UN report: Effects of climate change even more severe than we thought

67,656 Views | 527 Replies | Last: 9 hrs ago by smh
kal kommie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Forecast for Concord, CA today is high of 96F, low a chilly 59F.

I would like to thank all Democrat voters for making this return to normal temperatures possible. Whatever you did this weekend - composted your coffee grounds, used a metal straw, or sacrificed a virgin at dawn on top of Mount Tam - it worked.
While tracking this thread, I've noticed you make many posts which address some aspect of climate change analysis, enough to know that you are at the very least skeptical of the "scientific consensus" but I have never seen you directly state your views on the matter. In order to perhaps move the conversation in a productive direction, would you care to define your position?

Do you believe there has been no non-negligible global average warming in recent decades? If you believe there has been non-negligible global warming, do you disagree with anthropogenic greenhouse gases being at least a significant contributor to the warming?

If you believe there has been no warming or that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not responsible, what do you think has led to the "scientific consensus"? Do you disagree with the idea that there is a scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming and that such warming carries massive risks for human populations?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

As if mouthbreather003 understands anything.

Oski003: there are companies making lots of money due to these regulations / green companies.

But I'm happy that others are engaging with his preschool debate tactics.
He feels so grownup when he pretends to be smart.


"Thank you, conservahumper003, for providing that useless detail.

Come back when you have annual earnings comparisons between petroleum related companies and these green companies you clowns get all "butwhatabout" over?"

Oski003 then compares Tesla to Chevron.

Aunbear89 then claims Tesla is not a green company.

...

What the heck is wrong with you aunbear? Seriously? Grow up. You are so obviously wrong here and can't admit it, it is asinine.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"If you believe there has been no warming or that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not responsible, what do you think has led to the "scientific consensus?"

Speaking for myself here, not Cal88:

I think most climate change skeptics believe that the scientific consensus on global warming is driven by the same engine that drives the medical establishment's consensus on the benefit and acceptable risk of vaccines, MONEY.

The skeptics claim the global warming theory has generated billions of dollars, and the scientists advocating it get their beaks mighty wet in those dollars (…….. Big Pharma makes billions selling vaccines and the medical establishment that promotes them are tantamount to pharmaceutical reps driving new Porsches).

With regard to the global warming issue and those that believe money is the driver, I would very much like to see a stab taken at this calculation:

Comparison of the amount of money generated by the global warming theory vs the amount of money saved by Big Business not having to comply with environmental regulations (or the increased profitability from not having to do so).
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kal kommie said:

Cal88 said:

Forecast for Concord, CA today is high of 96F, low a chilly 59F.

I would like to thank all Democrat voters for making this return to normal temperatures possible. Whatever you did this weekend - composted your coffee grounds, used a metal straw, or sacrificed a virgin at dawn on top of Mount Tam - it worked.
While tracking this thread, I've noticed you make many posts which address some aspect of climate change analysis, enough to know that you are at the very least skeptical of the "scientific consensus" but I have never seen you directly state your views on the matter. In order to perhaps move the conversation in a productive direction, would you care to define your position?

Do you believe there has been no non-negligible global average warming in recent decades? If you believe there has been non-negligible global warming, do you disagree with anthropogenic greenhouse gases being at least a significant contributor to the warming?

If you believe there has been no warming or that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not responsible, what do you think has led to the "scientific consensus"? Do you disagree with the idea that there is a scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming and that such warming carries massive risks for human populations?

Short midweek and Euro soccer semis answer -

The greatest risk to human populations from bad climate, by a wide margin, is the risk of starvation due to massive crop failures. As I have shown above, not only has this not happened, but in fact there is strong evidence that the increase in CO2 concentrations has contributed to higher crop yields, as well as more plant growth across the planet (earth is greening - see article above).

The other major risk that has been brandished by climate alarmists is the risk of sea levels rising. However, here as well, tidal gauge data from across the world shows that there has been no substantial change in the rate of sea level rise over the past several decades.

