Yes well the problem is that people seldom agree on which facts are correct. We all know that a good wordsmith can craft a fact to fit a desire. Can a bunch of liberals and a bunch of conservatives get together and find some kind of agreement about the true causes of climate change? It'd be nice if that could happen. But for each side to simply sling their opinions or which facts are real back and forth accomplishes nothing.

First we have to agree, really agree, not that climate change exists because it does.. we have to agree about the causes. Until this happens I choose to believe that climate change is not caused by human activity.

One scientific school has declared that the cycles of the sun as combined with those of the Earth's rotational and orbital eccentricities are to blame. Are there any liberals willing to take a serious look at this? Be nice if their were.

Thanks for the comment... It's funny. We are living in a threat of global communism and we can't find anything better to do than to argue about climate change.

Yes well the problem is that people seldom agree on which facts are correct. — Varnaj42

You may not disagree, but the fact of human-induced climate change is proven beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of how you feel about it.

We are living in a threat of global communism and we can't find anything better to do than to argue about climate change. — Varnaj42

Yes so perhaps you can find something more constructive to say rather than waste further time denying the science.

The science is very clear - increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, plainly correlated to emissions caused by human activities, are unmistakeably linked to increasing global temperatures. It is very clear and simple. There might be scientists who want to dispute that, but scientists were employed by the tobacco industry to cast doubt over the link to lung cancer (see Merchants of Doubt). It's the same kind of scenario with climate-change denial, there are many vested interests who want to deny it.

OK so since China is making wind farms and solar panels they can be forgiven for all their polluting activities?

I don't believe that climate change is a threat at all. My opinion is that all this hype is just another game being played by the big boys with all the money.

Here is my opinion about our future. Earth changes are natural and normal. It's OK to discuss them but it's not OK to run around like chickens with no heads going berserk over who to blame. This is not the road that mature human beings would waste their time with. It is the lower road taken by the emotional masses who believe whatever they're told to believe.

With proper leadership our country can overcome anything. Right now we have bad leadership. This is the reason there is so much social strife. When Trump returns to the Oval office the buck will stop at his desk. He will actually do something. How refreshing that will be.

When Trump returns to the Oval office the buck will stop at his desk. He will actually do something. How refreshing that will be. — Varnaj42

Now we see your true colors.

Decades ago I read about the traditional wine growing regions of Europe moving northward because of slowly changing seasonal variations. Then we found that fine wines were being produced in England. This is a part of climate change??? Probably.

If our world heats up just a bit more then the northern lands will be available for agriculture. They haven't been since the crustal shift of 12,000 years ago. This will be a renewal. Kind of like crop rotation. Or the farming practice of letting a field go to nature for a couple of seasons so that it can be renewed through natural growth and animal life.

It's true that if the sea levels rise there will be major populations migrating. But more will now be able to live comfortably in the far north. And the northern, Arctic seas will be free of ice and navigable for a change.

Humanity will find a way to deal with it. My major complaint and the thing that we conservatives fight against is the threat of living in authoritarian societies as a result of it. Those are never good.

But why am I worried. I remember the hype over Y2K. The world was going to end because computers would crash. Yeah sure!!! All the same voices that were yelling about that supposed event are now at it again over climate change. Meanwhile real, thinking people, sit quietly knowing that the fires of beserkness will eventually burn low.

In my next lifetime I will be born to the Martian colony. There, we will survive by cooperating, not arguing. How nice it will be.

Now we see your true colors. — Wayfarer

Alot of climate denialism often boils down to dumb politics. Oh, and rich oil lobbyists who profit off nothing being done (for very obvious reasons) who manage to dupe the former into fighting for their interests.

You liberals would be lost without the word "deny" to throw at people. I do not "deny" science at all. I simply disagree as do many others about conclusions made. And the reason is simple... Whenever human beings are involved there are always differing opinions. If you know anything about science you will know that scientists seldom agree on anything.

No. I suggest to you that just because you say it's settled does not mean it is. So easy to toss out a slogan and then sit back with arms folded. Sorry. The science of climate change causes is still far from being settled regardless of the claims that you make.

