6 ms·

I don't think it's called global warming anymore, it's called climate change. Besides, I don't understand why it's ok for liberals to make fun of conservatives

I don't think it's called global warming anymore, it's called climate change. Besides, I don't understand why it's ok for liberals to make fun of conservatives using "extreme snow" during winter as an argument against climate change but that liberals using exceptional heat during summer as an argument for climate change is ok. A few months of extra cold or heat is not enough to prove or disprove climate change. Last year we had an unusual cold summer, was that proof that climate change is not happening? We already have good scientific ways to measure climate change, let's stick to these (carbon emission etc). I think we should start focusing on real solutions. Many conservatives are right to underline that simply increasing taxes is not the solution. So what's the solution? Innovation in new source of renewable or less polluting energy technologies. Both liberals and conservatives tend to agree here but they diverge in methodology. Liberals want to heavily tax fossil and subsidize renewable energy. Problem with that is that taxing fossil make life and the economy harder in the meantime and subsidizing often goes to cronies which is bad for innovation. Conservatives prefer having better environment for businesses which will boost innovation. Maybe there's some middle ground in there.

davidw 11y ago
> conservatives using "extreme snow" during winter as an argument against climate change but that liberals using exceptional heat during summer The 'extreme snow' was limited to certain parts of the US - the west coast got very little on the whole. Whereas this high temperature data is a global average. So they're not really the same thing. > I think we should start focusing on real solutions. Sounds good to me. Taxes, it must be said, are also a way to spur innovation, because it can focus people's attention on using less of the taxed resource. Here's Greg Mankiw's take on that. He's a Republican economist. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto....
Frondo 11y ago
The fossil fuel industry folks, and the politicians they fund, are the ones who politicize this issue. Please don't turn this into a "liberals said, conservatives said" thing. If there wasn't a ton of fossil fuel money on the line, there never would have been any public confusion or discussion about AGW--the science would simply have been acknowledged and we've have moved onto engineering solutions. (As for the "conservatives prefer better environment for business.." you ought to look at how well the economy has done under liberal vs conservative leaders all throughout the 20th century to gain some insight into which political leanings are better for the economy, of which business is, of course, a major part.)
yongjik 11y ago
> Last year we had an unusual cold summer... ...which was still "0.5°F above the 20th century average" for the contiguous 48 US states[1]. From looking at the temperature graph[2], only about ten years between 1900-1980 was hotter than 2014. The fact that this is perceived as an "unusual cold summer" should give you a pause. As usual, there's a relevant xkcd for everyrthing: https://xkcd.com/1321/ https://xkcd.com/1321/ [1] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201413 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201413 : "In 2014, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature was 52.6°F, 0.5°F above the 20th century average, and tied with 1977 as the 34th warmest year in the 120-year period of record." [2] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-... (BTW, seriously, who uses Fahrenheit in scientific discourse?)
lukeschlather 11y ago
> I don't think it's called global warming anymore, it's called climate change. This is because warming is only one component of the problems we're facing as a result of pollution. See for example ocean acidification. > Besides, I don't understand why it's ok for liberals to make fun of conservatives using "extreme snow" during winter as an argument against climate change but that liberals using exceptional heat during summer as an argument for climate change is ok. The funny thing about snow is it actually can be a result of warming temperatures. At higher latitudes, warmer weather leads to more snow. So that's a starting point that higher temperatures don't necessarily mean less snow. But furthermore, if you have scientifically gathered data that says there's a trend towards warming, it's reasonable to look at heat waves and recognize them as part of a larger problem, since it's supported by data. However, if you pull out anecdotes that contradict the data, you're trying to muddle the issue and make it look like the data is invalid, even though you have no basis for that conclusion. > Conservatives prefer having better environment for businesses which will boost innovation. Maybe there's some middle ground in there. This is a non-opinion. A mix of taxing polluters and subsidizing non-polluting industries is the solution. Having a better environment for businesses boosts profits, not innovation. Taxing pollution forces businesses to find ways to profit without polluting. That's innovation.
- patrickaljord 11y ago
  > Having a better environment for businesses boosts profits, not innovation. Of course, but more profits encourages people to create more businesses which create more innovation. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    > Of course, but more profits encourages people to create more businesses which create more innovation. Sorry, I thought that was obvious. It isn't obvious at all. In fact, there are some indications that the opposite is true. For example, there are some simple economic models in Blatt:Dynamic Economic Systems where rate of profit and rate of growth are inversely proportional. Also, data from Piketty aren't very optimistic in this sense either (it seems that economic states with lots of private capital correspond to low growth and vice versa).
woobar 11y ago
> Last year we had an unusual cold summer, was that proof that climate change is not happening? Who are "we" that had an unusual cold summer? The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June–August was the highest on record for this period, at 1.28°F (0.71°C) above the 20th century average of 61.5°F (16.4°C). http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201408 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201408
jberryman 11y ago
> I don't understand why it's ok for liberals to make fun of conservatives using "extreme snow" during winter as an argument against climate change Because that argument betrays the most infantile misunderstanding of an issue that is extremely important; climate is not the same as weather, and extreme heat and cold and weather events are what climate models predict. > Many conservatives are right to underline that simply increasing taxes is not the solution. So what's the solution? Innovation in new source of renewable or less polluting energy technologies. Are you describing cap-and-trade? That's actually a conservative solution from decades ago; this is the "middle ground" and was roundly rejected as some kind of socialist takeover by today's conservatives. Anyway it's probably too late for all of that anyway. It's certainly too late for your impotent handwaving about "innovation in new source of renewable". What a joke.
cm2187 11y ago
The solution is simple: nuclear energy. Thorium.
- jqm 11y ago
  Hmm... sounds interesting. Can we use it to achieve geo-political domination through control of energy resources?
andyl 11y ago
I'm conservative. I want to heavily tax fossil and subsidize renewable, storage, thorium. Carbon tax now.
downandout 11y ago
> I don't think it's called global warming anymore, it's called climate change. Global warming and climate change are one in the same. "Global warming" became the rallying cry for so many environmentalist quacks citing bunk science - people like Al Gore were universally skewered in the mainstream media - that it was toxic from a PR perspective. So they came up with a new term. "Climate change" has the exact same beliefs, political backers, scientists, corporate interests, and studies behind it as "global warming". It's just a new name. > I think we should start focusing on real solutions. The issue is that there is no scientific evidence that solutions are possible. The earth has gone through many dramatic "climate change/global warming" events, and these last occurred long before cars or other man-made pollutants existed. It will go through them again, regardless of how many carbon taxes are levied by liberals or Tesla's are sold. It's just a reality - mankind will eventually cease to exist on this planet regardless of what it does or does not do.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > So they came up with a new term. "Climate change" has the exact same beliefs, political backers, scientists, corporate interests, and studies behind it as "global warming". It's just a new name. Strange then that "climate change" name predates "global warming"
  - downandout 11y ago
    The term may have been in use before, but it wasn't widely adopted by the global warming people until global warming became widely known as the near-exclusive domain of environmental extremists.
    - Oletros 11y ago
      The term was used by the scientists, that is what counts.
- yongjik 11y ago
  There must be a name for in-the-end-everybody-dies-so-why-bother logical fallacy... (For some reason, these same people are often pretty worried about the state of the economy. Nations have fallen since the beginning of history, and in the end every business and every nation collapse, so why don't we just let them fail and see if the next one is better?)
kilotaras 11y ago
Because you compare it to a couple of previous summers. On average it goes steadily upwards. Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1321/ https://xkcd.com/1321/

