全 150 件のコメント

[–]Wetnapkin69 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Why is it a "liberal" thing to accept climate science and a "conservative" thing to reject it? Surely there's more to it than contrarianism?

[–]MiyegomboBayartsogtSupporter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's a 'liberal/leftist' thing to embrace sudden, catastrophic, man made, climate change formerly known as global warming as a scheme to impose a punishing tax capitalism and globally redistribute Western wealth to the despots at the UN. It is 'conservative' thing to question the need to tax the means of planetary production and corral otherwise free citizens in the name of a central command climate.

[–]_nefario_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

because of millions of years of tribalism being bred into us through evolution

[–]Theogent 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (20子コメント)

My opinion on climate change:

I think it is probably happening and even if it isn't we need to do something about taking better care of the environment. However, that something can't sacrifice thousands of jobs and force third world countries to lose power, heat, and remain undeveloped. I don't know if there is a perfect solution to satisfying both of those needs though.

My opinion on the video: Even if she's right - she came off as a conceited bitch and that isn't going to win anyone over to your side. Smug liberals, because lets face it - she probably isn't a conservative, is just one reason why Trump won the election.

[–]Chicken2nite [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Places that lack infrastructure have the benefit of being able to leap frog the places with aging infrastructure. This happened at the beginning of the industrial revolution with Germany overtaking Britain.

Many third world countries now are bypassing land lines for high speed cellular, and a decade ago they were laying down fiber optic everywhere. I don't see why developing countries can't do the same for their energy needs.

Meanwhile, I would have to assume that the lady in the video came off as smug because she was upset at being used as evidence for the opposite of what she believes is the truth.

[–]HomesteadGeek [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Q: Many third world countries now are bypassing land lines for high speed cellular, and a decade ago they were laying down fiber optic everywhere. I don't see why developing countries can't do the same for their energy needs.

A: Because it's not cost effective. It's much cheaper to buy non-green energy production and the fuel it needs. It appears cost effective when you live in a western nation that heavily subsidizes production and sale of green energy but the reality is that it's not as cost effective without subsidies and it's a hard sell to someone who doesn't have running water, basic sanitation, etc.

[–]Theogent [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I don't disagree with you. I can't say my behavior would be much different. I'm a die-hard conservative, and I can't stand Breitbart. I'm just saying that if we want to get through to the well-intentioned conservatives who don't want to take steps to save the environment, acting like this isn't going to make a change. It is just going to make people upset and want to dig into their trenches deeper.

[–]fkofffanboy [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Sorry if people lecturing science in response to their image being used to spread misinformation is triggering for some people, I believe it's justified to point out and not to downplay the ridiculousness of people who have nothing but bullshit and political bias when they argue about climate change.

If you say stupid shit like CO2 only does good for the environment, and then get triggered when someone says thats fucking stupid and unfounded in reality and provides you sources that indicate a clear consensus and information that are impossible to contest, you just further your own image of stupidity and ignorance when you say something petty and deviating like „This is why Trump won”, whatever the fuck happened to conceding a point or recognizing an objective truth, politics be fucking damned, I can be a conservative and disagree and call out people spreading bullshit, anyone is justified in reacting with outrage at pure bullshit being presented as anything of substance, in contradiction with a clear consensus reached by means of scientific method. If nobody is allowed to be outraged even at something like THAT, then thats just as insane and extremist as the thinking of the people you hate, that you presume are outraged at everything without any reason.

[–]Theogent [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I didn't say anything about all that shit you are going on about. I even said that I think global warming is most likely a problem, or even if it isn't, we need to take steps to treat our environment much better. Settle down.

I'm just saying that if you want bi-partisan work on this and want to convince some of the more hard-headed, but good intentioned conservatives out there you can't present your information in a conceited matter regardless if that behavior is justified or not. I just want us to get along despite our differences and make positive changes in the world. Staying angry and acting angry is, like I said, why someone like Trump was viewed as a good candidate for president by millions.

[–]kitsune 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is hard not to come off as a 'smug liberal' when you look at what Breitbart and the Daily Mail and did. Since I do not think their journalists are ignorant idiots the conclusion we are left with is that they knowingly and purposfully mislead the public. So then you have to ask the other question: Why? And why do a lot of conservatives choose to take their lies as gospel? This is incredibly frustrating.

[–]ThinkMinty [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

My opinion on the video: Even if she's right - she came off as a conceited bitch and that isn't going to win anyone over to your side. Smug liberals, because lets face it - she probably isn't a conservative, is just one reason why Trump won the election.

Facts don't care about your feelings, man.

[–]Theogent [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I personally agree with you, but the majority of our society clearly thinks otherwise. Just giving out the cold hard facts without being sarcastic and conceited would make it much easier for a hard headed person to reconsider their position. I'm just saying this in the name of hoping a change can happen and that greater bi-partisanship can be achieved.

Shapiro Thug Life.

[–]TheRootsCrew [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

My opinion on the video: Even if she's right - she came off as a conceited bitch and that isn't going to win anyone over to your side. Smug liberals, because lets face it - she probably isn't a conservative, is just one reason why Trump won the election.

You sound...triggered...

[–]saadghauri [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Even if she's right - she came off as a conceited bitch and that isn't going to win anyone over to your side. Smug liberals, because lets face it - she probably isn't a conservative, is just one reason why Trump won the election.

The reason is that a qualified woman appears like a conceited bitch and all liberals appear 'smug' to Trump supporters? Sounds about right

[–]Theogent [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm not a Trump supporter, but thanks for generalizing. Smug conservatives are just as responsible for a candidate like Hillary Clinton seeming like a good candidate. It is definitely on both sides, but this video particularly displayed a liberal.

[–]alienbaconhybrid [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

She is understandably angry that Breitbart misused a video of her to manipulate people into supporting politicians who will pretend we have to save jobs at all costs. Food and water shortages and catastrophic weather events are worth sacrifices.

