How serious you think it is directly relates to how old you are. The average retired poster here doesn’t care about what the world is going to be like in 30+ years.
How serious you think it is directly relates to how old you are. The average retired poster here doesn’t care about what the world is going to be like in 30+ years.
will twerk for tip$ wrote:
The nuanced answer is IF climate change that is predicted by the UN, etc was real, THEN it would be the biggest threat to humanity.
That's a big if though. Remember 2 things:
1) The UN is an organization run by globalists who want a global agenda. This is not conspiracy, this is their stated mission
2) Creating fear is an excellent way to grab power
____________-
Beyond the tin foil hat wearing, there's this:
The climate has seen warming over the past 40 years, this is indisputable. However, the rate of change and the effects of that change seem to be overblown. Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth predicted a whole bunch of calamities that were supposed to be underway by now, but aren't. The polar ice caps seem to be stabilizing after years of decline. I could go on, but you get the idea.
It's a very nuanced issue. I'm not sure what's correct or what to do. What I do know is that I don't want power to continue to consolidate among the globalist elite class, which is precisely what they are trying to do with climate change hysteria.
This is the worst. "I could go on, but you get the idea." What the h#ll are you even talking about? You offer nothing but a stupid straw man argument (as though Al Gore's documentary were the only voice of alarm in the last 40 years, which appears to be a randomly chosen number), then spin a complete fabrication--"The polar ice caps seem to be stabilizing after years of decline"--and then have the gall to say that you could go on? What for? You obviously know nothing about global warming. Why would you presume that anyone would want you to "go on"? Is it because you use superficially sophisticated words like "indisputable," "nuanced," and "precisely," which basically add no meaning to your sentences but make you appear halfway thoughtful and erudite?
If you truly don't want power to continue to consolidate among the globalist elite class (whatever the h3ll that is), you should get on board with the pro-climate movement, which is the only serious threat to the comfort and insulation of the world's moneyed elite that we have at the moment. But you're too busy trying to sound intelligent and dispassionate, and meanwhile the world--or at least the American West, Canada, the Amazon rainforest, Australia, and Siberia--burns. But hey, you're making a stand against the global elites. Indisputably.
No. And that's not to diminish the threat, it is just that the biggest threat to mankind is the craziness, stupidity, and mental illness that seems more prevalent today than ever before.
TKTKTK wrote:
This is the worst. "I could go on, but you get the idea." What the h#ll are you even talking about? You offer nothing but a stupid straw man argument (as though Al Gore's documentary were the only voice of alarm in the last 40 years, which appears to be a randomly chosen number), then spin a complete fabrication--"The polar ice caps seem to be stabilizing after years of decline"--and then have the gall to say that you could go on? What for? You obviously know nothing about global warming. Why would you presume that anyone would want you to "go on"? Is it because you use superficially sophisticated words like "indisputable," "nuanced," and "precisely," which basically add no meaning to your sentences but make you appear halfway thoughtful and erudite?
If you truly don't want power to continue to consolidate among the globalist elite class (whatever the h3ll that is), you should get on board with the pro-climate movement, which is the only serious threat to the comfort and insulation of the world's moneyed elite that we have at the moment. But you're too busy trying to sound intelligent and dispassionate, and meanwhile the world--or at least the American West, Canada, the Amazon rainforest, Australia, and Siberia--burns. But hey, you're making a stand against the global elites. Indisputably.
Wow you're irritable. Did someone take out your butt plug this morning, lib?
Polar ice caps ARE stabilizing. The arctic ice cap is currently well above the 10 year average and closer to the 40 year average. The South Pole recorded its colder winter ever this year. These are significant trends. We'll see if they hold.
You sound like you've been fed a steady diet of climate change propaganda for many years now. Talk about straw men and hyperbole - "and meanwhile the world--or at least the American West, Canada, the Amazon rainforest, Australia, and Siberia--burns" - forest fires have raged across these areas for all of recorded history.
There's a recency effect happening as well - we have better reporting and recording of natural disaster impacts than we did 100 years ago, which allows us to measure the true scope of things like wildfire damage. Same thing with hurricanes - we set a "record" for named storms last year, but 40 years ago most of them would go unnamed due to lack of data. In short, there's conflicting evidence regarding the severity of natural disasters increasing in the last few decades. A healthy skeptic would at least consider the possibility that our myopic view on climate change is magnifying the perceived effects of these disasters.
no. hunger, lack of vitamins and diverse food, healthcare, working and living conditions are the biggest issues around the world. tens of millions are dying every year because of those issues. the climate hysteria in rich countries may actually increase those issues because regulation makes ressources and food more expensive world wide, enhancing hunger and suffering in the world instead of bettering living conditions.
https://www.climate.gov/media/11332Citizen Runner wrote:
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/Vosto_420ky_and_current.PNGmoultonk wrote:
No.
