Why are we still debating the climate?

[BartenderElite]

AGW is a distraction to me. It's the shiny object in the climate "debate." It allows detractors to focus on something unproveable, and ignore the larger crisis that is near a tipping point.

We are losing whole ecosystems at this point. We're in the middle of a mass extinction (and unlike AGW, that one is on us, without a doubt). We're losing habitat, drinkable water & breathable air at alarming rates.

None of this is even remotely sustainable, even for another decade. People used to talk about preserving the planet for our children & our children's children - but this is about us just as much as anyone.

We can't possibly be this shortsighted and careless. This is a crisis, and it's the most important and impactful crisis we have. Without a habitable planet, all of the other issues are meaningless.

This shouldn't be political. This should be the top priority for both parties, and for every world leader.

 

[cawacko]

Because people agree the climate is changing doesn't mean they will agree on how we should approach/address it. And there are plenty of people who give lip service to need to address climate change until it affects them and their life style. And you have (developing) countries around the globe who don't necessarily want to fall in line with what America wants done.

 

[BartenderElite]

Because people agree the climate is changing doesn't mean they will agree on how we should approach/address it. And there are plenty of people who give lip service to need to address climate change until it affects them and their life style. And you have (developing) countries around the globe who don't necessarily want to fall in line with what America wants done.

That's a very good objective point. I think my question was more along the lines of why are we still pretending nothing is wrong, but there will always be legit debate on how we should best respond.

Humans, in general, are geared to not change anything unless they absolutely have to - so most won't really care until it affects their lifestyle, as you stated. Another major problem for the species is that most of the money is with those who want to protect the status quo. And they spend ridiculous amounts to influence legislation and spread misinformation.

 

[cawacko]

That's a very good objective point. I think my question was more along the lines of why are we still pretending nothing is wrong, but there will always be legit debate on how we should best respond.

Humans, in general, are geared to not change anything unless they absolutely have to - so most won't really care until it affects their lifestyle, as you stated. Another major problem for the species is that most of the money is with those who want to protect the status quo. And they spend ridiculous amounts to influence legislation and spread misinformation.

To get at what I was trying to say about the life style thing I'll offer an analogy. In San Francisco we've passed a $1 billion + bond for housing the homeless. The ballot measure passed by a good margin. But now that the City tries to build that housing people are like "hell no, don't build that anywhere near me" and this has happened throughout the City.

Plenty of people will pay lip service to the existential threat that climate change poses but when it comes to brass tax aren't ready to make changes to their life style that would be required to address it.

 

[evince]

Science proved the theory in real time


Russia likes the lies about GW


THEIR ONLY SELLABLE PRODUCT IS OIL


they are mostly a frozen waste land


Global warming sounds great to them

 

[Grokmaster]

AGW is a distraction to me. It's the shiny object in the climate "debate." It allows detractors to focus on something unproveable, and ignore the larger crisis that is near a tipping point.

We are losing whole ecosystems at this point. We're in the middle of a mass extinction (and unlike AGW, that one is on us, without a doubt). We're losing habitat, drinkable water & breathable air at alarming rates.

None of this is even remotely sustainable, even for another decade. People used to talk about preserving the planet for our children & our children's children - but this is about us just as much as anyone.

We can't possibly be this shortsighted and careless. This is a crisis, and it's the most important and impactful crisis we have. Without a habitable planet, all of the other issues are meaningless.

This shouldn't be political. This should be the top priority for both parties, and for every world leader.

BECAUSE IT'S BEEN WARMING FOR OVER 20,000 YEARS, AND AT A FAR MORE RAPID PACE THAN NOW, 10,000-20,000 THOUSAND YEARS AGO..., FORMING GLACIERS AND THE GREAT LAKES...ETC., WITH NO HELP FROM HUMANS, DIPSHIT.

 

[BartenderElite]

BECAUSE IT'S BEEN WARMING FOR OVER 20,000 YEARS, AND AT A FAR MORE RAPID PACE THAN NOW, 10,000-20,000 THOUSAND YEARS AGO..., FORMING GLACIERS AND THE GREAT LAKES...ETC., WITH NO HELP FROM HUMANS, DIPSHIT.