[–]Jackimust [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I don't know if there is a perfect solution to satisfying both of those needs though.

with the issue on 3rd world countries losing power, i don't think this has to happen. so long as there's a proper transition to sustainable forms of energy, i don't see why anyone would ever have to go without power.

as for job loss, i think this is unavoidable. from what i can tell, younger people as a whole (regardless of party affiliation) prefer sustainable energy forms. as time progresses and solar panels, wind technology, etc. improves i think they'd choose those forms of energy over something like coal. as a result, those jobs seem like they'll vanish with time regardless of what anyone tries to do.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Saving "the environment" is different from reducing CO2 emissions. CO2 has no negative effect on the environment. In fact, plants consume CO2, so it probably helps the environment overall by encouraging plant growth. Thus, there is a huge difference between fighting actual pollution (ie smog in cities, sewage dumped in a river, etc) and fighting CO2 emissions which liberals say cause global warming.

[–]TheRootsCrew [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

CO2 has no negative effect on the environment.

except...suffocation of aerobic organisms...

[–]Dangers-and-Dongers [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

That's not even close to happening. No the reality is in terms of biomass an increase in CO2 would probably good. That has no bearing on how good it would be for humans though.

[–]TheRootsCrew [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No the reality is in terms of biomass an increase in CO2 would probably good.

....do you know what you just said?

[–]iAmRealCarlosDanger [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

fighting CO2 emissions which liberals say cause global warming.

You are so so so misinformed. It is not what liberals say, it is what scientists say and has been proven as a Fact. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Read this from wikipedia about greenhouse effect. The greenhouse gases make the atmosphere warmer.

CO2 has no negative effect on the environment. In fact, plants consume CO2, so it probably helps the environment overall by encouraging plant growth.

This is an extremely ill informed argument. This planet has a very delicate atmosphere. CO2 is a necessary element in it but if the concentration of CO2 increases, the ecosystem will not be able to cope with it. Earth is being increasingly deforested and the oceans which absorb the CO2 will get saturated as we produce more of it. Which means that the unabsorbed CO2 will remain in the atmosphere, thereby making the planet hotter leading to climate change.

[–]fkofffanboy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm going to post to you the same post I did on this subreddit a day ago

An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence.

Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.

It's not as simple as saying more co2 or more of the other greenhouse gases should mean immediate accelerated heating and no more winters, let's try to not simplify how climate change works.

For one thing, sporadic volcano activity can promote plant growth and indirectly diminish the impact even though CO2 output grows every year. Also, CO2 is part of a cycle, its not just a gas that fucks up everything on the planet, the problem is the carbon cycle is being affected by human activity.

sources: https://www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/science-booklets-0/science-climate-change/3-are-human-activities-causing

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm

By all means if you have sources to back up your claim please provide them, I think you're being extremely dismissive of the consensus of the professionals and of the empirical proofs, just because it happens to be shared by liberals. Maybe you know something groundbreaking about physics, maybe every chemical property of carbon is being faked by liberals and youre the only guy aware of that? If so please specify what claims or figures of the sources provided are in fact liberal propaganda, thanks.

[–]Daghi 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Breitbart has really fallen in quality. Some would say it was always garbage but I disagree. It always had a right wing bias but it used to do good journalism and not this kind of cheap narrative framing that's so popular on libral blogs.

[–]cityoflostwagesCentrist 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not to make an exact comparison but there was a time when HuffingtonPost wasn't so ridiculous either. Eventually Huffington sold out for $250m+ to AOL and the reporting and publishing style changed drastically into what it is today. If you could compare the first year to where it is today, I think everyone, including liberals, would be able to see a disturbing difference. I'm sure it is the same with brietbart/redstate or other similar top tier conservative news sites. All about dat $$$

[–]SKWM3000 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (53子コメント)

i await your counter argument, breitbart. as someone who is undecided on AGW, i relish a real dialogue on the science. so let's see it.

[–]Bardfinn 32 ポイント33 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I relish a real dialogue on the science

You shouldn't expect a real dialogue on the science from Breitbart, nor any of Breitbart's proxies. They're not scientists, much less climate scientists.

/u/Tired_Of_Nonsense's sole comment explains why.

[–]SKWM3000 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not expecting it. However, since they waded into the issue, they put the onus upon themselves to argue responsibly.

[–]JB_UK 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good luck with that!

But, think about it this way, if Breitbart waded into a debate about any other scientific topic, and were rebuffed, we wouldn't look forward to their response. If quantum mechanics suddenly became controversial, I'm not going to look for Breitbart for a 'debate'. I might as well expect to get my opinions on the Copenhagen interpretation from someone down the pub.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Saying that people can't talk about climate science without being a working climate scientist is like saying that atheists can't talk about the existence of God because none of them are ordained ministers.

[–]iAmRealCarlosDanger [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why don't you give me your opinion on how you would go about treating Lung Cancer in a detailed way. Explain me which drugs will you give to the patient and why? Explain what kind of radiation therapy will work the best. Your opinion will count for as much as any Doctor's opinion because you don't have to be a doctor to talk about curing cancer.

[–]johnyann -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They may be able to find anonymous climate scientists who they can speak on the behalf of.

This could get very interesting.

[–]RealBillWatterson 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (41子コメント)

If you're using Breitbart as a source for anything the conclusion is already foregone.

But if you want the data (instead of a cherry orchard) I like this XKCD visualization because it lets the data speak for itself. It shows the temperature and its fluctuations over a decent chunk of human history.

[–]posidonius_of_rhodesPM_ME_YOUR_CHABANAIS 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (28子コメント)

Just very quickly, after a very brief glance:

  • The Holocene Climatic Optimum (HCO) was warmer than the artist represents.

  • Had he gone back to the previous interglacial, the temperatures would have been warmer than today and any temperature in the present interglacial.

  • The Younger Dryas was colder than he represented.

  • The MWP was warmer than he represented.

  • He makes the claim that the MWP was only regional when that is far from settled in the literature. It's just a climate activist talking point.

  • He doesn't show the temperature decline from ~1940-1970.

  • He shows more warming from 1900 to today than has actually occurred.

  • The warming he shows from 2000 to 2016 is blatantly false. The warming rate actually slowed during this period. Search the scientific literature for the word "climate" and the word "hiatus" or "pause".