It seems very obvious that one must understand the natural variability and scale of climate change before creating any public policy trying to affect it. The vast vast majority of people do not have an overall sense of it, just anecdotes and snapshots. Perhaps the best place to start is with this graph. Study it for a couple weeks and then let's talk.
troll_69 wrote:
Proud Republican wrote:
You can show me all the science you want, but I honestly just don't care
Highlighted for accuracy.
Went right over your head, that one did.
booker. wrote:
The average retired poster here doesn’t care about what the world is going to be like in 30+ years.
They care if they had children that they helped educate and maybe would like to leave some inheritance to.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.pngwill twerk for tip$ wrote:
Polar ice caps ARE stabilizing.
Citizen Runner wrote:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.pngwill twerk for tip$ wrote:
Polar ice caps ARE stabilizing.
Was this supposed to prove my point? Look at the last 5 years. Basically a straight horizontal line.
No, communism and globalism and One World Order is. Crap, I am turning into Pat Robertson.
will twerk for tip$ wrote:
TKTKTK wrote:
This is the worst. "I could go on, but you get the idea." What the h#ll are you even talking about? You offer nothing but a stupid straw man argument (as though Al Gore's documentary were the only voice of alarm in the last 40 years, which appears to be a randomly chosen number), then spin a complete fabrication--"The polar ice caps seem to be stabilizing after years of decline"--and then have the gall to say that you could go on? What for? You obviously know nothing about global warming. Why would you presume that anyone would want you to "go on"? Is it because you use superficially sophisticated words like "indisputable," "nuanced," and "precisely," which basically add no meaning to your sentences but make you appear halfway thoughtful and erudite?
If you truly don't want power to continue to consolidate among the globalist elite class (whatever the h3ll that is), you should get on board with the pro-climate movement, which is the only serious threat to the comfort and insulation of the world's moneyed elite that we have at the moment. But you're too busy trying to sound intelligent and dispassionate, and meanwhile the world--or at least the American West, Canada, the Amazon rainforest, Australia, and Siberia--burns. But hey, you're making a stand against the global elites. Indisputably.
Wow you're irritable. Did someone take out your butt plug this morning, lib?
Polar ice caps ARE stabilizing. The arctic ice cap is currently well above the 10 year average and closer to the 40 year average. The South Pole recorded its colder winter ever this year. These are significant trends. We'll see if they hold.
You sound like you've been fed a steady diet of climate change propaganda for many years now. Talk about straw men and hyperbole - "and meanwhile the world--or at least the American West, Canada, the Amazon rainforest, Australia, and Siberia--burns" - forest fires have raged across these areas for all of recorded history.
There's a recency effect happening as well - we have better reporting and recording of natural disaster impacts than we did 100 years ago, which allows us to measure the true scope of things like wildfire damage. Same thing with hurricanes - we set a "record" for named storms last year, but 40 years ago most of them would go unnamed due to lack of data. In short, there's conflicting evidence regarding the severity of natural disasters increasing in the last few decades. A healthy skeptic would at least consider the possibility that our myopic view on climate change is magnifying the perceived effects of these disasters.
You're absolutely right I'm "irritable." I'm "irritable" because people like you simply refuse, for whatever reason, to face the crisis we're in the middle of right now. Not only do you refuse to face this crisis yourself, however; you also lie about its extent and impact on forums like this. There are no reputable sources that suggest that the arctic ice caps are in anything less than dire condition: whatever winter freezing occurs is more than offset by greater melting in the ever-warming summer months. Go ahead; google it right now.
There is no record of Siberian fires like those we've been seeing; no record of fires in the Pacific NW's typically rain-soaked forests, where in the summer of 2020, fires burned like hell (which I mean literally); no record of fires jumping the usually snow-covered Sierra Nevada Mountains as they did this past summer. Don't make stuff up; this is unprecedented.
I completely agree that it is unlikely that any one natural disaster can be attributed directly to global warming. But the trend, measured across both acute and cumulative disasters (fires, flash floods, and hurricanes on one hand; and droughts and sea-level flooding on the other) is--to use your word--indisputably toward catastrophe.