Please re-read the 1st section of my post, and try to craft a more appropriate response.

 

[BartenderElite]

To get at what I was trying to say about the life style thing I'll offer an analogy. In San Francisco we've passed a $1 billion + bond for housing the homeless. The ballot measure passed by a good margin. But now that the City tries to build that housing people are like "hell no, don't build that anywhere near me" and this has happened throughout the City.

Plenty of people will pay lip service to the existential threat that climate change poses but when it comes to brass tax aren't ready to make changes to their life style that would be required to address it.

And we've also seen that w/ wind turbines, and I'm sure many other examples beyond that.

It's one of those things where we would need a crystal ball to show people exactly how their lives will be affected if we don't act. But even then - even if people could see it visually - they'd probably still procrastinate and delay.

 

[Grokmaster]

TRY RESEARCHING THE TOPIC, AND THEN EXPLAIN HOW WE CAN ALTER NATURALLY OCCURRING CLIMATE ALTERATIONS, DUE MAINLY TO THE SUN?



"AGW" IS TOTAL BULLSHIT...ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

OR PLEASE, BY ALL MEANS, SHOW US ALL WHERE WARMING LIKE WE SAW THAT FORMED THE GREAT LAKES, GLACIERS and THE RAPIDLY MOVING ICE SHEETS DRAGGED 100 TON + BOULDERS FROM COLORADO 1,000 MILES INTO CANADA IS TAKING PLACE NOW.


I'LL WAIT HERE....

 

[BartenderElite]

TRY RESEARCHING THE TOPIC, AND THEN EXPLAIN HOW WE CAN ALTER NATURALLY OCCURRING CLIMATE ALTERATIONS, DUE MAINLY TO THE SUN?



"AGW" IS TOTAL BULLSHIT...ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

OR PLEASE, BY ALL MEANS, SHOW US ALL WHERE WARMING LIKE WE SAW THAT FORMED THE GREAT LAKES, GLACIERS and THE RAPIDLY MOVING ICE SHEETS DRAGGED 100 TON + BOULDERS FROM COLORADO 1,000 MILES INTO CANADA IS TAKING PLACE NOW.


I'LL WAIT HERE....

You can wait as long as you want.

This isn't a thread about warming. Again, I'd recommend that you re-read what I posted. You're providing an example of what I'm referring to.

 

[BartenderElite]

This has become so political. People respond in a knee-jerk way now, for the most part.

This is an important issue. It demands more of us - if we want to try to solve it.

 

[Grokmaster]

You can wait as long as you want.

This isn't a thread about warming. Again, I'd recommend that you re-read what I posted. You're providing an example of what I'm referring to.

IN THAT CASE, YES. I AGREE,WE HAVE FAR MORE PRESSING CLIMATE CRISES THAN THE IMAGINARY CO2 "BOOGEYMAN", AND WE'D BEST STOP IGNORING IT FOR THE POLITICS OF THE "CLIMATISTAS".



THE CONTAMINATION OF OUR AIR, SOIL and WATER, BY HEAVY METALS , AND OTHER MASSIVELY TOXIC COMPOPUNDS. UNFORTUNATELY, 90%+ OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND REPAIR FUDING GOES TO THE MANIACAL WARMISTS.


AGREED.

 

[BartenderElite]

IN THAT CASE, YES. I AGREE,WE HAVE FAR MORE PRESSING CLIMATE CRISES THAN THE IMAGINARY CO2 "BOOGEYMAN", AND WE'D BEST STOP IGNORING IT FOR THE POLITICS OF THE "CLIMATISTAS".



THE CONTAMINATION OF OUR AIR, SOIL and WATER, BY HEAVY METALS , AND OTHER MASSIVELY TOXIC COMPOPUNDS. UNFORTUNATELY, 90%+ OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND REPAIR FUDING GOES TO THE MANIACAL WARMISTS.


AGREED.

Not that I agree w/ all of the sentiments here, but I appreciate this response. Both sides can share concern about our environment and what we're doing to it.