  • His projections going forward are totally wrong. He appears to be using high-end estimates for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), but assumes the climate will reach equilibrium within 84 years. It takes decades to centuries for the climate to reach equilibrium once forcings stabilize. Major cockup on his part. He should instead be using Transient Climate Response (TCR) instead, which is 1.8°C according to the IPCC's AR5 or 1.33°C according to at least one study post-AR5. He would then need to subtract from that value the amount of warming already attributable to CO2.

A few sources to support what I'm saying:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~blinsley/Dr._B._K_Linsley/Indonesia_&_Pacific_Intermediate_Water_files/Rosenthal.Linsley.Oppo%202013%20Pac.Ocean.Heat.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract

http://frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.com/2012/02/younger-dryas-sudden-cooling.html

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl

[–]Bardfinn 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (8子コメント)

So, I searched the literature for "hiatus" and "pause", as you asked, and immediately found (for starters):

https://dx.doi.org/10.1029%2F2015EO031147

https://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnclimate2938

https://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.aac9225

— all three of which conclude that there was no hiatus, as well as press releases and news sources, such as

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2015/november/no-pause-in-global-warming.html

Which shows that the science explicitly denies your assertion. Those are just some of the sources — there are many more available.


The problem is that you're not a climate scientist. You're cherry-picking things that seem to support your preferred conclusion, throwing out a smattering of citations, while denying that actual experts, who have spent decades in their profession, know what they're talking about.

Randall isn't a climate scientist — but he is a scientist, and he did get input and feedback from actual climate scientists on the graph.

Here's a challenge for you

Find a single accredited climate scientist who has an issue with the accuracy of his graph.

[–]posidonius_of_rhodesPM_ME_YOUR_CHABANAIS 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Edit: You guys need some new talking points. "Well I think the majority says this" and "Well NASA or the NAOO said _____ (when we've just gotten done saying how often times they deliberately misrepresent data)" isn't showing much intelligence on your part.

Hmm, interesting.

First Source

Hardly proving what you need it to.

Some studies found evidence that the leveling of global temperature rise resulted from absorption of the “missing” heat by the world’s oceans.

Other research indicated that although there was no pause in global temperature rise, there might have been a temporary slowdown of warming for the Northern Hemisphere.

Notice how within the article you yourself linked it shows contradictory data.

Second Source

Please read the conclusion section for me.

Our results support previous findings of a reduced rate of surface warming over the 2001–2014 period — a period in which anthropogenic forcing increased at a relatively constant rate. Recent research that has identified and corrected the errors and inhomogeneities in the surface air temperature record4 is of high scientific value. Investigations have also identified non-climatic artefacts in tropospheric temperatures inferred from radiosondes30 and satellites31, and important errors in ocean heat uptake estimates25. Newly identified observational errors do not, however, negate the existence of a real reduction in the surface warming rate in the early twenty-first century relative to the 1970s–1990s.

In summary, climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early twenty-first century6, in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing. This mismatch focused attention on a compelling science problem — a problem deserving of scientific scrutiny. Based on our analysis, which relies on physical understanding of the key processes and forcings involved, we find that the rate of warming over the early twenty-first century is slower than that of the previous few decades. This slowdown is evident in time series of GMST and in the global mean temperature of the lower troposphere.

This one falls somewhere in the middle, not a complete pause, but a fairly reasonable reduction in warming.

Third source

From the summary

However, the role of human-induced climate change has been discounted by some, owing to a markedly reduced increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) from 1998 through 2013, known as the hiatus

Now they continue to say that 2014 resumed being the hottest year on record. This being due to various changes which have been explained at length, such as a revision of older temperatures being revised downward and new tempuratures being revised upward, with little explanation.

Find a single accredited climate scientist who has an issue with the accuracy of his graph.

Would Michael Mann do? Considering he's one of the world's foremost climate alarmists?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/28/study-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-real/

It is Breitbart, but the key pieces of info are still there.

[–]Bardfinn 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (6子コメント)

The conclusions you're quoting all say "slowdown", not "pause" or "hiatus".

The Breitbart article you're linking to doesn't discuss Randall or his graph, nor does it establish than Mann has a problem with Randall's graph —

It isn't science, and it jumps to the conclusion that one scientist's problems with one facet of a methodology is equivalent to "a major rift".

Which is, frankly, sensationalist bullshit. *

I can find a few biologists that claim that they have problems with the evolutionary model of a population — that doesn't mean that they've just disproved evolution, nor that this is "a major rift" amongst evolutionary biologists over the Theory of Evolution.

All of what you've written has ignored or dodged my points:

The science doesn't support your assertions, and
Amateur "debates" serve solely to distract people from the actual science.

  • the entire article is sensationalist bullshit, to be frank. "Climate alarmists" indeed.

[–]posidonius_of_rhodesPM_ME_YOUR_CHABANAIS 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (5子コメント)

So your response is more or less "I don't care, I have sources that I haven't actually questioned" and "I think, but am not sure, that I have a majority"?

Just wanted to make sure I got all the bases

[–]Bardfinn 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

My response is "You're not a climate scientist, I'm not a climate scientist, but I am a scientist, and I understand how science works, and this comment section isn't a peer-reviewed study, and your conclusions are unsupported in the literature, and I am sure that the overwhelming majority, today and through the past forty years, of climate scientists are certain that anthropogenic climate change is an actual phenomenon, and I am sure that amateur "debates" like the one you're trying to engage me in are an attempt to gain popular support for the Kehoe Paradigm as applied to climate science".

At the top of this page we have a video of an actual scientist who is publicly, on the record, chastising Breitbart as being an ideologue cherry-picking drumbeater for hire that's Stealing the Valour of Science for nefarious purposes, and here at the bottom of this page we have you, dragging in a Breitbart hit piece after mis-representing climate science with a handful of Gish Galloping talking points.

And trying to put words in my mouth along the way.

I'm quite done.

