Is anyone worried about climate change anymore?

Natural ? I'm not buying the dominance of it being 'natural' ... It's more man-made than 'natural' (I guess that's another thread, I guess)

I thought it was more appropriate because it incorporated all changes to the climate... rather than just saying the globe is going to be warmer...

Changes to the ...


Climate is the pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these variables over shorter periods.

 

I was on vacation and haven't been on here much at all in about a week.... so, I'm wondering...ARE there threads about what happened in Kenya? (I'll have to take a look....)--- because when I got home from the beach and heard about that I found it.... very shocking to say the least...

 

I can't see anything in: Latest News, Politics, Africa or even Random thoughts...
I guess I could start a thread - bit late in the day now, though...

 

I was being slightly tongue in cheek, although I do think it is a mix of both. The earth has always had natural shifts in weather patterns - the ice age, for example. The earth has had mini ice ages since as well.

But I do agree with you. I think mankind has a huge impact on the environment.

 

I think we have an impact well. The thing is, science has been "certain" of so many things in the past. The IPCC was "certain" the warming trend would continue, for example. I do not doubt a human impact on climate change, but there is enough room to question how large that impact is. I am always cautious and skeptical when anyone is certain about anything when it comes to our planet.

 

Meliai

If on my scales -

The earth has always had natural shifts in weather patterns

I think mankind has a huge impact on the environment

Researchers from all over the world work with the IPCC to pore over thousands of peer-reviewed studies and produce a summary representing the current state of climate science

A new Summary for Policymakers on the physical sciences, the first of three parts that make up a report to be released over the next 12 months, will be published in Stockholm on Friday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504

 

Yep, Odon, I read about that yesterday.

 

I was just trying to say are you sure the IPCC were 'certain'...or just what they may have thought at a particular point...5-6 review is fast isn't it?

 

Yeah....that is surprising there are none then. Like I said, I wasn't around or I prolly woulda made one.... but anyways, I was actually looking forward to searching for a thread on it and reading what I missed... Hmm..

 

They seemed pretty certain, and are throwing around that certainty again. I just don't think we understand our climate system enough to be as certain as they are.

 

Anyways... to get back on topic... I do agree that, at least partially, it's because the media isn't talking about it as they used to and people tend to care about what the media tells them to care about. But another thought is that back about when you heard about "global warming" all the time (and it was called "global warming" and not "climate change"....), a lot of people were just really learning the extent of the issue (climate change- whatever they, as individual people think of the causation)- so there was a lot of hype while people were learning about it more and talking about it more...and now everyone already knows about it..so, old news.

 

A bit like loose change?

 

Scientists are now as sure of man-made global warming as they are sure that cigarettes cause cancer. But as long as we have FOX News and CNBC, there will be poorly educated people who deny it. And rich people, too, who are trying to protect their billions.

 

Billions to be made off man made global warming as well. Money on both sides of the debate.

 

ha, yeah. Listen, I believe that man does have an impact and massive efforts need to be made to reduce that impact as much as possible. That said, I don't take to well to some who say "the debate is over". That attitude isn't one of science.

 

Well the deniers have already cost us the ability to do much about it. It's too late now. We are pretty much hosed and I think most of the most knowledgeable people know it, so there isn't that much strength behind the politics. Except to be angry that our government isn't capable of solving our problems anymore.

 

How do we know that though? How do we know we won't see a cooling cycle in the relatively near future? The planet has seen them before. The planet has been far warmer than it is now during the short time life has existed on it, and it has been far cooler. We are talking about climate patterns there, that are notoriously hard to predict with any great degree of accuracy.

 

What I am saying is that it's fairly certain now that that carbon is causing the warming. And the warming will continue no matter what we do, since the arctic tundra is at a tipping point with regard to the trapped methane, among other reasons.

The earth will not be cooling in the relatively near future, unless 95% of scientists are wrong.

 

Wouldn't the IPCC just not continue further? I can't refute whether the IPCC or a large majority of scientists once said with certainty anything...but I'll take your word for it.

 

Of course. I realize there are researchers still working away writing new reports on this subject matter. I'm only pointing out that the public's concern and fear is much lower than it was a few years ago. And when the public has a low level of concern, it will be tough to get enough support to pass a tax raising, civil liberty destroying, tyrannical climate law.

I'm inferring that some people are welcoming to question the entire validity of the statements. Between 01-05 most if not all who cast doubt upon the reported story were all demonized as conspiracy kooks and anti-american. Now you do t see that as much.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue 9/11 right now as it will derail this thread. But maybe another time.

I think humans have a climate impact on the planet as well. And when I say planet, I mean their local environments and micro climates. Humans have altered the surrounding micro climate by deforestation, which leads to desertification. By city development, which causes urban hot spots. And so forth.

Nevertheless, the alarmists use take advantage of these problems and use this data to say these things are only caused by carbon emissions.

The alarmists have changed the word "skeptic" to "denier" to associate us with holocaust deniers.

When has the government ever been capable of solving our problems? :smilielol5:

Real science allows room for skeptics to challenge and contest the results of previous scientific conclusions. When anyone who challenges scientific findings gets demonized, silenced, and labeled a heretic, that's politicized science. Eugenics was politicized science too. It was an effort to improve and save humanity and funded by political organizations and philanthropists around the globe. All naysayers were shunned.

But guess what that got us?

Inhumane insane asylums, a significant reduction of the non white population, and the holocaust. If we don't learn the lessons of politicized science, I dread to think what global warming policy will result in.


But like you said, it's too late now, and the public's interst on this topic has run low. And it's very unlikely that they'll ever pass a carbon tax or a civil liberty destroying climate law in the foreseeable future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRamB30E9mU"]Vincent Price Laugh - YouTube