As you said, the problem is indeed with recency bias--but it's your recency bias, not mine. Because in your recent experience, the world has not experienced the disastrous effects of climate change, you are unable to face that that's what's happening now. Instead, you try to explain our current crisis in the language of precedent, which causes you to miss important details: for example, there have always been fires in the West, as you say. But the fire season has never been this long, nor has as much of our forest ever been parched enough to be susceptible to fires. You think, because we've never "broken" the climate before, that it can't be done. But we're doing it, right now, and you're stuck scrambling for Fox-sponsored links about happy polar bears and pretending that your resistance to the facts is a principled stand against globalist elites--when the true elites, who depend on the price of oil for their comfort and safety, are thrilled about you and your "healthy skepticism."
(Also, check your homophobia. When your go-to ad hominem retort in a debate is about someone losing a butt plug, as opposed to just being exasperated by your terrible writing and worse reasoning, you have another bias problem, unrelated to recency.)
TKTKTK wrote:
You're absolutely right I'm "irritable." I'm "irritable" because people like you simply refuse, for whatever reason, to face the crisis we're in the middle of right now. Not only do you refuse to face this crisis yourself, however; you also lie about its extent and impact on forums like this. There are no reputable sources that suggest that the arctic ice caps are in anything less than dire condition: whatever winter freezing occurs is more than offset by greater melting in the ever-warming summer months. Go ahead; google it right now.
There is no record of Siberian fires like those we've been seeing; no record of fires in the Pacific NW's typically rain-soaked forests, where in the summer of 2020, fires burned like hell (which I mean literally); no record of fires jumping the usually snow-covered Sierra Nevada Mountains as they did this past summer. Don't make stuff up; this is unprecedented.
I completely agree that it is unlikely that any one natural disaster can be attributed directly to global warming. But the trend, measured across both acute and cumulative disasters (fires, flash floods, and hurricanes on one hand; and droughts and sea-level flooding on the other) is--to use your word--indisputably toward catastrophe.
As you said, the problem is indeed with recency bias--but it's your recency bias, not mine. Because in your recent experience, the world has not experienced the disastrous effects of climate change, you are unable to face that that's what's happening now. Instead, you try to explain our current crisis in the language of precedent, which causes you to miss important details: for example, there have always been fires in the West, as you say. But the fire season has never been this long, nor has as much of our forest ever been parched enough to be susceptible to fires. You think, because we've never "broken" the climate before, that it can't be done. But we're doing it, right now, and you're stuck scrambling for Fox-sponsored links about happy polar bears and pretending that your resistance to the facts is a principled stand against globalist elites--when the true elites, who depend on the price of oil for their comfort and safety, are thrilled about you and your "healthy skepticism."
(Also, check your homophobia. When your go-to ad hominem retort in a debate is about someone losing a butt plug, as opposed to just being exasperated by your terrible writing and worse reasoning, you have another bias problem, unrelated to recency.)
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a 110 IQ looks like
TKTKTK wrote:
It absolutely is, no question at this point. Anyone who denies this is living in a fantasy.
It's sad that Americans' penchant for radical individualism means that many of us have to reject even the premise of a crisis demanding collective action.
And it's deeply confounding that we Americans have also come to believe, perhaps because of our two-party politics, that there must always be two sides to every "issue." If "one side" says that global warming is an emergency, there simply must be another, equally legitimate side, that says it isn't. This knee-jerk both-siderism isn't a form of wisdom or intelligence as some pretend, but rather a form of ignorance and idiocy by choice. It's easier to shrug in ambivalence than to be intellectually rigorous.
There is no room or time for debate about the existence and danger of global climate change; you're with humanity or you're against it. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh and arrogant, but I'm living climate change here in the west: lengthening dry and fire seasons, shrinking snow-pack (and earlier and more rapid and damaging snow-melt, even in years when the snow-pack is robust); dwindling reservoirs; drying aquifers. Global-warming deniers are dooming this region--and, eventually, their own--to a wretched, accelerating death.
You may think you have the luxury of denying the crisis of global warming because you think it isn't affecting you where you live. First of all, you're likely wrong. And second, there's an expression you should keep in mind: "Just because it isn't happening here, doesn't mean it isn't happening."
Anyway and again: Yes. Global warming is the existential crisis in our species' history.
Do you think maybe, just maybe all your doom and gloom is tied in with the fact that your population out west and the world population has tripled in the past 50 years, causing more damage and pollution than what "climate change" may create just from carbon misuse?
I say continued increase in world population is the greatest threat to mankind.
sc runner wrote:
No. And that's not to diminish the threat, it is just that the biggest threat to mankind is the craziness, stupidity, and mental illness that seems more prevalent today than ever before.
I have a feeling it has always been there but a days it is way too easy for them to get heard.
the part that worries me short term is the loss of faith in the election system. It has always been a bit shakey (see the gerrymandering cases that go back to day 1) but in the past nobody thought of using violence in the US to overturn election results. But now that they know the party will back them, it is just a mater of time til we get an insurrection that isnt lead by morons....