The third major risk is an increase in bad/extreme climate events - floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires etc. This hasn't happened either, if you look at historical data.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

kal kommie said:

Cal88 said:

Forecast for Concord, CA today is high of 96F, low a chilly 59F.

I would like to thank all Democrat voters for making this return to normal temperatures possible. Whatever you did this weekend - composted your coffee grounds, used a metal straw, or sacrificed a virgin at dawn on top of Mount Tam - it worked.
While tracking this thread, I've noticed you make many posts which address some aspect of climate change analysis, enough to know that you are at the very least skeptical of the "scientific consensus" but I have never seen you directly state your views on the matter. In order to perhaps move the conversation in a productive direction, would you care to define your position?

Do you believe there has been no non-negligible global average warming in recent decades? If you believe there has been non-negligible global warming, do you disagree with anthropogenic greenhouse gases being at least a significant contributor to the warming?

If you believe there has been no warming or that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not responsible, what do you think has led to the "scientific consensus"? Do you disagree with the idea that there is a scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming and that such warming carries massive risks for human populations?

Short midweek and Euro soccer semis answer -

The greatest risk to human populations from bad climate, by a wide margin, is the risk of starvation due to massive crop failures. As I have shown above, not only has this not happened, but in fact there is strong evidence that the increase in CO2 concentrations has contributed to higher crop yields, as well as more plant growth across the planet (earth is greening - see article above).

The other major risk that has been brandished by climate alarmists is the risk of sea levels rising. However, here as well, tidal gauge data from across the world shows that there has been no substantial change in the rate of sea level rise over the past several decades.

The third major risk is an increase in bad/extreme climate events - floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires etc. This hasn't happened either, if you look at historical data.
I thought this jaw dropping bizarre statement needed to be highlighted more.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

kal kommie said:

Cal88 said:

Forecast for Concord, CA today is high of 96F, low a chilly 59F.

I would like to thank all Democrat voters for making this return to normal temperatures possible. Whatever you did this weekend - composted your coffee grounds, used a metal straw, or sacrificed a virgin at dawn on top of Mount Tam - it worked.
While tracking this thread, I've noticed you make many posts which address some aspect of climate change analysis, enough to know that you are at the very least skeptical of the "scientific consensus" but I have never seen you directly state your views on the matter. In order to perhaps move the conversation in a productive direction, would you care to define your position?

Do you believe there has been no non-negligible global average warming in recent decades? If you believe there has been non-negligible global warming, do you disagree with anthropogenic greenhouse gases being at least a significant contributor to the warming?

If you believe there has been no warming or that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not responsible, what do you think has led to the "scientific consensus"? Do you disagree with the idea that there is a scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming and that such warming carries massive risks for human populations?

Short midweek and Euro soccer semis answer -

The greatest risk to human populations from bad climate, by a wide margin, is the risk of starvation due to massive crop failures. As I have shown above, not only has this not happened, but in fact there is strong evidence that the increase in CO2 concentrations has contributed to higher crop yields, as well as more plant growth across the planet (earth is greening - see article above).

The other major risk that has been brandished by climate alarmists is the risk of sea levels rising. However, here as well, tidal gauge data from across the world shows that there has been no substantial change in the rate of sea level rise over the past several decades.

The third major risk is an increase in bad/extreme climate events - floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires etc. This hasn't happened either, if you look at historical data.
I thought this jaw dropping bizarre statement needed to be highlighted more.

So you agree on the first two points.

Third point:




US tornadoes count decreasing:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/29/no-ohio-capital-journal-climate-change-is-not-causing-weird-violent-weather/


Fire area burned in sharp decline over the last century:


Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

kal kommie said:

Cal88 said:

Forecast for Concord, CA today is high of 96F, low a chilly 59F.

I would like to thank all Democrat voters for making this return to normal temperatures possible. Whatever you did this weekend - composted your coffee grounds, used a metal straw, or sacrificed a virgin at dawn on top of Mount Tam - it worked.
While tracking this thread, I've noticed you make many posts which address some aspect of climate change analysis, enough to know that you are at the very least skeptical of the "scientific consensus" but I have never seen you directly state your views on the matter. In order to perhaps move the conversation in a productive direction, would you care to define your position?