[–]posidonius_of_rhodesPM_ME_YOUR_CHABANAIS 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (3子コメント)

  1. Not defending Breitbart's piece. If all controversial issues were decided based on if one side presents an argument that isn't correct then America would be a very mismatched place.

I am sure that the overwhelming majority, today and through the past forty years, of climate scientists are certain that anthropogenic climate change is an actual phenomenon

  1. Clever, acting as if I'm saying climate change hasn't happened, instead of what I am saying, which is the current situation is far from clear and not nearly as devastating as some are predicting.

  2. Wait, isn't it the left's argument that only climate scientists get to present data or tell us what's happening? So why does you being a scientist give you any credit?

[–]Bardfinn 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

  1. — if you could get a consensus of peer-reviewed climate science to agree with your assertion, I would assent to it.

  2. — I get credit because I am explicitly not arguing climate science. I am arguing that it is fundamentally wrong to lend scientific credence to the Kehoe Paradigm — which is what you're advancing — because the Kehoe Paradigm is not science. It doesn't matter whether that science is the science demonstrating that tetraethyllead is toxic, or that tobacco is a teratogen, or that anthropogenic climate change is causing record hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, flooding, heat waves, toxic algal blooms, ecosystem collapses, coral reef die-off and species extinctions. Arguing the Kehoe Paradigm is wrong. It is irresponsible, it is fiscally disastrous and morally and ethically bankrupt.

[–]JewJitzutTed 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (7子コメント)

16 years is very short when compared to the 4 billion year age of the earth. CO2 levels are at a record high, and there is no doubt it is caused by human emissions. From 1950-2016 they are about 33% higher than they have ever been in the last 400,000 years. It has also been proven that CO2 in the atmosphere leads to higher temperatures. A 16 year hiatus is meaningless considering the age of the earth. Science explains that over time, the earth will get hotter, maybe not over 16 years but definitely over 100 years, and even hotter in 1000 years which is extremely short on a geological timescale.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

[–]posidonius_of_rhodesPM_ME_YOUR_CHABANAIS 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm not sure if you read my comment or just ran out to www.climatechangetalkingpoints.com

[–]JewJitzutTed 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I read your comment and explained why a 16 year hiatus is insignificant. You can put together facts that can help you conclude that global warming is not a big deal. But you can also put together a lot more facts to conclude that global warming is a big deal. Also a lot of the scientists with PHDs that are climate change deniers are not reliable sources. Some accept their research money from groups that want to deny climate change for financial gains. Its the same thing the cigarette companies used to do to try to deny that smoking was bad for you, even though it is pretty clear today that smoking is bad for you.

[–]posidonius_of_rhodesPM_ME_YOUR_CHABANAIS 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Not really, you just said "No, because (talking points)."

You've made claims from sources, like NASA, that i'll assume you innocently quoted because you don't know that the climate debate involves contentions over who is reliable, not just what data is.

[–]JewJitzutTed 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Well I don't think the climate change deniers are reliable considering many of them take money from the oil industries. Http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.WEeXRqIrKqA

http://nebraskansforpeace.org/climate-change-deniers

These are some professors with funding from oil companies, there plenty more where these come from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels#Funding_from_energy_or_fossil_fuel_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Legates#Other_affiliations

[–]posidonius_of_rhodesPM_ME_YOUR_CHABANAIS 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well I don't think the climate change deniers are reliable considering many of them take money from the oil industries.

  1. Taking money doesn't automatically mean that data goes from true to false. What has happened is when this data comes out it's too hard to argue with it so instead you cast the person talking in doubt.

  2. So using your logic lobbyists like the Sierra club or other pro-environmental groups funding the opposite side of this spectrum means their data is wrong, or in doubt?

[–]JewJitzutTed [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Theres a 97% consensus that climate change is human caused when you look at peer reviewed scholarly research. 97% by people who study climate change as a living believe cimate change is caused by humans. If thousands of doctors who spend their life diagnosing illnesses all came together and 97% thought you had pneumonia, you'd listen to that 97% and take antibiotics to get better. You would not listen to the 3% who think you might not have pneumonia. But oh well, you can keep being an armchair scientist and create a story that fits what you want to believe. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

[–]TheAtomicOptionLibertarian 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Every time I start to feel comfortable accepting that climate change is a thing which is as severe as everyone on the left says (and therefore possibly a justification for the stupidly invasive corrections they want), I see the amount of stuff that's fundamentally uncertain in a post like this and feel uncertain again. Computer models are useful, but they're not "facts."

In the end we need a cohort of climate scientists with conservative political leanings to present a counterpoint from which we can determine how much of this stuff is settled science by seeing how much of it agrees with what the left says. We also need them to come up with effective solutions that spring from a conservative philosophy of thought. As long as the field remains dominated by a bunch of leftists whose solutions have a dual role of destroying conservative ideals of government at the same time as they attempt to solve the climate problem, we're not likely to get anywhere.

[–]mdhe [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

In the end we need a cohort of climate scientists with conservative political leanings to present a counterpoint from which we can determine how much of this stuff is settled science by seeing how much of it agrees with what the left says.

This is beyond absurd. You're admitting you want to actively seek out scientists with specific political biases because you don't like the science of the existing scientists. Do you also seek out conservative geologists for earthquake policy? Do you ask a doctor what he thinks of Obamacare before you trust his opinion?

[–]NakedAndBehindYou [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Do you also seek out conservative geologists for earthquake policy?

This would make sense if liberals were trying to use fear of earthquakes to drastically increase taxes and regulations.

[–]mdhe [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

No it wouldn't because it would have no bearing on what the geologists say is the origin and scope of the earthquakes. You are conflating the fact of whether something is happening with the question of which policy to address it with.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

it would have no bearing on what the geologists say

Why do you assume that liberals are capable of suppressing their political views when it comes to science but that conservatives are not capable of doing the same?

the fact of whether something is happening

Just because somebody says it is happening, does not mean it is happening. Especially if the person saying so has a financial incentive to do so.

[–]mdhe [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why do you assume that liberals are capable of suppressing their political views when it comes to science but that conservatives are not capable of doing the same?

I don't. The opposite. That's why it's absurd to seek out scientists with specific political views.