davidw 11y ago

> conservatives using "extreme snow" during winter as an argument against climate change but that liberals using exceptional heat during summer The 'extreme snow' was limited to certain parts of the US - the west coast got very little on the whole. Whereas this high temperature data is a global average. So they're not really the same thing. > I think we should start focusing on real solutions. Sounds good to me. Taxes, it must be said, are also a way to spur innovation, because it can focus people's attention on using less of the taxed resource. Here's Greg Mankiw's take on that. He's a Republican economist. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto....

Frondo 11y ago

The fossil fuel industry folks, and the politicians they fund, are the ones who politicize this issue. Please don't turn this into a "liberals said, conservatives said" thing. If there wasn't a ton of fossil fuel money on the line, there never would have been any public confusion or discussion about AGW--the science would simply have been acknowledged and we've have moved onto engineering solutions. (As for the "conservatives prefer better environment for business.." you ought to look at how well the economy has done under liberal vs conservative leaders all throughout the 20th century to gain some insight into which political leanings are better for the economy, of which business is, of course, a major part.)

yongjik 11y ago

> Last year we had an unusual cold summer... ...which was still "0.5°F above the 20th century average" for the contiguous 48 US states[1]. From looking at the temperature graph[2], only about ten years between 1900-1980 was hotter than 2014. The fact that this is perceived as an "unusual cold summer" should give you a pause. As usual, there's a relevant xkcd for everyrthing: https://xkcd.com/1321/ https://xkcd.com/1321/ [1] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201413 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201413 : "In 2014, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature was 52.6°F, 0.5°F above the 20th century average, and tied with 1977 as the 34th warmest year in the 120-year period of record." [2] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-... (BTW, seriously, who uses Fahrenheit in scientific discourse?)