Do you believe there has been no non-negligible global average warming in recent decades? If you believe there has been non-negligible global warming, do you disagree with anthropogenic greenhouse gases being at least a significant contributor to the warming?

If you believe there has been no warming or that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not responsible, what do you think has led to the "scientific consensus"? Do you disagree with the idea that there is a scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming and that such warming carries massive risks for human populations?

Short midweek and Euro soccer semis answer -

The greatest risk to human populations from bad climate, by a wide margin, is the risk of starvation due to massive crop failures. As I have shown above, not only has this not happened, but in fact there is strong evidence that the increase in CO2 concentrations has contributed to higher crop yields, as well as more plant growth across the planet (earth is greening - see article above).

The other major risk that has been brandished by climate alarmists is the risk of sea levels rising. However, here as well, tidal gauge data from across the world shows that there has been no substantial change in the rate of sea level rise over the past several decades.

The third major risk is an increase in bad/extreme climate events - floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires etc. This hasn't happened either, if you look at historical data.
I thought this jaw dropping bizarre statement needed to be highlighted more.

So you agree on the first two points.


No, not at all. I'm just too busy today to play bash the pinata and whack a mole with you. Besides, I've never seen you acknowledge that someone else made a good point. You just shift to your next bit of flawed analysis. What's the point in playing that game?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Heat islands" worsening extreme temperatures across U.S.


https://www.axios.com/2024/07/11/heat-islands-us-record-temperatures
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Solid facts.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Heat islands" worsening extreme temperatures across U.S.


https://www.axios.com/2024/07/11/heat-islands-us-record-temperatures

That is true, and this UHI effect is also distorting climate data, as I have pointed out above. The other somewhat related problem is that large urban areas tend to experience more pronounced floods as there is less exposed earth and vegetation to absorb rainwater.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?




Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

bearister said:

Heat islands" worsening extreme temperatures across U.S.


https://www.axios.com/2024/07/11/heat-islands-us-record-temperatures

That is true, and this UHI effect is also distorting climate data, as I have pointed out above. The other somewhat related problem is that large urban areas tend to experience more pronounced floods as there is less exposed earth and vegetation to absorb rainwater.
Even if your assumptions about climate are correct, people are living in those Urban Heat Islands and have to deal with the hotter temperatures and more frequent flooding. What do you propose we do about it? Say it's unrepresentative of the less populated rural areas and just walk away from the problem? It's bad data - just suck it up buttercups?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No one has ever answered my question:

Which amount is larger, the projected savings by Big Business not having to comply with environmental regulations imposed to mitigate Climate Change or the money made by those in the "Climate Change Industry?"
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
PAC-10-BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

No one has ever answered my question:

Which amount is larger, the projected savings by Big Business not having to comply with environmental regulations imposed to mitigate Climate Change or the money made by those in the "Climate Change Industry?"

What is climate change?

Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

No one has ever answered my question:

Which amount is larger, the projected savings by Big Business not having to comply with environmental regulations imposed to mitigate Climate Change or the money made by those in the "Climate Change Industry?"

The carbon credit market is expected to exceed $13 trillion 9 years from now, so it is definitely larger.


These proceeds come mostly from the average citizen in the form of carbon taxes, or higher prices on goods and services produced with artificially high energy prices. The oligarchs who are on the monetary winning side of this brave new world project fund the governments, think tanks and useful idiots who will sell and impose this project.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Meanwhile in China.

Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Titanic was unsinkable.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

The Titanic was unsinkable.


I had the exact same thought
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sunday was world's hottest ever recorded day, data suggests:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/23/world-temperature-records-shattered-hottest-day-climate-crisis
smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
yepper, and not by accident. pig oil burns kids to a crisp
muting >550 handles, turnaround is fair play
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
2024 almost certain to be Earth's hottest year on record


https://www.axios.com/2024/10/22/2024-hottest-year-record
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

2024 almost certain to be Earth's hottest year on record
aand the year after likely worse..