Just because somebody says it is happening, does not mean it is happening.

No, evidence and data mean it is happening. Expert consensus is just a proxy tool.

Especially if the person saying so has a financial incentive to do so.

This works both ways. Except it's not a person, it's the entire scientific community.

[–]iAmRealCarlosDanger [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Just because somebody says it is happening, does not mean it is happening. Especially if the person saying so has a financial incentive to do so.

If 97 out of 100 doctors ever tell you or someone close to you that you/they have cancer, don't believe those cons. They have built careers on "curing cancer". Everyone knows that they have financial incentive to tell you that you are going to die. After all they stand to make huge amounts of money of your treatment.

[–]TheAtomicOptionLibertarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

When politics affects someone's credibility on a topic, then you need a balance of political opinion in order to trust experts on that topic. The issue is credibility. If the 99% of biologists in the world were young earth creationist religious fanatics, would you trust their opinion on evolution?

Do you also seek out conservative geologists for earthquake policy?

No because there's no political divide on earthquakes.

Do you ask a doctor what he thinks of Obamacare before you trust his opinion?

If we're talking about his opinion of how the healthcare system, then yes. If we're talking about his medical opinion, no because there's no political divide there.

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

To put simply if the science was certain and settled we wouldn't need to fund it anymore. The atmosphere is a chaotic system in which we are just beginning to under stand the cycles and forcings.

[–]TheAtomicOptionLibertarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's not completely true. There could be enough settled science for us to know we need to take action without there being enough that we should stop funding it.

It's just that climate scientists have created trust issues for themselves that are hard to resolve because they're related to politics.

[–]BadgerCabin 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (6子コメント)

It shows the temperature and its fluctuations over a decent chunk of human history.

No it doesn't. That graph takes the averages and makes a smooth line, which doesn't accurately depict the fluctuations. On top of that, they cherry picked the start date to make it seem more dramatic. When dealing with the enviorment, you need data going back further like this graph. If you look at this graph you start to see a pattern. That is the Milankovitch cycles(earths tilt, orbit pattern, and axial sway) coming into play. Yes human activity makes the problem a little worse, but there is more at play here.

tl;dr: People posting that XKCD picture need to stop.

[–]Bardfinn 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

  • the XKCD timeline start date was chosen to show the environmental conditions during the development of human civilisation.

We aren't concerned with whether or not the Earth ever were warmer or colder than it is now; we are concerned with whether or not specifically large-scale petroleum-product-emissions-producing human industry is causing rapid, extreme climate change.

That is what the timeline shows.

That change is not attributable to anything else.

And that is what the science shows. It is what it has shown for forty years,

And all the while, vested financial interests have said "Show Us The Data.". They've used the Kehoe Paradigm to deny the science. They've claimed that the scope and impact of human activity is minor (as you're doing here).

The problem is this:

Your comment isn't a peer-reviewed publication in the field. It isn't a critique of the science, because it isn't backed by citations to the science, because there is no science backing your claims. You're not a scientist.

What needs to stop is the parade of armchair "scientists" and armchair "experts" on climate science who keep rehashing non-science and political talking points — no matter what their motivations.

You wouldn't accept it if someone walked in off the street and told you that you were doing your job wrong, complained about it, because it made them feel bad, or because your competitors pumped them up with advertisements claiming your workplace was bad.

Stop doing it to scientists.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Your comment isn't a peer-reviewed publication in the field. It isn't a critique of the science, because it isn't backed by citations to the science

Please tell me who peer-reviewed your comment. Also, I don't see any citations in your comment either.

[–]BadgerCabin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It isn't a critique of the science

I literally regurgitated what I was taught in an Environmental science class taught by a professor who has a PhD in this field. What I said was not a critique, but facts I learned in college.

You wouldn't accept it if someone walked in off the street and told you that you were doing your job wrong

That is why I let someone who is knowledgeable in this field teach me facts about it.

[–]RealBillWatterson 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

last trough at 20 kya

XKCD graph starts at 20 kya

"These are the changes they're talking about"

Wow. I really have nothing to say to that except that seems really malicious - almost stupidly so. I hope there's something you're missing because it seems like someone would have pointed something so obvious out by now.

Of course, whether emissions exacerbate the rise in temperature is a different topic, but the correlation is very suspicious.

[–]SKWM3000 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm not using Breitbart as a source. I want them to argue responsibly, which means they ought to admit they were wrong or they ought to engage the claims made by the weather channel.

[–]cityoflostwagesCentrist 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Notice Brietbart has since removed the embedded video from weather.com from their article yet the rest of the article remains because now there is all this traffic being driven to their site by other websites.

This is why there is such an ideological divide regarding climate change between those on the left and those on the right. The lefties get their climate information from unreliable fake news sites like Buzzfeed.

The reason there is a divide is the left gets their climate information from scientists and some of the right gets it from websites like Brietbart.

I am convinced Brietbart doesn't try to produce reliable news anymore. It is just controversial clickbait meant to generate clicks/view. They have no reason to engage the claims made by weather.com. All they had to do was publish that controversial article without facts and now everyone else is talking about and linking back to them. Just like Trump tweet.

All of that leads to more ad impressions for them.

[–]TheAtomicOptionLibertarian 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The real problem is that there are basically no conservatives left in academia.

Since basically all of the climate scientists are leftists, they only come up with leftist-approved solutions, many of which are fundamentally abhorrent to conservative values. The unimaginative uniformity of these recommendations and their obvious leftist slant puts the whole problem into question from the viewpoint of conservatives. At that point it only takes a few voices who sound credible (like weather channel founder John Coleman) claiming the whole thing is a hoax and the idea that it's a hoax quickly becomes widespread. It's a complicated topic that's easily conflated with other things, and it's not always clear who should be believed on the issue of the science...

So how do you convince conservatives?

First, come up with solutions to it that don't violate conservative principles. This is hard for many leftists because many of them truly don't understand conservatism, but it's vital. If all of your solutions have features which, from a conservative's perspective, will greatly harm the economy, give a lot more political power to leftists, or would be unethical, you're never going to get far even if they believe you on the science. If there's no ethical solution, there's no reason to even engage on the issue.