In any case does it matter if you and I don't agree? Not in the slightest.

Meanwhile I do my bit. I have solar panels for lighting and computers in my home. I also designed and built a large solar water heater on a platform. I use it to pre-heat water as it enters the electric water heater. This was my own idea. It works great and my electric bill is down by more than $80 a month even in the winter. I have more than 65 years of experience in the broad area of electrical engineering field. I haven't time for brain dead college professors who rant and rave over things they know nothing about.

I don't need scientists to lead the way. This is another thing that we conservatives are good at.

Thanks for the comment.

Yes, climate fluctuations, population crashes, and mass extinctions are normal features of Earth history.

I'm not worried at all about the next one, because I've got my stash, and everyone else is an idiot.

We seem to be suffering through a time when using insults is almost a knee jerk, default tactic. How casually you call another an idiot. please stop doing this. Grow up a bit. Use words that convey real concerns. Leave the food fights for the children.

The trouble with the climate change debate is not any science besides social science. Human beings, like animals, form tribes. In each tribe a set of conditions exist. People gravitate to one or another based on how they feel and what they believe.

Look at our congress. Tribes!!!! Each side swearing they are correct and the other are wrong. What science, I ask, can make this emotional non-thinking go away?

In climate change it's the same way. Each side claims to have the science on their side. Even the most careless application of logic will show that this can't be correct. But instead of working together to resolve the issues we fight, fight, fight... calling out the other side. You're an idiot. He or she is an idiot. No. You people are climate deniers.

We humans deserve exactly what we now have and that is our fault. All of us are to blame.

I'm in my eighties now. I won't have to be here much longer to see the world go to hell in a hand basket just because emotionalism modifies science.

Is there no way we can cut CO2 emissions quickly? Sure there is: We can all adopt a lifestyle based on 1890s technology — BC

Actually. 1960—1970ish would be fine. For the whole world.

because emotionalism modifies science. — Varnaj42

Pot meet kettle. The only one "modifying" clear science here is you. You say you disagree with the conclusion we're in a man-made climate crisis but I've not seen you waylay even one claim of, for instance, the IPCC let alone rebut the overall argument. It's only "it's political". Well, no shit Sherlock, mass mobilisation is effectively done through politics.

We seem to be suffering through a time when using insults is almost a knee jerk, default tactic. How casually you call another an idiot. please stop doing this. Grow up a bit. Use words that convey real concerns. Leave the food fights for the children. — Varnaj42

Given the amount of attention your posts have received and the number of substantive responses pointing out the errors in your arguments, I think people have been more than patient with you.

Also given that people have been debating this issue for decades with the science on manmade climate change only becoming more clear, the urgency to act only becoming more prominent due to the wasted time spent, and the constant moving of the goal posts by likely bad faith actors (like those paid by the fossil fuel lobby) in order to prevent such action I don't blame people for being a little frustrated either.

Alot of climate denialism often boils down to dumb politics. Oh, and rich oil lobbyists who profit off nothing being done (for very obvious reasons) who manage to dupe the former into fighting for their interests. — Mr Bee

:clap:

Yes indeed.

Is there no way we can cut CO2 emissions quickly? Sure there is: We can all adopt a lifestyle based on 1890s technology
— BC

Actually. 1960—1970ish would be fine. For the whole world. — Benkei

The 1890s required a lot of coal. Remember London was in a giant coal smoke fog back then?

The 70s was post combustion engine, so that won't work.

We need the technology of 2065: fusion.

https://xkcd.com/1732/ — Benkei

This is excellent.

We need the technology of 2065: fusion. — frank

I see what you did there :D

I don't believe that climate change is a threat at all. — Varnaj42

Here is my opinion about our future. Earth changes are natural and normal. — Varnaj42

I have solar panels for lighting and computers in my home — Varnaj42

You say three things here:

1. Climate change poses no threats to humanity.
2. Climate change occurs as part of a natural process.
3. Even if #2 is false and humans cause climate change, you're doing what you can to stem it by choosing non carbon based sources of energy.