# kill me now
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

2024 almost certain to be Earth's hottest year on record


https://www.axios.com/2024/10/22/2024-hottest-year-record
Cue Cal88's post with 37 tweets and poorly constructed charts and graphs from armchair climatologists in 3… 2… 1…

As mentioned in the Axios story, the National Climate Data center is in Asheville, NC and is out of service for the time being, which is delaying all the usual stuff they do like global temperature analysis. I use some of their products at work and for a report I did a couple of weeks ago, I had to scramble to find alternate sources. Some I couldn't find. At that time, I did read a press release that said the facility is undamaged and their employees are OK, but they had no power, water, phone service or internet.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bloomberg Philanthropies to fund U.S.'s Paris climate agreement obligations


https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5103697-bloomberg-philanthropies-paris-climate-agreement-withdrawal/

*Look at the Elon Musk tweets early in this thread
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Disappearing Data: Trump Administration Removing Climate Information from Government Websites | National Security Archive


https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/climate-change-transparency-project-foia/2025-02-06/disappearing-data-trump

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

dajo9 said:

Cal88 said:

Forecast for Concord, CA today is high of 96F, low a chilly 59F.

I would like to thank all Democrat voters for making this return to normal temperatures possible. Whatever you did this weekend - composted your coffee grounds, used a metal straw, or sacrificed a virgin at dawn on top of Mount Tam - it worked.


Today will be counted in the averages that are giving us continual record high temperatures too.
https://www.threads.net/@earthlyeducation/post/C8_zp5Fv6Y7/?xmt=AQGzqc-MoGeZJgWARjf41fWoSD6L0CXxqeaEAo5ywRdXng

The reason the data sample above is set to be from 1940 to 2014 is that to this day, most record heat days in the US is from the 1930s. This is the kind of manipulative cherry-picking that is used to create the alarmist climate narrative that prevails today.





The series of massive, brutal heat waves and droughts that hit north America in the 1930s that practically destroyed vast swaths of the midwest and created the Dust Bowl, worst environmental catastrophe in US history, have never been equaled since, not even close. IIRC temps of 120F were recorded in the Bay Area.



Most of the increase in heat observed today is due to the urbanisation around weather stations, resulting in higher local temperatures (what is referred as urban heat island effect):





The UHI effect raises local observed temperatures by up to 8-10 degrees F, and completely skews and drowns global warming measurements which attempt to measure changes in tenths of a degree. For example, sticking with Tom's corner, the Contra Costa Airport is today in the middle of a built up urban space, surrounded by highways, buildings and malls, whereas back decades ago that weather station was located in an exurb with plenty of green space around it.






Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was remarkably prescient in many ways, though not perfect in every detail. Here's how it holds up nearly 20 years later:

What Gore Got Right

Human-driven climate change: Gore emphasized that burning fossil fuels was driving global warming. This is now an unambiguous scientific consensus A.
Rising global temperatures: The Earth has warmed significantly since the film's release in 2006. In fact, the past decade has been the hottest on record A.
Melting glaciers and ice sheets: Gore warned about polar ice loss, and both Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have seen dramatic declines A.
Sea level rise: He predicted coastal flooding and rising seas. Tide gauges and satellite data confirm that sea levels are rising faster than they were in the 20th century A.
Extreme weather: Gore linked climate change to more intense storms and droughts. Today, attribution science shows clear connections between warming and extreme events like heatwaves, hurricanes, and wildfires A.


What Was Overstated or Misquoted

Arctic ice by 2013: Gore cited a scientist's model suggesting a 75% chance the Arctic could be ice-free in summer by 2013. That didn't happen, but the Arctic has still lost massive amounts of ice. The misquote was more about timing than direction B.
Dramatic visuals: Some critics felt the film used emotionally charged imagery (like flooding of major cities) that lacked nuance. But these scenarios are consistent with long-term projections if emissions continue unchecked A.


