a rest.
Let me say it in a different way. I once heard someone say there was a "Population Bomb" and we'd all starve to death. I was a kid then and it scared me because it was all over the news. The source of that information was a book by Dr. Paul Ehrlich and he was wrong. Mr. Ehrlich is still a highly regarded scientist despite his error. So now with all the climate alarmism with its we-must-act-by dates that come and go, please forgive us when we cast skeptical eye toward every doomsday pronouncement emitted by the climate change community. And what is it, the 3rd time today I've seen this on
Western politics only worries about the next 5 years unfortunately and is therefore unable to formulate any meaningful response to impending disaster.
Remember that one Star Trek episode with the holodeck? Oh man, those were the days...
#DeleteFacebook
You seem to be making up stories and deciding to believe them.
Metaphor? Figure of speech? A fictional example of what could be, like most SciFi?
Stop being such a literal-minded aspie-libertarian stereotype.
But if I wanted to, why wouldn't I make up a story where everything turns out fine, and decide to believe that? It's more consistent with how things have gone the last 500 years or so.
Hypocrite, YOU are the one who brought up the Nazi's!
But again, hydrocarbons/fossil fuels are a FINITE resource, don't you want to use them more responsibly and try to make them last as long as possible?
Yea, Reddit is a shot hole. However I cant imagine there more than 100 active readers on this site. I don't understand why it gets all the troll attention it does. Must be the trolls of yesteryear.
Who's always doing what when it's cold ?
It is almost like rich people will just do whatever they want since they know they can get out of it and move to the next hot spot.
Yet most leftists I know are proud gun owners. It is almost like your ideas come from right wing fantasies or things they have seen on TV rather than actual leftists. Given how right wingers only seem to be happy when everyone is exactly like them and no one will stop them applying pressure to convert everyone, kinda sounds like projection.
...azi's!
Your entire message up to here made zero sense. One reason I may seem "literal" is because I can't decode half of the idiom-laden gobbledygook that some people use to attempt communication.
But again, hydrocarbons/fossil fuels are a FINITE resource, don't you want to use them more responsibly and try to make them last as long as possible?
"As long as possible" is a useless amount of time. Better would be until we have better substitutes for all necessary uses.
As the years since Peak Oil have shown us, fossil fuels are abundant and every year they become more abundant. Meanwhile, search for alternatives for most uses has been making steady progress. Fossil fuels may be literally "finite", but they will last at least a couple hundred more years at economic prices. That should be (a lot) more than long enough.
So no. I don't want to "use them more responsibility" than warranted by actual real-world concerns. And even if I did, others have a right to live their own lives and choose their own choices, regardless of what either of us want them to do.
Climate change may be real but also will take decades or centuries to have substantial impact.
It's already starting to have substantial impacts in places and that will just grow as time goes on. Look at Charleston, SC which is having some serious king tide flooding right now. Yes it's happened occasionally in the past, maybe once or twice a year 50 years ago but now due to about 10 inches of sea level rise it's happening multiple times every year. It's becoming a serious problem for them.
King tides and sea level rise
You have it kind of backwards. There is not more radiation hitting the Earth as a result of global warming. What is happening is that the radiation leaving the Earth that balances the incoming radiation is being slowed down by greenhouse gases resulting in warmer surface temperatures.
The target dates come and go but the problem with global warming is that it's a slow moving problem. The target dates may be accurate but the effects of what they mean may not become fully manifest for 20 or 30 years and by then it's way too late to fix it. For instance the last time CO2 levels were over 400 ppm the climate was much warmer than it is now and sea levels were about 70 feet higher than they are at the moment. It may be that is already baked in and in 400 or 500 years we will see sea levels that much higher. The great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica don't melt instantaneously relative to the temperature they're exposed to but melt they will until they reach a new equilibrium. So we may see 5 or 6 feet of SLR by the end of this century and maybe 15-20 feet by 2200 but it won't stop there. That NYC will be underwater sooner or later is almost a sure thing now. it's just a matter of how long it takes to get there. But no scientist who studies SLR would have expected it to be underwater by 2015 except for the unlikely possibility of a non-linear collapse of something like the Pine Island Glacier area which if it happened catastrophically could add several feet of SLR in a matter of a decade or two, a very unlikely event but not impossible.
Kinder, Küche, Kirche
I know just enough German that if Slashdot hadn't garbled the 2nd word, I would have understood the whole phrase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Wikipedia article includes this quote from T.S. Eliot which seems somewhat relevant to your first point though, even if he appears to be defending the concept of Children, Kitchen and Church.
The report, by its abbreviation, may do less than justice to Miss Bower, but I do not think that I am unfair to the report, in finding the implication that what is Nazi is wrong, and need not be discussed on its own merits
It does seem somewhat apt that it can be abbreviated with 3 "K"s.
The quality of slashdot is amazing. They hit the spot 20 years ago with selective moderation and all other news aggregators sacrificed the moderate way of slashdot: between egalitarian (everybody can vote) and elite (only admins can vote) for more clicks and more users.
There are plenty of other user generated content, but in terms of politics, it's either a liberal circlejerk like reddit or various right-wing circlejerk alternatives like voat.
Slashdot amazingly combines balanced presentation of both liberal and conservative views and mostly, these are insightful, comments.
I have been an active reader almost since the beginning, had infatuation with reddit for a while, but lately i returned back.
