Reply to Conservatives and climate change (a poll)

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Conservatives and climate change (a poll)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The climate is always changing and on a much longer time scale than humans have been around to impact.  Educate yourself on the Milankovitch cycles - https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/#:~:text=These%20cyclical%20orbital%20movements%2C%20which,and%20south%20of%20the%20equator)

You heard it here first summer 2023 temperatures for most if not all of the US will be the lowest on record. [/quote]
I think it’s so adorable that conservatives always think it’s some ground breaking news that the earth’s climate has AlWaYs ChAnGeD. It wasn’t habitable by humans for much of that time.

And for you, dear sweet summer child. It’s just a cartoon so perhaps you’ll grasp its implications: [b]https://xkcd.com/1732/[/b][/quote]

This is really well done. Thank you, PP.[/quote]

Can a conservative comment on this? [/quote]

I'll bite.  The first thing that struck me is the smoothing.  They are operating on larger time scales in the early part, so any jumps will be averaged out more, while recent temperatures with the solid black line is better known.  They notes say they are using Shakun and Marcott.  I don't recognize Shakun, but I remember there was a lot of objection to the methods used by Marcott at the time of publication.  Search site:climateaudit.org Marcott and Shakun's name comes up in the results.  You can look at that if you want to review more technical details.  However, generally I think you get similar results in almost every reconstruction, but a little wavier with certain parts approaching modern temperatures, instead of a smooth growth.
People argue the Holocene was either a warmer time period or about the same temperature as now, as well as some other time periods, that are erased in this cartoon.

It says Medieval Warm Period was regional and not enough to affect global temperatures.  This is disputed, and there is evidence of this warm period in many places.  
There is rumors of an e-mail went out among IPCC from I think Jonathan Overpeck,'We have to erase the Medieval Warm Period.'  There was a chart of global temperatures that appeared in an earlier IPCC report by Lamb that was inconvenient for the narrative, leading people to the conclusion that maybe this is just natural warming.
A counterargument that is used, is that if it were warmer in Medieval Times, that just makes global warming more of a problem, as it means temperatures are even more sensitive to forcing changes than scientists generally conclude.

Another detail is that most of the warming shown at the end is predicted, not actual.  It has been 7 years since that chart, so maybe there would be a little more, but three or four of those color blocks would not appear on the actual temperature line.[/quote]
So this is my favorite kind of con rebuttal. Works in math - statistician, maybe? But we all know that there’s a lot of massaging that can be done with numbers, especially professionally - and doesn’t really understand the science behind global warming but is definitely all in on the right wing garbage pipeline and gets all the mailers, so to speak, so can speak to minutiae of arguments within the climatology community, at least from the right wing perspective. Likes to think of himself as “thoughtful” and as someone with a lot of common sense.

But is also someone who is absolutely paddling hard to ignore the scientific conclusion: we’re killing this planet. From our species’ perspective, anyway, as well as for most of the species currently on this beautiful blue marble. I’m never sure if you people just aren’t super observant or if you’re just happily oblivious just so long as shareholders are making bank, but even forty years ago when I was a child there were a ton more birds and insects. Industrial scale farming has done insane damage to the ecology of everywhere it’s used, and it’s also a massive contributor to global warming, too, and not just the cattle. What do you think soil is compromised of? Largely carbon. And when it blows off you can see its contribution.

We didn’t used to have fires every summer that choked off the air in random cities hundreds of miles away.

“Common sense” people like you are content to piddle little arguments just so long as you can arguably keep missing the point. You and I aren’t likely to suffer. You’re Mr. Whitecollar; it’s not you out there harvesting food and choking on Canadian smoke or living in a flood prone and poverty stricken country where people will suffer from global warming. Our kids will have health insurance and a nice, clean house we can close off and use air conditioning for if their lungs can’t take the smog. For people like you and I, we will get to rise above most of the complications, but where you and I differ is that [i]I[/i] want to change things so that all those other poor people aren’t suffering unnecessarily. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics