Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
Take a look at these quotes from articles from the past 120 years. What can we make from them? Is climate change actually a big of a deal as it's claimed? The fact that "climate change" is such political issue gives me doubt. Any political talking point should always be scrutinized and criticized. Politicians have an agenda and will use anything they can to push that agenda.
I'm not here to argue about climate change being real or not. Rather, I would like opinions about the website I shared
Is the author a scientist with appropriate expertise in climate? If not, disregard their opinion.
Edit: Just looked on Mark Simone’s website, and nope, he appears to have zero relevant qualifications. Opinions are everywhere, everyone has one. But the accuracy of them varies vastly, so it’s best to pay attention to the opinions of people who actually have relevant expertise. Not shock jocks.
In some of these quotes, it says things like there is "scientific consensus." The author was just quoting articles mostly except his Headline. Here, like this quote:
1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad based support to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in can not be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Discover magazine, October 1989
I mean, that's very telling. I feel like time, energy, and money could be better spent on other things. Like cleaning up the oceans.
No reference. Misinformation is quick and easy to generate but time consuming to debunk. Unless he is providing a link to a peer-reviewed study, his words are just air (or electrons in this case). As I said, shock jocks are not credible experts. If they want my attention, they need to at least reference real research.
Dear lordy... I'm tired of trying to explain things here. The references are on that site, the references are of articles from several different sources such the "Times", "the Washington post", "the new York post". There is no "misinformation." You can find the whole articles that are referenced if you try. The point of this is to show how climate fear mongering has been going on for at least 120 years. Sometimes, it's global cooling, and then it changes to global warming. I believe it goes to show that we don't have the data points to accurately determine global warming. There is so much conjecture, opinions, and political agenda around "climate change."
I thoroughly believed in the climate fear mongering until recently. I think I've lived long enough now to observe for myself that maybe all this climate change jazz is driven more by political agenda than anything else
I thoroughly believed in the climate fear mongering until recently. I think I’ve lived long enough now to observe for myself that maybe all this climate change jazz is driven more by political agenda than anything else
So contrary to what you said in the post, you are pushing a perspective that climate change isn't real.
No, I'm not. That was the first time I gave my personal opinion, and I shouldn't have because I still have doubts and haven't actually settled on one side or the other... "Climate change" by its very nature is super complex, involving many different data sets from all over the world.
Although, I do want people to be open to disagreeing perspectives or different scientific facts that suggest something different than the commonly accepted narrative of ANY topic anyway.
You are correct, we shouldn't buy in to 'commonly accepted narratives'. The world is complex and gaining a deep understanding of any one topic is the work of a lifetime. There is no way we can learn enough about everything to have an informed and educated opinion on every topic that we have to deal with over the course of our lives.
Making this more challenging is the fact that human brains are not very rational. They are rationalising. Think about that for a minute. It's helpful to realise that about other people, but the real value is when you turn that lens back on yourself. Learning to think rationally takes a lot of training and hard work. The kind of work that scientists do to learn their discipline. Shock jocks are definitely not good places to go for for rational thought and conclusions. They are selling a product. Outrage. Which is in many ways the exact opposite of rationality.
By necessity, we have to stand on the shoulders of experts. If you want to decide how you feel about a topic look to the experts and disregard mouthpieces with no qualifications.
The IPCC reports are the output of real research by real experts. You should read them if you haven't already.
That's the reference...
I would ask for a link, but I won't bother because you asked for opinions about the website not a debate about the validity of climate change.
However, when I responded to your question about the website, you then stated "I feel like time, energy, and money could be better spent on other things. Like cleaning up the oceans."
Looks to me like you are sealioning.
A link to what? The website shows excerpts from articles claiming global warming or global cooling, including saying things like "scientific fact/consensus" about the subject. It's showing that this narrative of global climate change is nothing new.
Everyone can determine what that might imply about the subject for themselves.
A link to the primary source research. All you have provided is unverified claims about "he said, she said" from a questionable source. That's not science.
It's not about science here or any particular scientific research... it's about how media outlets have been publishing articles by authors who claim the earth is warming or cooling and we are doomed very soon. And that this type of climate fear mongering (also, true or not, it is fear mongering) has been going around since 1900.
You seem to be either looking for someone to agree with you that a website by some scientific nobody casts the predictions about the dire outlook because of climate change into doubt. If so, you are in the wrong community and are definitely sealioning and attempting to spread misinformation.
As I've said repeatedly, informed people don't look at websites like that, because they know they are used to generate FUD.
I've lived the consequences of climate change. I've fought fires burning in rainforest, where it has NEVER before burned. I've seen fires and floods unprecedented in scale. We are seeing warming 5 standard deviations above average. If you know a little about data science as you seem to imply, you know exactly what that means. The warning signs are clear and present. I'm past the point of giving people like Mark Simone the slightest benefit of the doubt.
Despite the narrative from mouthpieces like Mark Simone, the IPCC is actually a VERY conservative body. They have to release information which is able to stand up to rigorous scrutiny and challenge, and not upset established interests like governments and fossil fuel companies too much.
To quote the latest IPCC report (my emphasis added):
Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850-1900 in 2011-2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals (high confidence).
Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people (high confidence). Vulnerable communities who have historically contributed the least to current climate change are disproportionately affected (high confidence).
Adaptation planning and implementation has progressed across all sectors and regions, with documented benefits and varying effectiveness. Despite progress, adaptation gaps exist, and will continue to grow at current rates of implementation. Hard and soft limits to adaptation have been reached in some ecosystems and regions. Maladaptation is happening in some sectors and regions. Current global financial flows for adaptation are insufficient for, and constrain implementation of, adaptation options, especially in developing countries (high confidence).
Climate change isn’t a big deal because of what people say about it. It’s a big deal because of its measurable physical effects.
Nearly all the quotes (except for a few in the 20's and 30's) speak of the warming trend. Not sure what the issue you are trying to raise is
Lmao OP literally titled his post with the "I'm not racist, but" of conservation
"Of conservation"...
"Literally"...
Your comment - tell me you barely graduated public high-school without telling me you barely graduated public high-school. And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt you even graduated...
I don't know why I even try here...
That's obviously a climate change denial website.
To my knowledge, however, nobody's a "climate denier."
Yeah, the author does come with his own opinions. I think it's the body of the article is what is interesting, though. I think we should try to consider the implications that "climate change" fear has been around a long time. It also comes with claims of "scientific facts" and "consensus."
Hell if I know anything, though. I'm just Joe shmow. I do believe it is important to see arguments raised by opposing facts/perspectives/opinions. I've tried to keep my opinion out of it, and tried not to lead anyone to any conclusions. I do just want people to come to their own conclusions, but also have all the facts/perspectives.
How can facts be opposing? The fact is global climate change is real, the fact is that this particular event is driven by humans. Also, generally speaking people are dumb, having them come to their own conclusions in the face on overwhelming evidence does no good. We are provided with facts, but talking heads call into doubt and * just ask questions* and muddy the waters.
It's possible to have different statistics that imply different conclusions. It's a silly question to ask, "How can facts be opposing?"... it used to be a "fact" that swimming after eating gives you cramps, but new facts proved that wrong. Measuring the climate from one data set can give you different facts than measuring from a different data set. To me, it seems a fact that ALL politicians are liars and can't be trusted, but that might not be a fact to you.
Different stats aren't facts then. It was* never a "fact" that swimming after eating* gave you cramps. It was always a factoid. Measuring climate data from reputable sets all point in the same direction. Also, if all the overwhelmingly majority of climate scientists from around the world all say the same thing. What does that have to do with politicians? Lastly your "fact" is a personal opinion, not a "fact".
Ok. Let me try again. In practice, as a data analyst would know, interpreting data is a messy, subjective business. If you asked two data scientists to look into the same question, you’re liable to get two completely different answers, even if they’re both working with the same dataset. That's to say, one dataset can produce multiple "facts." Both conclusions can be "facts," but it is subjective.
Things aren't as black and white as you imagine. So many things involving sciences were facts, until they werent. Consider the big role biases play when coming to different conclusions. Consider that MANY conclusions are based on a limited data set.
Yes, and when all the data sets point towards human made climate change, then you have a fact. When it's peer reviewed and studied, and when, it's challenged, and the data all still points to the same story, there is your fact. If two analysts come up with different data, then they cannot by definition be a "fact". Having one or two people go against the consensus, is fine, however when they make a challenge and their findings are proven incorrect, and they are still incapable of proving otherwise, then they need to review their biases. If they don't, well then, they aren't looking at things scientifically.
I've failed to get through to you... do some googling, please.
I did some for you. Read an article.
https://www.horizons-mag.ch/2021/12/02/same-data-different-conclusions
Or
https://news.fiu.edu/2020/researchers-choices-could-draw-different-conclusions
Or go ask AI to explain it to you.
You missed the point that drawing different conclusions out of data doesn't equate a fact.
Things are different in the scientific world. There are more stringent criteria required before claims can be taken as truths.
I like you, though, anyway. Let's be friends. Haha
What does that have to do with politicians?
You seem to lack a general understanding of how politics work in regards to how they use topics such as "climate change" to advance their agenda, and im not going to try to explain all that to you.
Oh, I understood politics, thank you. But what politicians say or do, has no effect on the reality of climate change.
But what politicians say or do, has no effect on the reality of climate change.
This tells me exactly you don't understand the political natures of the climate change issue...
Sure, but what politicians do does affects the perceived reality of climate change.