The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

But, methane when they are eating grass makes NO CHANGE in the long run to the atmosphere. Cows have existed for millions of years, and the carbon cycle is in balance.

The species from which we selectively bred cows, the aurochs, existed for millions of years, yes--until we drove them to extinction in 1627. But the aurochs' range was limited to Europe, and it did not exist in any population comparable to the sheer number of cows alive now, of which there are over 1 billion at any given time. (For comparison, there were only an estimated 30 million bison in North America before white settlers began hunting them. The modern cow population dwarfs the historic population of bovines, even when you combine various species on all continents).

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Just because something is processed doesn't mean it isn't good for you, and practically all food is GMO (selected and bred for desirable attributes).

Unfortunately, in politically-charged and emotional "discussion," there often is no room for nuance. Anti-GMO people don't realize they aren't actually anti-GMO: nearly everything we consume has been genetically modified by us to suit our purposes, and they're fine with things like "heirloom" tomatoes and sweet corn. Their beef (pun intended!) is with the way we go about modifying an organism, but they never say that and many, I think, don't even realize that. It's like that stupid Food Babe or whomever ranting against "chemicals" in various things because they have scary names and she doesn't know that literally everything that exists is made of chemicals.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The 97% consensus who don't believe climate change, environment, pollution is the most important problem is everyone.

......"everyone" being those who surround four oil pans & worship them.

[freebeard]

As one who insults, you're not that good.

This just went live at noon Eastern time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zfMyzXqfI

Gert 4 hours ago
I see people confusing reality with fear mongering (And most likely therefore confusing fear mongering with reality)
AGW is fear mongering.
This is Not.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Science might be able to somewhat accurately predict what the average temperature will be in the future as well as some sea level rise and other global conditions, but that doesn't predict what the price of tea in China will be.

In other words, there's not evidence about how the changes will affect health and prosperity for humanity, or at least the only acceptable discourse is centered around things like the loss of polar bear habitat or the increase in habitable mosquito environments.

Ever notice how it's only cute things that lose their environment, and only nasty things whose environment improves?

If research funding depends on finding disaster, should we be surprised if it's found? We don't actually have unbiased research which is looking to paint a truthful picture of what climate change will mean to humanity in the future. It's all politically motivated.

I accept that the climate is changing; I don't accept that it necessarily means doom. I'm more concerned about nuclear warfare, killer drones, and weaponized genetic engineering. Our ingenuity is our own worst enemy, not our ignorance.

The whole point of climate science, and science-directed policy would be to, mitigate the effects BEFORE we have EVIDENCE of them.
The physicist argues that throwing your family off the edge of the Grand Canyon will in all likelihood be fatal to them.Are you really interested in 'evidence'?
The polyp found in 1957 is now a tumor,and is metastasizing worldwide.We could have removed the polyp sixty-two years ago,now we're facing chemotherapy and radiation just to survive.There goes the total global GNP.
I love the 'New Math.'

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The whole point of climate science, and science-directed policy would be to, mitigate the effects BEFORE we have EVIDENCE of them.
The physicist argues that throwing your family off the edge of the Grand Canyon will in all likelihood be fatal to them.Are you really interested in 'evidence'?
The polyp found in 1957 is now a tumor,and is metastasizing worldwide.We could have removed the polyp sixty-two years ago,now we're facing chemotherapy and radiation just to survive.There goes the total global GNP.
I love the 'New Math.'

The argument to take action sooner rather than later certainly makes sense.

Your analogy doesn't hold though, as the consequences of a fall, or the consequences of malignant tumors are very well understood and clearly dangerous.

Global warming affects absolutely everything, and not necessarily in a negative way. There are some clear negative consequences, such as oceans inundating low-lying land, or polar bears losing habitat. What isn't clear is the practically infinite positive and negative ways other things will be affected.

That said, what is known is that adaptation and preparation is made easier when there's more time, and rapid change puts more pressure on creatures (including us) attempting to adapt. The question then becomes whether we get more bang for the buck delaying the rate of change, or by preparing for it.

Though I'm no expert, it seems more straightforward to me to build something that accommodates current and future weather than to keep what I have built and try to manipulate the outdoor thermostat. This especially when the timescale we're talking about is still many generations. We're not even talking about us having to build a new home for ourselves, but perhaps great grandchildren needing to build elsewhere, or fortify against future weather.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

The huge lie about global warming came from Hollywood. The movie Watherworld shows Earth nearly completelly by water. Even if all ice melts most land area would still not be covered.
The producers even altered Universal Pictures animated logo to show such lie :

And A.I Artificial Intelligence also shows some nonsense about sea level after ice melt.

Anyway even so global warming can be a very huge problem.

*the lie about solar variability and global warming is attributed to Bob Jastrow,Sallie Baliunas,and Willie Soon,of the George C. Marshall Institute,in 1989.
*the lie about water vapor and clouds being the driver for global warming is attributed to Richard Lindzen,in 2001,who openly admitted that he never had any data to support his assertions.
*the lie about thousands of dying each year from cold,and how global warming is 'a good thing,' is attributed to U.S.Representative,Duncan Hunter (R) California,in 2009.
*the lie that global warming as being a fabrication of the 'liberal media,' is attributed to George Will,on George Stephanopoulous's Disney-ABC Television's ABC THIS WEEK,March 26,2006.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

EVs sales can't take off.
Toyota ran out of batteries multiple times building the prius, tesla ran out of batteries a few times, nissan ran out of batteries at least once, hyundai just ran out of batteries for the kona this july.
Even if EV sales really took off we would barely be at 1% of the US fleet being electric.
I don't know where all these batteries are going to come from.

I don't see any resolution to any of these issues as long as the due process clause of the 14th-Amendment to the Constitution, corporate 'personhood',and Citizen's United remain part of the American rule-of-law landscape.This trifecta has essentially voided our democracy.
And it's pretty funny that,one of the entities most involved in this usurpation,made their family fortune in communist Russia,and NAZI Germany.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by litesong

Another AGW denier, triggered off by another AGW denier, repeats the Hollywood connection, believing a repeat, causes truth.

Just part of the playbook.
'What luck for rulers that men do not think.' Adolph Hitler

[redpoint5]

So we've got liars on one extreme end, and liars on the other. More likely though is ignorance, since having a full understanding of the implications of global warming is impossible.

I'm not sure the Duncan Hunter comment is a lie though. There are scientists that have suggested we're still benefiting from warming, and may continue to benefit until 2080.

Humanity has indisputably benefitted from the warming from the last ice age that began 20,000 years ago. If we have benefited from the warming that began 20,000 years ago, when did we stop benefiting from the continued warming? In other words, at what temperature were we on the whole worse off than better off?

If we haven't reached that temperature yet, what temperature is it, and when are we likely to reach it?

Nobody has ventured an answer to my repeated question.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by litesong

......"everyone" being those who surround four oil pans & worship them.

Nope that's a long term poll questions asked by Gallup to thousands of likely voters every month. The results usually show about 3% or less of likely voters believe global warming, pollution, environment is the most important problem. So that 3% has the environment and pollution lumped in with global warming. So the actual total of people who think global warming specifically is the number one problem could very well be 1% or less.
Then AP found that 2/3 of Americans are unwilling to pay more than $100 per year or $10 per month to fix global warming. You have to drop that number down to $1 per month to get a majority of Americans on board.
So the agw cult is adrift at sea and taking on water.