Scientific Verdict

Climate scientists largely agree Gore got the big picture right. As Ted Scambos, a senior researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, put it: "The basic truth, and its inconvenience, remains. In fact, it is clearer than ever that greenhouse gases are a major cause of the observed climate warming" A.

If anything, the real-world impacts have outpaced some of Gore's warnings. Want help crafting a rebuttal that uses this info to challenge climate denial? I can help you sharpen it.
PAC-10-BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

2024 almost certain to be Earth's hottest year on record

That's why Muslim men from Africa and the Mideast are moving to Europe, according, to Keir Starmer.

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"There are multiple, intersecting motivations for why some MAGA supporters deny climate change, including political and cultural identity, economic concerns, distrust of scientific and media institutions, and the influence of disinformation.

Political and cultural identity
Cultural worldview: For many, acknowledging human-caused climate change is viewed as a threat to their established cultural way of life. Acceptance of climate science would align them with a political group (liberals) with whom they feel they have nothing in common.

Conforming to group identity: Taking a position on climate change is not always about what people know, but about showing who they are and expressing their identity. Within some segments of MAGA, climate denial is a way to signal loyalty to the group.

Resentment of liberals: Some supporters are motivated by a cultural resentment of liberals and view policies to address climate change as something promoted by a rival political tribe.

Distrust of authority: MAGA supporters frequently express skepticism toward claims of urgency about climate change, often mistrusting the motivations of elected officials and media outlets that promote climate action.

Economic concerns
Fear of costs: Many Republicans and MAGA supporters worry that a transition to renewable energy would increase costs and potentially harm the economy.

Fossil fuel interests: Some MAGA politicians and supporters come from regions where the local economy is dependent on fossil fuels. This creates a vested economic interest in downplaying climate change and opposing a rapid shift away from traditional energy sources.

Industry disinformation: The fossil fuel industry has funded campaigns to spread disinformation and cast doubt on climate science for decades to protect profits and fight against regulation.

Impact on lifestyle: Adopting climate-friendly policies could disrupt carbon-intensive lifestyles, which some perceive as a threat to their personal way of life.

Distrust of institutions and information
Conspiracy beliefs: Conspiracy theories, like claims that the climate crisis is a hoax promoted for political or financial gain, are prevalent within some segments of MAGA.

Distrust of science: Research shows that distrust in climate scientists and scientific institutions is widespread among those who deny climate change.

Echo chambers: Supporters often interact within separate social media networks and information environments, reinforcing denialist views and isolating them from mainstream scientific consensus.

Media skepticism: Many MAGA supporters do not trust traditional news media for accurate information on climate change, reinforcing their skepticism.

Psychological factors
System justification: The ideology of system justification leads some to defend the status quo and resist changes to a comfortable lifestyle.

Cognitive dissonance: Some individuals experience internal discomfort from the conflict between what they know about climate change and their everyday actions. Denying the issue can be a way to resolve this dissonance.

Threat to self-interest: The idea that personal actions contribute to climate change can threaten a person's self-perception. Denial can be a protective coping mechanism."
AI Overview

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What's Cal88's motivation?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

What's Cal88's motivation?


"An internet search reveals no information about a person or group named "Cal88" being involved in climate change denial. The search results for "Cal88" refer to a vintage Swiss watch movement, not a climate change denier."
AI Overview
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
and even a stopped swiss watch is right (and never Left) a couple times a day
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

concordtom said:

What's Cal88's motivation?


"An internet search reveals no information about a person or group named "Cal88" being involved in climate change denial. The search results for "Cal88" refer to a vintage Swiss watch movement, not a climate change denier."
AI Overview

Swiss cheese, because there are large holes in his arguments.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

What's Cal88's motivation?


A vintage Swiss watch motion-like love for the truth.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

"There are multiple, intersecting motivations for why some MAGA supporters deny climate change, including political and cultural identity, economic concerns, distrust of scientific and media institutions, and the influence of disinformation.

