Mikie. Could you please explain what somebody must believe in order to avoid being called a "denier"? — Agree-to-Disagree

I’ll respond this one last time to you, then you’re going on ignore:

Don’t worry about it. I’ve explained it before, but it really doesn’t matter. Think of yourself any way you like, and be well. No hard feelings.

Yeah, says the guy who takes “let’s stay on topic” as “insisting on one stance is against the forum’s ethos.”

Yes, among you and those line you, I’m sure it’s “well known.” In fact I hope it is, because maybe you’ll stop bothering me with stupid bullshit like this.

Yeah— you’re right. Keeping a thread on a topic is definitely against the forum’s “ethos.”

If you’re both too stupid to understand what’s been said, and don’t bother to read, or “Don’t care,” then consider shutting the fuck up next time. :up: :grin:

You've proved yourself to be a risible character with absolutely zero self-awareness. — AmadeusD

I don’t even know who the hell you are, but OK!

“Risible” — :lol: That tells me all I need to know about you, in any case. (Speaking of “self-awareness.”)

No, it often does. Except when random imbeciles make Twitter-like comments for no reason — the joy in that comes from laughing at them, I guess. Or should I say it’s “risible.”

Having a thread which allows for a single stance is directly against the ethos of the forum. — AmadeusD

That’s not what was said. Try reading.

Mikies behaviour in general, for the last year at least has been almost unacceptably so. — AmadeusD

Is this English? You write as well as you read.

He's like the kid every lets run around and do weird shit because they're not to be taken too seriously. — AmadeusD

I don’t recall having any interaction with you whatsoever, so not sure where this is coming from.

Another idiot out of nowhere heard from— cool. Valuable insight. :lol:

find ↪Hanover's point more persuasive than your assertion. — Leontiskos

Which had nothing to do with what you said.

find ↪fdrake's post more persuasive than your assertion. — Leontiskos

Which has nothing to do with what you said.

And neither had much to do with what I said either.

That guy isn’t relevant. I ignored him for over a year, and I’ll do so again once I get my desktop and the ignore extension works again— and in the meantime too.

The point of a new thread is that the less specific one attracts a lot of people who want to debate climate change itself— and perhaps this distinguishes that a little in the future.

If things get too spammy, I’ll just start a private group chain via messages.

Trump is freezing climate funds. Can he do that?

“Courts have ordered the president to release Biden-era climate money — but he’s holding out.”

How this turns out will be significant in terms of legal precedent and will have some impact, but not a lot, on the transition to renewables. Likely to be stopped by the courts. Informative read. Gives detailed information about how funds are distributed.

Despite the US’s current government doing its best to destroy the prospects of decent survival, the transition is happening. Likely too late, as it should have happened 40 years ago— but it doesn’t seem like one administration of dopey climate deniers and fossil fuel shills can really stop it.

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records. The economic impact is in the hundreds of billions per year and increasing— far outweighing the cost of transitioning to renewables and mitigation efforts (this rendering the argument that it’s “too expensive” rather absurd).

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

one-off requests that lack overall consistency with the ethos of the forum, and which create lots of extra work for moderators do not seem like a great option. — Leontiskos

It’s exactly consistent with the ethos of the forum, and actually saves moderators time.

So I have no idea what you’re talking about.

When Russian forces crashed over the borders into Ukraine in 2022 determined to wipe it off the map as an independent state, the United States rushed to aid the beleaguered nation and cast its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a hero of resistance.

From NY Times.

Laughable.

But what is the rule you want? How would you frame the specific words of the rule? — Fire Ologist

What’s already in place: if you want to debate climate change, whether it’s happening, whether it’s human caused, etc., go to the debate thread. Simply a matter of staying on topic.

But climate change is empirical science so it is full of fact gathering that must be evaluated, analysis that begs further development, conclusions subject to logical scrutiny, hypotheses that prompt the whole process of fact gathering, analysis and conclusion again…. To say a hint of distrust of the soundness of a conclusion, or the counter example to some fact means the person has gone off topic - seems weak to me. — Fire Ologist

I’m all for that. The last sentence has nothing to do with me.

I’m interested in discussing the predictions and obstacles in the way of mitigation. I’m not interested in debating climate deniers who pretend to be doing this.