My questions:

1. If climate change poses no threats, then why bother playing junior scientist and hazard an opinion as to its cause? Whether it's caused by humans or sun spots, you've just declared it no big deal, so why worry about what's causing it? Why this need to protect the reputation of humans?

2. If carbon based emissions are not the cause of climate change, why are you telling us about the cost savings measures you've found for your energy needs? Are you just giving us wise consumer advice?

It's about energy usage, how much people travelled and consumed. 1970 would be fine. Some dude in the Netherlands did the calculations at some point.

The 1890s required a lot of coal. Remember London was in a giant coal smoke fog back then? — frank

We all were using a lot less energy in 1890, London's coal fog notwithstanding. The really bad smog episodes were caused by temperature inversion layers over London, plus lack of regulation.

Here's a graph of energy usage (in MTOE - million tons of oil equivalent) from https://www.encyclopedie-energie.org/en/world-energy-consumption-1800-2000-results/



What would this kind of dramatic energy reduction mean?

1) much more walking
2) much more bicycling
3) electrified transit on light or heavy rails
4) much more physical labor
5) far fewer chemicals manufactured
6) organic farming, by default
7) much more exposure to hot and cold weather (no air conditioning)
8) much less consumption of dry goods (clothing, for instance), and other manufactured goods
9) no plastics!
10) a smaller population and not by choice

I think the overlooked problem is the relationship between human impact on the ecosystem and population. Global population has tripled in the last 70 years. Anyone who thinks that there isn't a serious eco-crisis - however you want to classify and quantify it - must be living in their own world. Lucky for them.

It's about energy usage, how much people travelled and consumed. 1970 would be fine. Some dude in the Netherlands did the calculations at some point. — Benkei

That doesn't make much sense to me. I don't see how it would matter whether we emit 100 billion metric tons per decade or per century. Can you explain?

Population is absolutely a problem. While birth rates are falling, the population is still growing -- it reached 8 billion about a year ago.

Beware of pointing to population as a contributing factor in this eco-crisis, you will get accused of being a Malthusian. It's not overlooked, it's taboo to talk about it.

We all were using a lot less energy in 1890, — BC

I don't think the rate of emission matters much. Produce the emission size from the 1890s over a period of 500 years and you've got a climate crisis.

It's not overlooked, it's taboo to talk about it. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, which is unfathomable to me. Whatever the contributing factors to ecological damage are, they are magnified by the size of the population. If we can't at some point rise to the level of rational dialogue, I don't suppose we are as a species worthy of survival anyway.

Population is absolutely a problem. While birth rates are falling, the population is still growing -- it reached 8 billion about a year ago. — BC

Population is contracting in all the core nations. The next generation will be the first to experience the problems associated with this. Japan will be first I think.

We all were using a lot less energy in 1890,
— BC

I don't think the rate of emission matters much. Produce the emission size from the 1890s over a period of 500 years and you've got a climate crisis. — frank

I does matter some, there are carbons sinks that have more time to draw carbon out of the atmosphere, and slower emissions do mean slower temperature change, which give us and eco-systems more time to adapt.

That doesn't make much sense to me. I don't see how it would matter whether we emit 100 billion metric tons per decade or per century. — frank

Carbon dioxide is recycled -- recaptured -- by biological processes, IF -- BIG IF -- the carrying capacity of the planet is not exceeded. Maybe the planet can recycle 100 bmt of carbon in a century without a climate consequence. 100 bmt per decade is 10 times as high, and might exceed the planet's carrying capacity, resulting in global warming.

Exactly.

It's not overlooked, it's taboo to talk about it.
— ChatteringMonkey

Yes, which is unfathomable to me. Whatever the contributing factors to ecological damage are, they are magnified by the size of the population. If we can't at some point rise to the level of rational dialogue, I don't suppose we are as a species worthy of survival anyway. — Pantagruel

It's a thorny issue in more than one way, but a large part of the problem is that acknowledging all the different aspects of the issue, poses fundamental problems to all current dominant political ideologies... They don't seem to be able to incorporate what would be needed into their ideology without becoming something else.