Second, don't call these people stupid. You don't have the rapport to do that. It's not stupid to of them to not blindly believe a group of people (scientists or not) who are almost universally opposed to them politically. This stuff really does take a lot of time to go through if you're approaching it as critically as you should. Those of you who believe the conclusion from the start won't feel the need to take time sorting through the mountains of complicated evidence--they will. The scientific method may be the best we have, but it's no guarantee against bias when you're talking about estimates, models, "correcting for X in the data" etc.

I think if environmentalists took this to heart, they really could turn the issue around within a couple of years, but so far they've been doing precisely the opposite.

[–]oneplusoneoverphi 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Your facts are inconvenient to my political ideology, so therefor it is reasonable for me to reject the facts. Perhaps if you presented data in a manner more gentle to my views it would be easier to consume."

2 + 2 = 4. This is not a liberal conspiracy. Conservatives are not arguing against environmental solutions proposed by the left. They are arguing against the scientists themselves.

This is an old reddit comment that I pastebin'd because it got deleted. It's not a perfect response, but it does attack the spirit of your view. Rejecting climate change just because it's not prevented in a "friendly" manner is intellectually lazy.

[–]DranoshSoCon, FinCon, antistatist, anti"equality" -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

AGW

The problem with global warming wait, global cooling, shit CLIMATE CHANGE... SONNOVABITCH I MEAN CLIMATE DISRUPTION....

Is NOT that the Earth warms or cools, it's whether humans are directly causing it and if going back to the middle ages would help

[–]SKWM3000 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

i do think it's good to know what causes it; however, all participants of an ecosystem influence that ecosystem and that ecosystem influences all of its participants, so if we are causing it then the idea that we can just stop influencing the climate is kind of ridiculous. but of course you're right that we need a strategy for dealing with climate change regardless of what's causing it since, with or without us, the climate will change.

[–]1blah1 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (39子コメント)

I consider my self a math and science minded person. This video lost me completely on details. Its a 2 min video of squabbling over minor details and a call for other scientists to be louder.

[–]Bardfinn 30 ポイント31 ポイント  (18子コメント)

To put it another way:

When your car has a problem indicator light, do you shop it around to mechanics until you find one that tells you that there's nothing wrong? That tells you that the light means the car is running better than designed?

When you feel pain in the lower right quarter of your abdomen, do you shop around to doctors until you find one that tells you that the pain is normal? Or that the pain is a sign of a joyful pregnancy?

They're not squabbling, and they're not minor details. They're explaining how Breitbart cherry-picked data.

Breitbart performed the equivalent of standing in front of a refrigerator with the door open, and claiming that because they felt cold there, that the action of propping the fridge door open wasn't warming the contents of the fridge.

[–]ArchangelGregAbbott 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (5子コメント)

When your car has a problem indicator light, do you shop it around to mechanics until you find one that tells you that there's nothing wrong? That tells you that the light means the car is running better than designed?

I find your example funny because its actually quite accurate. When you go to the repair chop, they typically lie and add on things wrong with the car, when in reality there may have been one small thing outside your control. If the mechanic doesn't do this, he will lose his job.

Now replace the mechanic with client "scientists" and the car with the earth and you have climate politics.

[–]Bardfinn 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (4子コメント)

So, you specifically ignore the less-convenient-to-your-narrative example of the doctor's expertise.


If I take my vehicle to a hundred mechanics, and 98 of them independently tell me that the head gasket isn't sealing because the head is warped, I can be fairly certain that the head gasket isn't sealing because the head is warped.

If I expand that to tens of thousands of mechanics,

Who all get paid the same to diagnose the problem, no matter what,

And they all say it's a warped head,

And then a non-mechanic selling a fuel additive comes along and tells me to ignore the mechanics and just use his fuel additive, and it'll be fine —

That is an accurate analogy to climate politics.

[–]ArchangelGregAbbott 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Except in the context of my example, every mechanic that is telling you your gasket is broken is claiming to be independent but all fall under the same Big Mechanic payroll.

[–]Bardfinn 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Except in the context of your example, someone continues to get paid from the tax coffers so long as a majority of the public keeps believing, absent any evidence of the assertion, that all the mechanics (from many diverse political and cultural backgrounds and across many nations) get paid by Big Mechanic.

And in reality, they all get paid the equivalent of $2.20 an hour, while working nights, weekends, and holidays for decades straight.

[–]ArchangelGregAbbott 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The good mechanics typically don't need to get paid $2.20 because they do good work. However they're not as corruptible.

[–]Bardfinn 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

In the analogy, it doesn't matter how good their work is.

The equivalent of $2.20 per hour is what the excellent workers make, because they're the ones who get paid, but also have to work 100 hours a week.

Because it isn't a job — it's a profession, and involves keeping current on the literature, and performing research, and gathering data, and designing experiments, and mentoring students, and teaching classes, and hiring assistant staff, and overseeing them, and finding resources, and …

There's no such thing as an enterprising climate scientist.

There's also no way to bribe tens of thousands of scientists across dozens of countries and have them all be silent.

In short: your analogy is delusionally inapplicable.

[–]Rum4supper [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Climate change is a political issue because of alarmism.

Alarmism has hijacked science. The goal of alarmism is to redistribute money from wealthy nations to the poor and to consolidate power at the U.N and other international governing bodies..

[–]1blah1 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Thats why I called it squabbling. She had 2 minutes to explain properly and all I saw was lack of clarity and only mud slinging. Brietbart is not the problem, a lack of leaders from scientific community to speak well on this topic is the problem.

[–]Eciper 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What was unclear about the video? She explained clearly why the assertions made by the article were wrong. The data the article uses is from one single satellite estimate, not a consensus. The data is also of global land temperatures, which we don't even use as the primary indicator for climate change because the Earth is mostly covered in water. She also disproves the assertion that the only reason why the temperatures were so high was because of the El Niño by pointing out that even when accounting for it, this could still be considered the hottest year on record. And I checked the Breitbart article in question: nothing in the video misrepresents or twisting what was in the text of the article.