I wish that environmental leaders would de-emphasize talk about AGW. It's too polarizing, and the crisis on our planet is real with or without it.

 

[moon]

Why are we still debating the climate?

It's not so much ' debating ' as pillorying the Denier Choir. They're done.

 

[anonymoose]

Because people agree the climate is changing

The weather is changing. It's getting slightly warmer. That's not a change in climate. Has the climate of northern coastal CA, e.g. , changed from cold-summer mediterranean in the last 300 years? Is there any climate of any region that has had their climate classification changed? If so I'd like to know which one(s) because I'm not aware of any.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

AGW is a distraction to me. It's the shiny object in the climate "debate." It allows detractors to focus on something unproveable, and ignore the larger crisis that is near a tipping point.

We are losing whole ecosystems at this point. We're in the middle of a mass extinction (and unlike AGW, that one is on us, without a doubt). We're losing habitat, drinkable water & breathable air at alarming rates.

None of this is even remotely sustainable, even for another decade. People used to talk about preserving the planet for our children & our children's children - but this is about us just as much as anyone.

We can't possibly be this shortsighted and careless. This is a crisis, and it's the most important and impactful crisis we have. Without a habitable planet, all of the other issues are meaningless.

This shouldn't be political. This should be the top priority for both parties, and for every world leader.

Many other nations are taking climate change very seriously. Hopefully the Biden administration will follow suit. You are right. The time to argue that it's not real is long past. It's real. We need to deal with it, or else. It's a national security issue as well as a global economic issue.

 

[Into the Night]

AGW is a distraction to me. It's the shiny object in the climate "debate." It allows detractors to focus on something unproveable,

It is not possible. See the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

and ignore the larger crisis that is near a tipping point.

There is no 'tipping point'. Buzzword fallacy.

We are losing whole ecosystems at this point.

Define 'ecosystem'.

We're in the middle of a mass extinction (and unlike AGW, that one is on us, without a doubt).

Define 'mass extinction'.

We're losing habitat,

Cities and suburbs comprise less than 1% of the land surface area. You need to get out in the country more.

drinkable water

It still rains and snows.

breathable air at alarming rates.

The relative oxygen content has not changed.

None of this is even remotely sustainable, even for another decade.

The usual Doom and Gloom prediction from a fundamentalist religion.

People used to talk about preserving the planet for our children & our children's children - but this is about us just as much as anyone.

Earth is big enough to take care of itself. It is sheer arrogance to think you or anyone else has the power to destroy it.

We can't possibly be this shortsighted and careless.

We can't possible be this powerful.

This is a crisis,

Crisis? What crisis?

and it's the most important and impactful crisis we have.

Crisis? What crisis?

Without a habitable planet, all of the other issues are meaningless.

Your buzzword are meaningless.

This shouldn't be political.

It is both religious and political.

This should be the top priority for both parties, and for every world leader.

Sorry, the Church of Green is a radical, fundamentalist style religion. It has no place in becoming the State religion of any nation.

 

[Into the Night]

Because people agree the climate is changing

Climate has not value associated with it. What is 'changing'?
Define 'climate change'.

doesn't mean they will agree on how we should approach/address it.

You can't address something you can't define.

And there are plenty of people who give lip service to need to address climate change until it affects them and their life style.

You can't address what you can't define.

And you have (developing) countries around the globe who don't necessarily want to fall in line with what America wants done.

America is not the world.

 

[Into the Night]

To get at what I was trying to say about the life style thing I'll offer an analogy. In San Francisco we've passed a $1 billion + bond for housing the homeless. The ballot measure passed by a good margin. But now that the City tries to build that housing people are like "hell no, don't build that anywhere near me" and this has happened throughout the City.

I don't blame them.

Plenty of people will pay lip service to the existential threat that climate change poses but when it comes to brass tax aren't ready to make changes to their life style that would be required to address it.

You have to define 'climate change' before you can address it.

 

[Blackcat13th]

I don't blame them.

You have to define 'climate change' before you can address it.

This poser thinks definitions are the only important thing when it actually happens that they're the least important thing. Outright delusions and general psychosis as a matter of it. Indoctrinated agnosia.