lukeschlather 11y ago

> I don't think it's called global warming anymore, it's called climate change. This is because warming is only one component of the problems we're facing as a result of pollution. See for example ocean acidification. > Besides, I don't understand why it's ok for liberals to make fun of conservatives using "extreme snow" during winter as an argument against climate change but that liberals using exceptional heat during summer as an argument for climate change is ok. The funny thing about snow is it actually can be a result of warming temperatures. At higher latitudes, warmer weather leads to more snow. So that's a starting point that higher temperatures don't necessarily mean less snow. But furthermore, if you have scientifically gathered data that says there's a trend towards warming, it's reasonable to look at heat waves and recognize them as part of a larger problem, since it's supported by data. However, if you pull out anecdotes that contradict the data, you're trying to muddle the issue and make it look like the data is invalid, even though you have no basis for that conclusion. > Conservatives prefer having better environment for businesses which will boost innovation. Maybe there's some middle ground in there. This is a non-opinion. A mix of taxing polluters and subsidizing non-polluting industries is the solution. Having a better environment for businesses boosts profits, not innovation. Taxing pollution forces businesses to find ways to profit without polluting. That's innovation.

patrickaljord 11y ago
> Having a better environment for businesses boosts profits, not innovation. Of course, but more profits encourages people to create more businesses which create more innovation. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  > Of course, but more profits encourages people to create more businesses which create more innovation. Sorry, I thought that was obvious. It isn't obvious at all. In fact, there are some indications that the opposite is true. For example, there are some simple economic models in Blatt:Dynamic Economic Systems where rate of profit and rate of growth are inversely proportional. Also, data from Piketty aren't very optimistic in this sense either (it seems that economic states with lots of private capital correspond to low growth and vice versa).

woobar 11y ago

> Last year we had an unusual cold summer, was that proof that climate change is not happening? Who are "we" that had an unusual cold summer? The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June–August was the highest on record for this period, at 1.28°F (0.71°C) above the 20th century average of 61.5°F (16.4°C). http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201408 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201408

jberryman 11y ago

> I don't understand why it's ok for liberals to make fun of conservatives using "extreme snow" during winter as an argument against climate change Because that argument betrays the most infantile misunderstanding of an issue that is extremely important; climate is not the same as weather, and extreme heat and cold and weather events are what climate models predict. > Many conservatives are right to underline that simply increasing taxes is not the solution. So what's the solution? Innovation in new source of renewable or less polluting energy technologies. Are you describing cap-and-trade? That's actually a conservative solution from decades ago; this is the "middle ground" and was roundly rejected as some kind of socialist takeover by today's conservatives. Anyway it's probably too late for all of that anyway. It's certainly too late for your impotent handwaving about "innovation in new source of renewable". What a joke.

cm2187 11y ago

The solution is simple: nuclear energy. Thorium.

jqm 11y ago
Hmm... sounds interesting. Can we use it to achieve geo-political domination through control of energy resources?

andyl 11y ago

I'm conservative. I want to heavily tax fossil and subsidize renewable, storage, thorium. Carbon tax now.

downandout 11y ago

> I don't think it's called global warming anymore, it's called climate change. Global warming and climate change are one in the same. "Global warming" became the rallying cry for so many environmentalist quacks citing bunk science - people like Al Gore were universally skewered in the mainstream media - that it was toxic from a PR perspective. So they came up with a new term. "Climate change" has the exact same beliefs, political backers, scientists, corporate interests, and studies behind it as "global warming". It's just a new name. > I think we should start focusing on real solutions. The issue is that there is no scientific evidence that solutions are possible. The earth has gone through many dramatic "climate change/global warming" events, and these last occurred long before cars or other man-made pollutants existed. It will go through them again, regardless of how many carbon taxes are levied by liberals or Tesla's are sold. It's just a reality - mankind will eventually cease to exist on this planet regardless of what it does or does not do.

Oletros 11y ago
> So they came up with a new term. "Climate change" has the exact same beliefs, political backers, scientists, corporate interests, and studies behind it as "global warming". It's just a new name. Strange then that "climate change" name predates "global warming"
- downandout 11y ago
  The term may have been in use before, but it wasn't widely adopted by the global warming people until global warming became widely known as the near-exclusive domain of environmental extremists.
  - Oletros 11y ago
    The term was used by the scientists, that is what counts.
yongjik 11y ago
There must be a name for in-the-end-everybody-dies-so-why-bother logical fallacy... (For some reason, these same people are often pretty worried about the state of the economy. Nations have fallen since the beginning of history, and in the end every business and every nation collapse, so why don't we just let them fail and see if the next one is better?)

kilotaras 11y ago

Because you compare it to a couple of previous summers. On average it goes steadily upwards. Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1321/ https://xkcd.com/1321/