I would agree. Climate Change is the biggest threat we face as a species.
No.
will twerk for tip$ wrote:
TKTKTK wrote:
You're absolutely right I'm "irritable." I'm "irritable" because people like you simply refuse, for whatever reason, to face the crisis we're in the middle of right now. Not only do you refuse to face this crisis yourself, however; you also lie about its extent and impact on forums like this. There are no reputable sources that suggest that the arctic ice caps are in anything less than dire condition: whatever winter freezing occurs is more than offset by greater melting in the ever-warming summer months. Go ahead; google it right now.
There is no record of Siberian fires like those we've been seeing; no record of fires in the Pacific NW's typically rain-soaked forests, where in the summer of 2020, fires burned like hell (which I mean literally); no record of fires jumping the usually snow-covered Sierra Nevada Mountains as they did this past summer. Don't make stuff up; this is unprecedented.
I completely agree that it is unlikely that any one natural disaster can be attributed directly to global warming. But the trend, measured across both acute and cumulative disasters (fires, flash floods, and hurricanes on one hand; and droughts and sea-level flooding on the other) is--to use your word--indisputably toward catastrophe.
As you said, the problem is indeed with recency bias--but it's your recency bias, not mine. Because in your recent experience, the world has not experienced the disastrous effects of climate change, you are unable to face that that's what's happening now. Instead, you try to explain our current crisis in the language of precedent, which causes you to miss important details: for example, there have always been fires in the West, as you say. But the fire season has never been this long, nor has as much of our forest ever been parched enough to be susceptible to fires. You think, because we've never "broken" the climate before, that it can't be done. But we're doing it, right now, and you're stuck scrambling for Fox-sponsored links about happy polar bears and pretending that your resistance to the facts is a principled stand against globalist elites--when the true elites, who depend on the price of oil for their comfort and safety, are thrilled about you and your "healthy skepticism."
(Also, check your homophobia. When your go-to ad hominem retort in a debate is about someone losing a butt plug, as opposed to just being exasperated by your terrible writing and worse reasoning, you have another bias problem, unrelated to recency.)
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a 110 IQ looks like
My mistake. I keep thinking we might have a discussion of issues, and you keep reminding me that you don't have any interest in that. So I'm going to tap out, even though I hate ceding the forum to denialists, because continuing this little back-and-forth is just going to be sad.
But I'll say one more time, primarily so that young visitors to this site don't get the wrong idea: there are not "two sides" to the climate change "debate." You may have been led to believe that every issue has more than one side. You may even have been told that it takes greater intelligence, or demonstrates more wisdom, to see multiple sides of an issue. But, as hard as it may be to hear, there is not another side to the issue of human-caused (or anthropogenic) climate change. The fact of climate change doesn't have two sides. It is happening, humans are causing it, and it will result in vast human resettlement, huge redistributions of wealth, and profound shifts in global power and security. You might think that this is unbelievable, the stuff of science fiction--but that's only because you and I have never lived in a world with a broken climate before. There is no precedent in the modern human experience (which is the only relevant timeframe) for what is happening now, so of course the consequences seem implausible. We are, literally, in uncharted territory.
To the young visitors to this site, I'll also say that I don't know why people like "will twerk for $" are denying the enormity of the crisis. I don't know what's in it for them. But I will say that they are not arguing in good faith, and they are not proceeding with your interests in mind. The rest of the world is frightened about the next years and decades--but at least we have the integrity to tell ourselves, and the leaders of future generations, the truth, however unsettling it may be. As James Baldwin said, "Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced."
The OP on this thread posed a question: "Yes or No," he asked. Wittingly or not, he posed a false question. Here are the only possible answers:
Yes, climate change is the single greatest threat to human existence as we know it--and we must think big, work together, and invest unstintingly, to preclude its worst effects.
OR
Yes, climate change is the single greatest threat to human existence as we know it--and I don't care.
will twerk for tip$ wrote:
Citizen Runner wrote:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.pngWas this supposed to prove my point? Look at the last 5 years. Basically a straight horizontal line.
Noted that they were also stabilizing for about 5 years or so centered around 1984.
And 1990.
And 2008.
And, well, would you look at that, they were RISING like crazy in the 5 years around 2013.
Hmmmm . . . what was your point again?
No.
1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!
42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter
Emma Coburn to miss Olympic Trials after breaking ankle in Suzhou
Jakob on Oly 1500- “Walk in the park if I don’t get injured or sick”
VALBY has graduated (w/ honors) from Florida, will she go to grad school??
Congrats to Kyle Merber - Merber has left Citius for position w/ Michael Johnson's track league
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
