The politics of climate change

[BabyBoomer50s]

A Perpetual Victim has entered the discussion.
First post butthurt rating is 40%
Odds of deflecting to "Time magazine predicted an ICE AGE back in 1973!" are currently 7:1.


Not any more, she isn't.
She was a card-carrying member of the climate change society until around 2010, when she fell down the denialist rabbit hole and sold her soul for denialist gold.
When her Wikipedia entry is peppered with peer criticisms such as "numerous 'strawman arguments' " and "shoddy research", you accept her "findings" at your own risk.

She says global temperatures have been rising for over a century and that rising greenhouses gases are contributing to that. There’s clearly a broad consensus on that. Are you really basing your argument on Wikipedia entries over her extensive volume of published peer reviewed papers? lol.

 

[ll74]

Regarding climate change, the political wing of the movement needs to promote nuclear more. It's a proper solution but it suffers from people not liking the risks involved.
We would do better with political strategists who can properly explain the benefits to stupid people who watch too many movies.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

- Longer growing seasons and higher yields in northern latitudes.

- New shipping lanes in the Arctic, such as the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage.

- Net reduction in climate related deaths. More deaths are caused by extreme cold weather than hot weather

All of which are offset by stronger storms.

 

[Lazaran]

All of which are offset by stronger storms.

And longer droughts.

And then there is the greenhouse cascade to consider.

Bottom line:

Democrats were and ARE right about prioritizing the anthropogenic climate change crisis, and they are the better choice of the two major parties to lead at this point due to their superior mental and psychological ability to process all the information and conclude that the scientific consensus on the matter should be accepted. (And that applies to maaaaaany other issues.)



BabyBoobs

 

[deckardB26354]

As expected, you don’t have any points of disagreement and pivoted to a rant about Trump.

I do have “points of disagreement” with Dr. Curry’s views—google it to find out.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

All of which are offset by stronger storms.

There certainly is no consensus on that. In fact NOAA just updated a report on 10/9/24 noting that scientists cannot conclude with confidence that human-caused increases in greenhouse gases have caused a change in Atlantic hurricane activity that is outside the range of natural variability,

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

There certainly is no consensus on that. In fact NOAA just updated a report on 10/9/24 noting that scientists cannot conclude with confidence that human-caused increases in greenhouse gases have caused a change in Atlantic hurricane activity that is outside the range of natural variability,

Odd because no one mentioned activity.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Odd because no one mentioned activity.

No consensus on activity or intensity

 

[Chernosoth]

Climate change has been mostly OK for Michigan so far. There is less snow but more rain, especially when I have time to bike. I am undecided about biking today in wet weather on my new bike. I'll take that as much better than flooded Florida or drought and fire across half the nation.

 

[Chernosoth]

The expert in the OP video talks like most of the PB crowd. She wants more nuclear power here and expansion of the electric grids in Africa, so more of the world's population can live unsustainably.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No consensus on activity or intensity

There is incredible consensus on intensity. It’s a fact, warmer waters make stronger storms. This isn’t something that’s debatable.

You still haven’t posted any evidence to back up your warmer is better narrative.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

There is incredible consensus on intensity. It’s a fact, warmer waters make stronger storms. This isn’t something that’s debatable.

You still haven’t posted any evidence to back up your warmer is better narrative.

There is no consensus on intensity of frequency of hurricanes and nobody said “warmer is better.” Dr. Curry notes that warming is not 100% bad. There are benefits as well as costs.

 

[RobDownSouth]

No shortage of peer reviewed papers she’s written on various aspects on climate science.

Nothing of consequence since she defected to the other side in 2010, though.

I mean, I get it....I'm happy you've found someone who espouses your own particular confirmation bias.

I've been here a long time now and this subject pops up fairly regularly. It's probably "new and fresh" to you though.

What's troubling is your timing....why bring this up now?

Well, because people are realizing that two abnormally strong hurricanes in a row might just mean, y'know, there is something out there that is making them worse and more intense (spoller: there is, it's fossil fuel emissions and climate change).

Sooooo as predictable as the tides, here you come ridin' to the rescue for conservative causes by bringing up yet again a discredited climate change denialist whackadoodle. This is on par with the chobham/AJ/Wat clique routinely bringing up "but...but..Knives! and Cars! and if you don't count suicide! And mental health!" after each mass shooting.

Pre-emptive derp is what it is.

And then you go all sealion on us "let's examine exactly WHAT you said in detail....blah blah blah".

You are arguing in bad faith. It's intellectually dishonest.

And when I call you out on it, you whine piteously and play the victim card, most likely the result of the lack of a father figure in your formative years.