Political and cultural identity
Cultural worldview: For many, acknowledging human-caused climate change is viewed as a threat to their established cultural way of life. Acceptance of climate science would align them with a political group (liberals) with whom they feel they have nothing in common.


True, but I would argue that the cultural alignment and conformity is even more pronounced in the Global Warming camp. That bias is clearly visible here, because dissenters are being dismissed as "MAGA", cultural r3tards or scientific illiterates.


Quote:

Conforming to group identity: Taking a position on climate change is not always about what people know, but about showing who they are and expressing their identity. Within some segments of MAGA, climate denial is a way to signal loyalty to the group.

Resentment of liberals: Some supporters are motivated by a cultural resentment of liberals and view policies to address climate change as something promoted by a rival political tribe.


Definitely not true, at least in my case, all my positions on climate change are based on scientific observations and arguments.

I also agree with the liberal position on some policy issues, and did change my mind on issues like EVs on solar panels based on recent developments in the industry, so my positions aren't "tribal" in nature.


Quote:

Distrust of authority: MAGA supporters frequently express skepticism toward claims of urgency about climate change, often mistrusting the motivations of elected officials and media outlets that promote climate action.

Distrust of institutions and information
Conspiracy beliefs: Conspiracy theories, like claims that the climate crisis is a hoax promoted for political or financial gain, are prevalent within some segments of MAGA.

Media skepticism:
Many MAGA supporters do not trust traditional news media for accurate information on climate change, reinforcing their skepticism.



Most definitely true, although there are also many people who have a healthy distrust of the establishment on the left as well. "Conspiracy theories" is a loaded NLP term that was put in place in order to counter growing public doubts about the official narrative of the Kennedy assassination, it has proven to be a pretty effective heuristic and rhetorical tool to dismiss dissenting opinions as kooks.


Quote:

Economic concerns
Fear of costs: Many Republicans and MAGA supporters worry that a transition to renewable energy would increase costs and potentially harm the economy.

True, there hasn't been a real cost benefit analysis in the formulation of policies that aim to aggressively curtail CO2 emissions, and those that have been done are based on alarmist and unrealistic computer models that have not stood the test of time.


Quote:

Distrust of science: Research shows that distrust in climate scientists and scientific institutions is widespread among those who deny climate change.

High trust in science, as in more rigor in data measurements and use that what is commonly propagated, as opposed to the scientific institutions that reflect and amplify the prevailing dogmas and are subject to regulatory capture.

Also, along these lines, the science and models that have been used are too simplistic and as mentioned above, did not stand the test of time. There are some basic aspects to the science of greenhouse gases that are ignored, like the fact that the warming is not linearly related to CO2 concentration, but logarithmically related, ie the amount of warming from 200ppm to 400pm is the same as that from 400ppm to 800ppm or that from 800ppm to 1600ppm.


https://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/

Quote:

Echo chambers: Supporters often interact within separate social media networks and information environments, reinforcing denialist views and isolating them from mainstream scientific consensus.

The echo chamber of the prevailing narrative is far more dominant.


Quote:

Cognitive dissonance: Some individuals experience internal discomfort from the conflict between what they know about climate change and their everyday actions. Denying the issue can be a way to resolve this dissonance.

The alarmist camp is subject to all sorts of cognitive biases: availability bias, appeal to authority, attribute substitution, conjunction fallacy, anchoring, base rate fallacy, Dunning-Kruger effect, framing and a dozen others. Climate alarmism operates from a standpoint of fear, which favors irrational thinking.


HawaiiBear33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

IPCC report: Effects of climate change even more severe, sooner than we thought - Axios


https://www.axios.com/un-climate-report-global-warming-faster-ipcc-003e9e0b-ae85-4298-ad0c-09fe163b74f4.html



Bearister I admire that you dig deep to research stuff but you fail to realize that looking only at liberal produced statements does not give you the whole picture…





Oh no trees are devolving!


We better make quadrillions of gates co2 machines now
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.