[–]Bardfinn 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (8子コメント)

No.

There is no lack of leaders from the scientific community speaking about the problem. The vast and overwhelming consensus of climate scientists and the publications of climate science and the IPCC — an international task force on climate change — is that:

  • Climate change is occurring;
  • It is caused by human industry;
  • It has caused irreversible damage, including extinctions, direct human deaths, and economic damage;
  • It is accelerating;
  • Immediate action is required to prevent trillions of dollars in future damage and millions, if not billions, of human deaths.

They have published continuously for over forty years, while propaganda has been put out claiming that more science is necessary to come to a conclusion, while non-scientists with a vested financial interest in taking advantage of industries that are scientifically demonstrated to contribute to climate change, in a very real and pointedly toxic way, hire media experts to assume the mantle of scienceyness to forestall public concern and support.

Breitbart is the problem.

[–]Portal007 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

When does this doomsday occur? is it after antartica quits growing like it is currently? The goalposts on this doomsday event keeps moving further and further. First time i remember hearing about it, the coasts would be flooded by 2000, then 2010, then 2015 and here we are in 2016 and NYC is still above water, mountains still have snow on top of them, etc.

[–]Bardfinn 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

  • Antarctica isn't growing. Sea ice area coverage isn't ice volume, and isn't ice thickness.

  • NYC was underwater in 2012, at an estimated economic damage cost of $32,000,000,000 — that's 32 billion. Manhattan today stays above water because of constant sump pumping.

The point I have been making is this:

Have you bothered to extend to the actual scientists the simple respect that they actually know what they're talking about?

Or are you going to keep making the same debunked pseudo-expert "Show Me The Data" head-in-sand excuses to not listen?

[–]1blah1 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

More cultish behavior. You repeatedly calling it science does not make it science. Al Gore raised the alarm and according to him we should all be underwater now but it did not happen.

There is a fair amount of over reaction and panic to this problem. The only solution so far seems to be more regulations and there is no doubt politicians will use this regulations unfairly to promote their friends and thwart competition and acquire more power. Climate Change like any other good cause will be exploited in the name of common good.

There are many good reasons to be skeptical about this. Poverty Inc is one such example. The do good liberals destroyed Africa. They wanted to solve Africa's poverty and made the problem worse and made a continent dependent on others.

[–]Bardfinn 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (3子コメント)

See, you just moved the goalposts.

You claim that there is no leadership. I argue that there is. You then claim that climate science isn't science, but a cult. You bring up debunked strawmen (Al Gore is not a climate scientist).

You argue that regulations will be exploited for personal gain — right after being told that deregulation is being exploited for personal gain.

That's the nature of Capitalism — innovators exploit innovations and acquire personal gains along the way.

Then you bring up a non-sequitur not in evidence — Africa has been a continent in poverty for a long time, but not because of "liberals".

The problem is that, as you mentioned in your original comment,

"[You] consider [your]self a math and science minded person".

How? How is this the case? Do you have any formal education in math or science? Any degrees? Do you have any experience in climate science? Have you published in the field?

No, you haven't.

The problem isn't "liberals".

The problem is that there are willfully ignorant anti-intellectuals — irrespective of their political affiliations — who insist that their opinions on a subject, no matter where they got them from, are equally important as those of the experts.

Do you wander into a surgical theatre and grab the scalpel from the attending and start cutting away on a patient? Because that's your attitude, here, is that you — with zero formal training — are as qualified to consult as a professional who has spent decades in specialising on a subject.

If someone did that to you, to your family or friends, you'd rightfully be against them. But somehow when you do it with scientists, it's ok?

The problem isn't "liberals". It isn't a "cult".

The problem is the prideful, willfully ignorant ideologue who insists that this is a politically divisive issue, and continually spews debunked talking points.

[–]1blah1 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Definitely a cult.

[–]CoatSecurity 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're talking to one of the cultists.

[–]DranoshSoCon, FinCon, antistatist, anti"equality" -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The vast and overwhelming consensus of climate scientists and the publications of climate science and the IPCC — an international task force on climate change — is that:

The IPCC wasn't able to consider the effects of the sun on warming if I remember John Christy correctly here's an interview I found of him

[–]alltheword 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (19子コメント)

Nothing minor about the details. You are putting your head in the sand because your side is wrong.

[–]1blah1 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Putting head in the sand has been an established proud tradition among liberals. I am asking for some one to clearly explain and refrain from squabbling.

[–]alltheword 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (16子コメント)

Putting head in the sand has been an established proud tradition among liberals.

As you deny the scientific fact that is climate change.

Anyway, it was clearly explained. Read the Breitbart article and then watch the video. You won't because you prefer being ignorant on this particular issue. For obvious reasons.

[–]DranoshSoCon, FinCon, antistatist, anti"equality" 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Ok, if climate change is real what is Earth's climate supposed to be and how do we fix it

[–]KingoftheHalfBlacks 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's not about what it's "supposed to be". The earth will exist long after we are gone. The concern is that our impact on the climate could lead to food and water shortages as well as mass extinctions for a few examples. We don't know how to "fix" it, but we do have an idea of what we are doing that could lead to problems for us in the future.

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You didn't answer the question. What is the ideal climate for a human population to thrive? A warmer planet with more rain fall, more land in the North to grow food, and more CO2 to help plants grow?

Or a colder Earth?

[–]KingoftheHalfBlacks 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I was just trying to correct a misconception - the original question doesn't make sense as the earth has no "ideal climate", nor does it need one. The question should be closer to yours - "what is good for us as humans?" I am not a climate scientist or other relevant field (I'm an engineer) so I couldn't tell you what the ideal climate would be for us - we just know that the one we've had has suited us well and is currently changing in a direction that could lead to water and food shortages.

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Global warming leads to higher moisture content in the atmosphere, thus more rain. I'm assuming you are referring to snow pack?

Global warming actually has a larger affect the closer you get to the poles based on current research. So while the poles may completely melt, glaciers else where will be fine for a long while.

