The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

There's no number of weather records for a particular geographic region that will prove global warming, as it's the global average over time that tracks climate change.

It's the total heat energy carried by the earth that is relevant to the discussion of climate change. That will manifest in local weather, but local weather will not be proof of climate change.

Perhaps it's too hot where you are, but I'd need to see something more than an observation of 3 ambulances and a stuck bridge. Lets see how crop yields turn out, life expectancy, per capita income...

Global warming is a prime candidate for confirmation bias. We need as unbiased, objective observations as possible, which is why I appreciate Aerohead's contributions (not that he's unbiased, but that he largely presents relevant facts).

The whole point of me talking about "record low" temps here isn't to deny global warming to disprove climate change, but to prove the irrelevance of point in time and space measurements in drawing conclusions about a global trend.

[oil pan 4]

Climate change is the change in weather over hundreds and thousands of years. A decade or 2 of hot years by the definition of climate change proves nothing, aside from the dooms day climate change believers being a cult.

Plus in the United States only 4% of Americans believe climate, pollution and environment is the most important issue. According to the Gallup poll that number normally stays around 3 or 4 percent.

The bride being warped from heat proves someone hired incompetent engineers, not climate change.

I don't understand how someone who drives a gas burner can say they care about climate change.
Almost like listening to someone who flys all over the world in a private jet and lectures people who can't afford a first class plane ticket about how they make too much CO2.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Okay, but I still don't know why the idea has re-emerged today.

You got me. But there they are, and they are very passionate. Netflix released a documentary last year called Behind the Curve that followed some prominent flat-earthers; it was really fascinating and really disturbing.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Climate change is the change in weather over hundreds and thousands of years. A decade or 2 of hot years by the definition of climate change proves nothing, aside from the dooms day climate change believers being a cult.

Plus in the United States only 4% of Americans believe climate, pollution and environment is the most important issue. According to the Gallup poll that number normally stays around 3 or 4 percent.

The bride being warped from heat proves someone hired incompetent engineers, not climate change.

I don't understand how someone who drives a gas burner can say they care about climate change.
Almost like listening to someone who flys all over the world in a private jet and lectures people who can't afford a first class plane ticket about how they make too much CO2.

The extremes would not have been possible if the average temperature had not risen accordingly. That's why they do matter.
The global warming trend is on a steady rise, as is the CO2 content in the atmosphere, which correlates precisely with the amount of carbon burnt by human activities.
If anything is a cult here it is denying the obvious.

That only 4% of Americans believe man-made climate change is their most important problem only goes to show the (perceived) severity of other issues, like their lack of trust in government - plus the effects of oil funded information campaigns.

The bridge was poorly designed, definitely. It is also used way heavier than envisioned, and due for replacement.

I drive a gasser not because I want to burn gas, but it was my best option at the time (2012). I use it with restraint, to say the least. Next car will be an EV. Am I allowed to have an opinion? Or is that reserved to those who don't care about the climate?
Last time I've flown for leisure was more than a decade ago. What really matters though is what the effect someone has in total, singling out one or two activities while ignoring the rest is a lowly approach.

[sendler]

"Instead of a divorce between society and nature, one should rather pursue couple’s therapy to reconcile one with the other, namely figuring out how to ensure the provision of what is required for the “good life” following a principle of prudent stewardship and non-exploitation. The issues we find ourselves in can be solved backward by acting on the elements that created the problem in the first place, namely the choice of countries to pursue economic growth at all social ecological costs. It is the end of the battle of the de-words, and decoupling has lost. Now that the oven is warm, what degrowth thinkers should focus on is finding ingredients (policies) and recipes (transition scenarios) as to make sure the societal project of degrowth results in a delicious cake."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...live-degrowth/

[freebeard]

"Instead of a divorce between society and nature, one should rather pursue couple’s therapy to reconcile one with the other, namely figuring out how to ensure the provision of what is required for the “good life” following a principle of prudent stewardship and non-exploitation. The issues we find ourselves in can be solved backward by acting on the elements that created the problem in the first place, namely the choice of countries to pursue economic growth at all social ecological costs.