 

[Rebel5soul]

She says global temperatures have been rising for over a century and that rising greenhouses gases are contributing to that. There’s clearly a broad consensus on that. Are you really basing your argument on Wikipedia entries over her extensive volume of published peer reviewed papers? lol.

Dr Curry's cardinal sin is that she has stated that it is "unknown" was to how much CO2 may be contributing to that warming.

As a side observation, we are in an inter-glacial period and that's what the Earth does in inter-glacials.........it warms up.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

There is no consensus on intensity of frequency of hurricanes and nobody said “warmer is better.” Dr. Curry notes that warming is not 100% bad. There are benefits as well as costs.

So again, what evidence exists that warming would have benefits?

“Recent studies have shown a link between ocean surface temperatures and tropical storm intensity – warmer waters fuel more energetic storms.”

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/fact...e over cold,waters fuel more energetic storms.

 

[Chernosoth]

So again, what evidence exists that warming would have benefits?

One benefit is here in my neighborhood. There is less snow to shovel in Michigan winters. While coastal regions flood and some arid regions become lifeless deserts, other regions become more habitable, such as Mexico and northern Canada. The whiners will continue whining until they drown, burn, or die of thirst, while the survivors move and adapt.

 

[Lazaran]

The politics of climate change:

The reality of anthropogenic climate change as evidenced by back to back massive hurricanes in the gulf hitting Florida, etc, and the "republican" party’s ignorance and lack of action on the issue has convinced me to vote for the Democrats.

The politics of women’s health:

The reality of the unacceptable predicted negative consequences of the "republican" party’s overturning of Roe have convinced me to vote for the Democrats.

The politics of economics:

The "republican” party’s continuing favoring of the rich and corporations over the working class and the poor has convinced me to vote for the Democrats.

The politics of freedom and democracy:

The rising threat of authoritarianism and fascism since the "republican" party sold its soul to DonOld have convinced me to vote for the Democrats.

The politics of national security:

The "republican" party’s condoning of DonOld’s blatant disregard for national security and DonOld’s sabotaging of the BIPARTISAN immigration reform and border security bill has convinced me to vote for the Democrats.

The politics of decency:

The "republican" party’s condoning of DonOld - a rapist, a criminal, and a traitor - and once again choosing DonOld as their avatar, has convinced me to vote for the Democrats.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

One benefit is here in my neighborhood. There is less snow to shovel in Michigan winters. While coastal regions flood and some arid regions become lifeless deserts, other regions become more habitable, such as Mexico and northern Canada. The whiners will continue whining until they drown, burn, or die of thirst, while the survivors move and adapt.

You didn’t provide any proof do you have evidence of any of that?

 

[Politruk]

The credibility of Judith Curry is in question here. In this kind of case, the first place one should look is always RationalWiki:

Judith Curry is a climatologist at Georgia Tech infamous for flirting with the denier community on the basis that some of them have "good ideas" and can't get their contrarian papers published. For instance, she has posted on Anthony Watts' blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit. (She invited McIntyre to talk at Georgia Tech.[1] This makes her a massive enabler.) She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place.[2] This and other shenanigans led Tamino of Open Mind to say, "Judith, your credibility is now below zero."[3] Curry has agreed with Trump's description of climate change as a "hoax", writing in 2016 that the UN's definition of manmade climate change "qualifies as a hoax".[4] In short, she's the Richard Lindzen of the South. Or maybe the Roy Spencer of Georgia, take your pick.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Dr Curry's cardinal sin is that she has stated that it is "unknown" was to how much CO2 may be contributing to that warming.

"Unknown" means she is choosing to arbitrarily ignore the 160 years of documented CO2 emission recordings and the statistically correlated rise in global warming.

As a side observation, we are in an inter-glacial period and that's what the Earth does in inter-glacials.........it warms up.

Irrelevant. We ARE between glacial periods but the time frame for the next expected ice age is thousands of years in the future Doing nothing for the next 1000 or so years would seem to be denying climate change as an issue.

Climate change scientists have cataloged the 220 Most Common Claims By Climate Change Denialists And How To Refudiate Them. It's worth a bookmark....I find them very handy in smacking down specious denialist claims. Each refudiation comes in three flavors: For Academics, For General Population and For Trump Supporters!

 

[Politruk]

Strictly speaking we're in an ice age now -- any period when there is ice at the poles is an ice age.

In Earth's long history/prehistory, there has not always been ice at the poles.

But there HAS been ice at the poles at all times H. sapiens has existed. We are not adapted to any world other than that.