For every single piece reported both on Slashdot and Reddit, Slashdot consistently provide more interesting user-generated reading material, more diverse, more thoughtful, than that sesspool Reddit. Screw the egalitarianism. If I never see again another pimply 27-year old barrista online, I'll die a happy man.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
"Strawman, whataboutism?"
Agreed.
"Hypocrite"
Trump ?
"from Attic Greek hypokrisis "acting on the stage; pretense", metaphorically, "hypocrisy", from hypokrinesthai "play a part, pretend"
https://www.etymonline.com/wor...
"acting like a moron"
scratch moron, for so many reasons
This is amazing... That Communism-seeking Illiberals would lie — for the Greater Good(TM) — is well known. But to lie so blatantly, when it is so easy to get caught? Here is my request, with emphasis added:
See? Plural — a single prediction, however singular, just would not do...
I've also asked for the predictions to have come true within 20% of the predicted values — so my follow-up question about numbers is highly relevant. Without satisfactory answers even the single citation you managed to offer is null and void.
No, it was not — I gave you a chance to add the necessary details, but you turned openly adversarial and tried to "win" on a technicality, which also happened to be against you.
You must be from the stupid (rather than the evil) wing of the Progressive movement... Remember to logout.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You fall into the trap/fallacy. The car isn't crashed yet. What you are basically saying is that since we are going to crash, it's not worth it to try braking before we hit the wall. Some people even say we should accelerate and detach our seatbelt (emit even more CO2, sabotage every possible international agreement on CO2 reduction).
There are different types of crash. Not all have to be fatal.
I cant stand reddit. only the informational posts i can bear to look at and even then you will have morons. Ive been on slashdot since about ~2003 was A/C most of the time, but iirc the Highdude account is mine also form back then i just forget info for it. Not that it matters i try to only post when i actually know something about the subject. for bullshitting with people i consider "friends" i prefer IRC. Also loweres the pleb attendance. The political bullshit is getting old here now a days and i find myself reading less and less as time goes. Both sides are off their rockers. But thats just my opinion.
Even usage of the word "plebs" in context other than facetious is immediately punished by pimply 27-year old barritas. Recently, a guy in /r/science gave an excellent plain language explanation of the article, short and accessible for anyone who did not flank school. Yet some imbecile materialized immediately with stupid "ELI5" comment in reply to that. Somebody reasonably replied: "That was ELI5" and I added a lengthy diatribe which was basically saying that people should learn science instead of demanding ELI5. I was downvoted to oblivion (almost -100) (expectedly, and that's not the point), but what was more interesting is that the guy who replied "That was ELI5" deleted his comment (probably because of the downvotes).
The nauseating egalitariasm is omnipresent in every single popular sub. The less popular the post, the better quality discussion you can find. I am moving towards removing all popular subs from my feed on reddit (on top of being banned from news and worldnews for defending a Christian who got murdered on that savage (literally) island and for saying something positive about Islamic State, correspondingly)
Smalls subs are much better, like /r/selfdrivingcars or /r/MH370. They remind me of slashdot, except that they are heavily dominated by regulars you immediately recognize.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Sounds like all the reasons i needed to continue to avoid reddit.
There's nothing conservative about a "Free market".
And the two biggest ports in Louisiana and Texas are in fact, hotbeds of liberalism.
Nothing is made there, only shipped through.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
it's been ~10 years for the last 30 when I started hearing about global warming.
And while you require less carbon per captia in cities, ALL of the carbon you use is fossil, where most of the carbon the suburbs and rural areas actually *need* to use can be grown and regrown every year, (if we'd switch to woodgas and methane instead of gasoline, it all could be, for net zero carbon usage).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
No, got there by the forests that grew in the Tundra the last time atmospheric carbon was this high....
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Climate change is real.
Horrible horrible things will happen we are told here (and elsewhere).
Which gives rise to schemes like this.
Most climate change deniers aren't denying climate change, they are reacting to the fear-mongering with extreme distrust. They know opportunists will use that fear fuel it with misinformation and use it for political manipulation to profit. And the collateral damage will be just as bad or worse than the climate change itself.
That is the problem with the climate change 'debate'.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
They call themselves conservatives, but their love of liberty and freedom shows that they are simply NOT conservatives.
By Hotbeds of liberalism, I refer to New Orleans with their downright blasphemous mardi gras, and Houston is considered to be as liberal as Austin or Portland- Keep Houston weird!
And like I said, I don't consider Republicans to be conservative, so voting red doesn't mean very much.
Real conservatives are localists- they don't need ports.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Nah. That hasn't been the case fore years. Not since free market, small government libertarians became lumped in with everyone who is not-left. Anyone who is not left is reee - a Nazi.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I feel a bit lonely on Slashdot, since are a bit stale given that fewer people are participating.
- Hey! Big city! With shiny lights! Let's go there ...
-
- Our suburbia is much better
-
- Hey! Big city!
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
The root word of liberal and liberty is the same. Pay attention to etymology next time before you mouth off.
For a true conservative, there is no need to have a market further away than you can walk.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And you're missing the point where I point out that Republicans are liberals *because they value liberty over conservation*. As are most Americans except maybe the Green Party or the Constitution Part, both of which are economic localists, the first because shipping stuff through ports uses fossil fuels and increases global warming, the second because international supply lines in general are dangerous to the autarky of the economy.
Conservatives are conservationists. Think more Darrell Castle than Adam Smith.
Conservatives need to Conserve. Only Liberals need Liberty.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.