Italic = strained metaphor. Bold = 'solved backward'?

news.slashdot.org:'No Doubt Left' About Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, Say Experts (theguardian.com)

This story brings out the shills and ad hominem, not like here where everyone is nice.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

The extremes would not have been possible if the average temperature had not risen accordingly. That's why they do matter.
The global warming trend is on a steady rise, as is the CO2 content in the atmosphere, which correlates precisely with the amount of carbon burnt by human activities.
If anything is a cult here it is denying the obvious.

That only 4% of Americans believe man-made climate change is their most important problem only goes to show the (perceived) severity of other issues, like their lack of trust in government - plus the effects of oil funded information campaigns.

The bridge was poorly designed, definitely. It is also used way heavier than envisioned, and due for replacement.

I drive a gasser not because I want to burn gas, but it was my best option at the time (2012). I use it with restraint, to say the least. Next car will be an EV. Am I allowed to have an opinion? Or is that reserved to those who don't care about the climate?
Last time I've flown for leisure was more than a decade ago. What really matters though is what the effect someone has in total, singling out one or two activities while ignoring the rest is a lowly approach.

It's called cherry picking.
Go back far enough ice free poles, rapid environmental changes, hundreds of feet of sea level change are normal.
Worried about global warming, ask a wolly mammoth, Saber tooth tiger, or dire wolf what real climate change looks like.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

"Instead of a divorce between society and nature, one should rather pursue couple’s therapy to reconcile one with the other, namely figuring out how to ensure the provision of what is required for the “good life” following a principle of prudent stewardship and non-exploitation. The issues we find ourselves in can be solved backward by acting on the elements that created the problem in the first place, namely the choice of countries to pursue economic growth at all social ecological costs. It is the end of the battle of the de-words, and decoupling has lost. Now that the oven is warm, what degrowth thinkers should focus on is finding ingredients (policies) and recipes (transition scenarios) as to make sure the societal project of degrowth results in a delicious cake."

A plan that doesn't account for human nature is no plan at all.

We're able to have all of our technology and creature comforts rather than live in caves and die at the age of 23 because we're not content to leave things be. Everything has to be explored, and nothing is good enough.

Getting all of humanity to limit exploration is like getting me to purposely not get any better at ping pong. When I play ping pong, I'm always trying to do better. It would be virtually impossible for me to choose a skill level and play at that level, never trying to improve a single thing upon it, not only not trying to improve, but actively making sure I don't.

The one area I think we can/will conserve resources is in reducing overall population. Raising children is a huge burden in modern society, and that's evidenced by reduced birth rates in the most developed nations.

I'm not saying the problem will be entirely solved by a natural shrinking of the population, but I believe it will be the main "solution".

Humanity will never choose "simple" on a large scale, or for long periods of time. Simplification would be a social fad, not something integrated into the DNA of our being.

Of course, we can't consume what doesn't exist. To that end, simplification may not be a choice, but then again I don't think it ever was.

[freebeard]

Humanity will never choose "simple" on a large scale, or for long periods of time. Simplification would be a social fad, not something integrated into the DNA of our being.

"Few things are pure, and nothing is simple." Or, is it the other way 'round?

Another way to look it is that we sit atop a local maxima, looking across the abyss at another higher maxima. IOW, you can't get there from here.

We could be living in bubbles, meditating on pure thoughts, but who goes first?

[redpoint5]

I could maybe see humanity collectively accepting the downclimb for a short duration so long as the other peak is sufficiently higher than the one they were atop, or the threat they are facing on their current peak so personally antagonizing that they can no longer stay where they are.

This topic reminds me of the philosophy scenario that asks if we owe Mickey Mouse anything. Most would say no because Mickey Mouse isn't real (as a sentient being). Following that question is whether we owe future generations (yet unborn) anything, considering they are no more real than Mickey Mouse...

That isn't a justification for not considering future generations, but I do think at the core of humanity is a short-term outlook and need to see immediate results. It's evidenced all around by things like the level of debt the typical person carries. We're all too willing to sacrifice future well-being for current well-being, with the current being "real" and the future being "hypothetical".