But policing truth deniers and enforcing banning and deletions of ideas, — Fire Ologist

I’m not advocating that.

There is such a thing as staying on topic. The topic isn’t to debate whether climate change is happening. That should be a separate thread. Just as a thread about evolution shouldn’t include debates about creationism.

True, you can just ignore people— but then where’s the boundary? At what point should we have any rules at all? Next time a thread is started on Kant, I’ll start talking about Donald Trump. How’s that sound? Just ignore me — because any other action would be “antithetical to the methods of science and mission of philosophers.”

Do you guys think the thread suggested demands an acceptance that one's ideology is the only one worth having, or do you distinguish it from this rule? — Hanover

Any prediction of global social collapse and extinction is idiotic. — frank

So, it might be better just to flag low quality or troll posts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I appreciate the response— but nothing comes of that. Whereas moving off-topic posts is perhaps more manageable. This way climate deniers (who definitely AREN’T climate deniers, wink wink) can spam and troll a separate thread with their inane observations.

I agree about mitigation efforts and problems with transitioning to renewables, etc. In fact I’ve discussed them at length. That’s quite different from making things up, or posting misinformation from low-quality sources, or citing well-known climate deniers — over and over again, even after the first 50 were roundly debunked.

In any case — I just flagged several. Maybe someone can take a look. For example, I recently tried posting a thorough post about climate as an introduction, for those possibly interested — and it gets drowned out, yet again, by irrelevant discussions and vendettas. Should those not be removed? Why aren’t they? Is anything in the lounge now just a free-for-all? I know we give some leniency to emotional topics like the Middle East and Ukraine, or even Donald Trump— but can’t science be discussed intelligently without spam?

f I had been moderating, I would have deleted and warned Mikie too, several times. — unenlightened

Yes, and rightfully so.

I don’t suffer fools. I don’t like them, I have little tolerance for them. Especially sanctimonious ones. But I do hope they find the shining path to self awareness and their own gross hypocrisy someday.

I think he mostly ignores Agree-to-Disagree these days. — unenlightened

Yes. I had him on the ignore list for over a year— among others. Now that that’s not an option, I can see all the more how often the thread has been trolled.

If only we could all aspire to get to the level of those who feel entitled to lecture others about their tone, childishness, flaming, and lack of substance…

Hey Mikie, how do you keep an idiot in suspense? — Agree-to-Disagree

I will carefully explain it to you in language that an idiot can understand. — Agree-to-Disagree

P.S. I don't want help from an alarmist idiot. — Agree-to-Disagree

There is only one type of climate activist. The gullible, unrealistic, idiot. — Agree-to-Disagree

All those idiots protesting and pushing for CO2 reduction for all those decades, screaming about how global warming would be the “end of humanity.” Did it happen?? No! Just more doomerism/alarmism. — Agree-to-Disagree

Any prediction of global social collapse and extinction is idiotic. — frank

It's all fixable. — frank

That kind of sounds like bs — frank

You suck. — frank

you great boob — frank

I only hope one day I can be as deep, as thoughtful, as substantive. Then maybe I too can be as sanctimonious.

We debate all people, not just the educated, ethical, or highly intelligent. — Philosophim

Right— so create a thread where we can debate anything, even a flat earth. But the geology thread isn’t the place for that.

Whereas my suggestion is precisely the opposite — unenlightened

I know. I should have said “my” suggestion.

This is a discussion site, and I want to discuss. But I don't want to discuss garbage. — unenlightened

Exactly.

It is only through a discussion that we can show them that their idea is incorrect, nonsense, or rubbish. — MoK

Absolutely. And that has been done, countless times — and not just from curmudgeons like me, but from far more patient and thorough individuals. But that can come to dominate the discussion, and the climate change thread wasn’t meant to be such a venue. Thus, why not branch that discussion off to a separate thread?

People can discuss anything they like— creationism, a flat earth, Holocaust denial, anything, as far as I’m concerned (within the site’s rules). Just in the appropriate thread. The climate change thread isn’t a debate about whether climate change is happening, or how the scientific community is probably wrong about it because of groupthink, etc.

