I get it. Something like cancer research is more understandable to you. However, what is and isn't true doesn't revolve around what you're able to understand.
If I don't understand something I question it until I do. Otherwise I rarely take it on faith alone. Especially when there is a lot of controversy from both sides.
There isn't though, there's a consensus on the one side and big oil backed political nonsense on the other. I don't even include your "Gore" crap into it as he's irrelevant.
Just poking holes in people's logic.
The issue really isn't relevant imo in this case, sure, you got me there.
Except you're not actually doing that. You're selectively ignoring most rebuttals and answering only what you want to answer. When you don't have an actual reply, you just post empty rhetoric.
You've all convinced me. I am a believer supporter of the claims on climate change now!
I seriously wonder why anyone argues with you. You seem to have nominal interest in your own beliefs, make trite and throwaway comments on an almost compulsive basis, and appear to largely be interested in fomenting annoyance more than debate or conversation.
I'd comment further, but you do rather advertise your modus operandi in your username.
Just poking holes in people's logic.
The issue really isn't relevant imo in this case, sure, you got me there.
Except you're not actually doing that. You're selectively ignoring most rebuttals and answering only what you want to answer. When you don't have an actual reply, you just post empty rhetoric.
Why should I when no one answers the most basic questions about the formation of such a conclusion?
You've all convinced me. I am a believer supporter of the claims on climate change now!
I seriously wonder why anyone argues with you. You seem to have nominal interest in your own beliefs, make trite and throwaway comments on an almost compulsive basis, and appear to largely be interested in fomenting annoyance more than debate or conversation.
I'd comment further, but you do rather advertise your modus operandi in your username.
I would guess boredom. But that's just speculation.
You've all convinced me. I am a believer supporter of the claims on climate change now!
I seriously wonder why anyone argues with you. You seem to have nominal interest in your own beliefs, make trite and throwaway comments on an almost compulsive basis, and appear to largely be interested in fomenting annoyance more than debate or conversation.
I'd comment further, but you do rather advertise your modus operandi in your username.
I would guess boredom. But that's just speculation.
Should really do a study on that. End the speculation.
You've all convinced me. I am a believer supporter of the claims on climate change now!
I seriously wonder why anyone argues with you. You seem to have nominal interest in your own beliefs, make trite and throwaway comments on an almost compulsive basis, and appear to largely be interested in fomenting annoyance more than debate or conversation.
I'd comment further, but you do rather advertise your modus operandi in your username.
I would guess boredom. But that's just speculation.
Should really do a study on that. End the speculation.
Can we all loosen up the restrictions on co2 emissions now? I mean its pointless now right?
Even if AGW wasn't a thing, I don't particularly enjoy breathing that stuff in.
Why are you guys pro-CO2 emissions again?
Jokes on you, we were breathing in CO2 before there were cars.
I'm pro co2 cause most co2 is emitted in the process of generating power and there is a direct relationship to the amount of power one consumes to their quality of life.
Can we all loosen up the restrictions on co2 emissions now? I mean its pointless now right?
Even if AGW wasn't a thing, I don't particularly enjoy breathing that stuff in.
Why are you guys pro-CO2 emissions again?
Jokes on you, we were breathing in CO2 before there were cars.
I'm pro co2 cause most co2 is emitted in the process of generating power and there is a direct relationship to the amount of power one consumes to their quality of life.
why are you limiting it to just cars? There are quite a few things that cause air pollution. Also, there was nothing in the history of mankind with relative size or scope to the amount of pollution we creat today.
Personally I think it's already bad enough and I don't want to end up like other places where the air pollution is so thick it actually remains visible. So bad that it's recomended that I walk around with a mask on to reduce the negative effects it may have on my body.
I'm pro co2 cause most co2 is emitted in the process of generating power and there is a direct relationship to the amount of power one consumes to their quality of life.
That's actually not a bad way to justify it. So you'd totally be cool with humoring us and cutting CO2 emissions if there are other sources of energy that's cheaper and more efficient?
There were various studies that said the ice caps were melting at an alarming rate, and to a degree they were, considering the region. With the global climate in perpetual flux, now there are studies, from many of the same researchers stating that the ice is now forming at an alarming rate.
The general fluctuation (where as we had little knowledge of the ice caps prior) is cause for study. The lack of understanding of the fluctuation is where cause for concern and fear sets in.
Even experts in the field aren't quite sure what it means, but they can only go on currently known hypotheticals, unless something happens that causes a drastic change in thinking about it.
Then they have to formulate a new theory and explanation based off of the data they've collected and analyze it to use in an experiment, if in fact a reasonable experiment can be conducted at a smaller scale.
If it can't be, then they have to use hypothesis, collected data, to show a reasonable explanation as why something is happening.
I'm pro co2 cause most co2 is emitted in the process of generating power and there is a direct relationship to the amount of power one consumes to their quality of life.
That's actually not a bad way to justify it. So you'd totally be cool with humoring us and cutting CO2 emissions if there are other sources of energy that's cheaper and more efficient?
Who wouldn't be? That's why the research into fusion is needed, where it can actually be put to good use.
I'm pro co2 cause most co2 is emitted in the process of generating power and there is a direct relationship to the amount of power one consumes to their quality of life.
That's actually not a bad way to justify it. So you'd totally be cool with humoring us and cutting CO2 emissions if there are other sources of energy that's cheaper and more efficient, and practical?
There were various studies that said the ice caps were melting at an alarming rate, and to a degree they were, considering the region. With the global climate in perpetual flux, now there are studies, from many of the same researchers stating that the ice is now forming at an alarming rate.
The general fluctuation (where as we had little knowledge of the ice caps prior) is cause for study. The lack of understanding of the fluctuation is where cause for concern and fear sets in.
Even experts in the field aren't quite sure what it means, but they can only go on currently known hypotheticals, unless something happens that causes a drastic change in thinking about it.
Then they have to formulate a new theory and explanation based off of the data they've collected and analyze it to use in an experiment, if in fact a reasonable experiment can be conducted at a smaller scale.
If it can't be, then they have to use hypothesis, collected data, to show a reasonable explanation as why something is happening.
People claiming the science is settled, and the science being settled are two invariably different things.
But as I pointed out, there has been little evidence to show contrary to humans having and increasingly large effect on the environment, since one of our greatest tools is to manipulate the environment to suit our needs. By doing so, we destroy so that we can create.
Essentially humanity is chaos in this sense.
Edit: Not everything we create is necessarily a boon, and not everything we destroy is a boon either. Sometimes we create our own disadvantages by ignoring the longterm effects of what we destroy.
A very extensive report, known as the National Climate Assessment, was released earlier this week. Nothing in the report is particularly surprising, but its presentation for the general public, here, is incredibly impressive. (Not all government website releases are a disaster!)
If hardcore technical reports aren't your thing, the highlights portion of the site breaks each section down as plainly as possible, is extensively cited, and makes no secret the level of uncertainty inherent in current findings. The site is really quite fantastic, and I would encourage anyone with genuine interest, skepticism, and/or curiosity in U.S. climate change to fuck around in it for a while. (Of course, if well-substantiated, easily digestible scientific communications aren't your thing, there's always this.)
Perhaps, the most poignant message arising from the report is summarized in this quote from the article:
Quote:
The report pointed out that while the country as a whole still had no comprehensive climate legislation, many states and cities had begun to take steps to limit emissions and to adapt to climatic changes that can no longer be avoided. But the report found that these efforts were inadequate.
I don't really consider myself a policy person so... what do?
Edit: Also of note is the high diversity of those involved. Largely scientists, of course, but representative of a wide swath of interests, including some oil companies.