But I can tell that you didn't want to debate this. But not all changes can be bad as that is highly unlikely.

[–]KingoftheHalfBlacks [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

On the "more rain" point I do know from various lectures I've attended that the effect isn't ubiquitous across the globe as it depends a lot on the local properties of the earth which can vary. However, you are right that not all changes are bad, though it most certainly won't be a net neutral.

Global warming actually has a larger affect the closer you get to the poles based on current research.

I didn't know that - that's interesting.

To your note about the glacial melt, it brings up what I think is the main challenge climate scientists face trying to inform people. The time frames they are concerned with are so large that the people you're trying to convince children will be old or dead by the time we see noticeably major change and so most people don't see why they should care.

But I can tell that you didn't want to debate this.

I'm impressed you could pick that up through my writing! Maybe I'd be more enthusiastic another time when I don't need to get up for work.

[–]Ralath0n [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

what is Earth's climate supposed to be

We're talking temperature. When we measure the temperature everywhere and average it all out over a year we're supposed to end up with about 14 degrees celcius. That's what it was for tens of thousands of years before we showed up. What we see is that this average temperature is rising at about 0.2 degrees celcius per decade. We tracked the problem down to the increase in CO2 thanks to our industry.

Models and hands on experience tell us this temperature increase can have all kinds of nasty effects. Many places will get hotter and dryer, causing large dust bowls. Water expands when it gets hotter, so the sea levels will rise, causing major flooding. Higher temperatures means more energy for storms etc to feed on, so hurricane activity will increase. The damage is estimated in trillions of dollars and 100s of millions of lives. Possibly more if the resulting wars and refugee crises are especially horrifying.

All around bad stuff. That's why scientists keep saying that we should do something about it. Therefore:

and how do we fix it

We should start to use less CO2 producing industry. Our CO2 gets produced by 3 main branches:

1: Energy. So we replace coal powerplants with nuclear powerplants. We make sure our homes are energy efficient and have solar panels. We build windmills et cetera. Lots of ways to get energy without producing CO2.

2: Transport. This is the other big CO2 producer. So we need to replace gas powered cars with electric cars, promote usage of public transport and promote things like working from home. We should also do research into more efficient airplanes, ships and alternative fuel sources (biofuels or hydrogen).

3: Metal Production. Refining ore into metal produces a lot of CO2. Not much we can do about this unfortunately, we need metal for our economy. So we should try to capture the CO2 and store it in old oil fields instead of venting it into the atmosphere. We should also recycle as much metal as we can, so we don't have to make as much new metal.

This shit is obviously going to be expensive. But it'll create a lot of jobs, make the world a nicer place and its a lot cheaper than fixing the damage if we don't do anything.

[–]1blah1 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

You are acting like a climate change cult member. Calm down pal and stop attacking everyone who disagrees with you and in this case I am just saying the good looking person in the video is not clearly explaining.

The more you like to push your cult on others the more they will resist so refrain from your pushy behavior and lay down the facts and make this a non political issue.

[–]Bardfinn 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You are the one who cast this as Conservatives versus Liberals. You called it a political issue because to you, it is one.

It is not a political issue.

It is a Science Calling For Industry Regulation versus Free Market Deregulation issue.

[–]1blah1 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ok fine stop attacking me. I am not yet convinced of your cult's beliefs.

[–]Bananasonfire [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You can't disagree with climate change. It's not a political issue, it's a fact. You either agree with the science, or you're denying reality. There is no 'disagree'.

[–]alltheword 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (4子コメント)

You are the only one making it a political issue. That is why you refuse to accept the scientific consensus, because it would make your side look bad. It is pathetic.

[–]1blah1 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

are you now going to shake vigorously and throw more tantrums?

This is a conservative forum and I am allowed to show my skepticism on this topic. Why does your cult want to invade everywhere and repeat the propaganda. Why cant you throw some respectable references and just shut up for a while and let adults form their own opinions?

[–]amesoeurs 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

"heheheh just keep calling it a cult in every comment you make, that'll show em"

[–]1blah1 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No I will just post more passive aggressive displeasure at someone who disagrees with me.

[–]alltheword 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are the only one throwing a tantrum because the facts get in the way of your political bias. Go back to your safe space.

[–]Rum4supper [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Climate change can't even be studied accurately.

The alarmist left purges all intellectual dissent.

Alarmism is their god, and climate "research" is their church.

[–]VirginWizard69Revanchist Conservative -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (27子コメント)

Why is this here? Is this /r/politics?

[–]wsh009[S] 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (26子コメント)

Does this bother you?

[–]VirginWizard69Revanchist Conservative -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (25子コメント)

This is supposed to be a place for conservatives for conservatives, not a place where we have to argue about global warming. If I wanted to read about Al Gore, I would go to /r/politics.

[–]Bardfinn 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (12子コメント)

a place for conservatives

Conserving the planet as a suitable place to live, and conserving the already-documented extremely large fiscal cost of anthropogenic climate change, should interest you, then.

I understand that some people believe "Conservative" to be a code word for a particular set of religious dogmas, but maybe — just maybe — there are those of us with a sense of fiscal responsibility who are tired of a minority's demands that their culture be preserved against the weight of fiscal reality.

In short: the rent is due, and we really can't afford your toys any longer.

[–]lisa_frank420 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

the republican party has already forgotten its the party that created national parks. (thanks teddy!) being pro-environment can be a conservative platform, i think. it just depends on the methods that address it, not the issue itself.

[–]Wetnapkin69 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So to qualify as a True Conservative (TM) one must reject all climate science?

[–]wsh009[S] 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Maybe you need a safe space so that you don't have to argue against climate change.

[–]VirginWizard69Revanchist Conservative 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Maybe you need a safe space so that you don't have to argue against climate change.

Why does /u/wsh009 come here? To troll? You are a liberal. Is /r/politics not enough for you?

[–]bullbour 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

So don't read or argue about it. Move on to the next post.

[–]VirginWizard69Revanchist Conservative -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Na.

[–]Captain_CockSmith -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A buzzword invented by the chinese. End of story.