Do you guys think the thread suggested demands an acceptance that one's ideology is the only one worth having, or do you distinguish it from this rule? — Hanover

What ideology are you referring to exactly?

Imagine a thread on evolution, where creationists spam constantly. Is objecting to this spam “ideological”?

A more extreme example: a thread about the events of the Holocaust being spammed by Holocaust deniers. Ideological? Is it bigoted to suggest that perhaps they need another thread?

And no— it’s exactly a suggestion that a debate thread is started. The climate change thread wasn’t intended to be a place where the basic, overwhelmingly supported facts are repeatedly attacked with silly, long-refuted, thinly-veiled climate denial “arguments.” Hence why a separate thread should exist for that purpose.

The suggestion isn’t to prevent free expression, however ignorant, or to ban anyone— however deserving.

Can the mods weigh in on this please? Thank you.

@Jamal@Michael@Hanover@Benkei@Baden@Count Timothy von Icarus@Moliere

What is hard to take in the topic under discussion is the disruption of what is otherwise a slow and hopefully educational development of the topic, by low quality and disagreeable posts, from people who think themselves clever and hilarious - aka trolls. — unenlightened

Yes. As I mentioned, it’s akin to a thread on biological evolution being spammed by creationist garbage. Of course they call themselves “intelligent design” theorists now, much like climate deniers call themselves “skeptics,” but the analogy holds. It’s religious-like nonsense that isn’t amenable to reason, argument, or evidence.

I too think most of it should be deleted and trolls banned— but that’s asking a lot of moderators to constantly monitor the goings-on of a long thread. I think a better solution is to create another thread and flag posts that are off-topic (denialist bullshit) to be moved there. Thus people who feel qualified to disagree with the worldwide consensus and overwhelming evidence because they “think for themselves” (i.e., have spent several hours on YouTube) have a place to share their thoughts, however childish. And we can more easily ignore them.

If that doesn’t work, I’ll create a separate, more specific thread about climate change and leave the old one to the trolls.

I agree but it should be called for what it is, ‘denialism’. — Wayfarer

You’re right, but I want to be nice. No one admits to being a denier these days— no one. Not even Trump.

Currently — and several times over the years — the main thread gets spammed by nonsense. After pages of engagement and refutation— especially by @unenlightened and some others — more denialist garbage gets thrown in anyway, derailing the topic and cluttering the thread.

World’s highest solar plant by elevation goes online in China

PowerChina, the project contractor, completed the project 42 days ahead of schedule in just 115 days by using pre-installed mounts and on-site assembly lines, which increased construction efficiency by 40%, despite the challenges of the plateau environment.

China will undoubtedly keep the lead in both solar and EVs. The US will regret falling so far behind. But at least they kept some Exxon shareholders happy for a few years.

You don’t want terrorism, stop engaging in terrorism.

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records. The economic impact is in the hundreds of billions per year and increasing— far outweighing the cost of transitioning to renewables and mitigation efforts (this rendering the argument that it’s “too expensive” rather absurd).

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

Interesting and well-written perspectives? What’s the thread coming to?

Anyway — how seriously do we take anything Trump says? Words and posturing matter, given the US’s stature, but I can’t see Trump allowing Russia to annex Ukrainian territory and permanently shelving NATO membership — which is likely be non-negotiable aspects of any settlement. Hegseth has asked already walked back statements re: NATO.

Btw— maybe this was answered already, but why are you leaving moderation? I had a baby —what’s your excuse?

@fdrake

Stoking the fire is a bannable offense.

you're cute. I like your owners hat. — flannel jesus

Thank you, sir.

Ah — further demonstrating keen perception.

Oh — I’m a guy. That’s me in my profile picture. Why?

What are your pronouns? — Arcane Sandwich

What?

@fdrake

The fact that you kept a member who not only is often abusive (but of course excuses himself for) but, worse, reduces the forum to Twitter-level content — for years — shows how tolerant and level-headed you were. That’s my goodbye message.

Can you grant preemptive pardons to your favorite members as part of your last moderator actions?

Just realized that CO2 levels and Olivia Rodrigo have both increased together — in ppm and age, respectively.

Thus, let’s try to slow reduction of emissions.