6 ms·
> I am really not impressed by any sides efforts to combat global warming. The reality today is that no efforts are made whatsoever by any political movement o
by mrpopo 10y ago
> I am really not impressed by any sides efforts to combat global warming.
The reality today is that no efforts are made whatsoever by any political movement on the planet to combat global warming, in the entire planet (except perhaps the CPC of China, against all odds). American Republicans do not even have the hint of honesty of admitting the issue at stake. They denied it 10 years ago, now they want to turn their audience into believing that it may not be human-caused.
> I would love to see more discussion beyond conservatives are anti-science radicals who want to kill the earth.
The discussion was over dozens of years ago, there is no debate. Human activity (intensive farming, petroleum and coal burning, cement production, ...) is causing climate change, period. And the changes are already past the point of being reversible. The data is plentiful and everywhere for the world to see.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago>>The reality today is that no efforts are made whatsoever by any political movement on the planet to combat global warming I don't think that is true, in the UK there have been efforts, for instance our coal use is the lowest for 150 years[1]. It isn't anywhere near enough to solve the problem but it isn't nothing either. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/31/rapid-decline-of-coal-use-leads-to-drop-in-uk-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/31/rapid-de...
- mrpopo 10y agoTrue, thanks for the correction. The point that I wanted to make was that all the efforts underway around the world at their current magnitude are not gonna make a dent in the greenhouse gases generation curve.
- mistermann 10y ago> The discussion was over dozens of years ago, there is no debate. You might find this attitude counter-productive in achieving your goals, especially in a democracy.
- acqq 10y agoThe "debate" means "a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote." If 95% of the scientists of the whole world agree the global warming exists and is human caused, that "formal discussion" is really over since 1990. Since then there was no debate if. You can read the results of that discussion in the IPCC reports, the last summary here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_... If you mean that the politicians would like to "debate" between themselves "what to do about it," they sure do. But they shouldn't be allowed to doubt all scientists of the world. It's criminally irresponsible, considering the potential dangers. It's also extremely simple in basic principles: without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C). More greenhouse gases, the higher the temperature on the surface. The same way you cover yourself with the blanket, under the blanket it's warmer, not because you produce more heat but because more warmth stays under the blanket. It's that simple, as simple as wearing the coat not to freeze in the winter, and unbelievable that somebody can be manipulated to doubt it. P.S. Surveys of scientists' views on climate change (to answer the question to this post): https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse... But they are of course less important than the IPCC which is official, worldwide and in the agreement since 1990.
- mistermann 10y ago> If 95% of the scientists of the whole world agree the global warming exists and is human caused. I often read this number, do you know where it came from, and what 95% of scientists agree on specifically?
- computereye 10y agoYou can check this source: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-c...
- acqq 10y ago> there is no debate If the media were unbiased and wanted to show the viewers the actual state, there would be always 20 scientists in the studio, 19 scientists speaking that the global warming is real and only one speaking that he believes it's not. Then every viewer would understand. "One person per side" is the core of the problem. That's how people get the impression it's 50-50: on the question "most scientists think global warming is happening" unsurprisingly only 49% of the public answered yes. They always see on the TV, at best, one guy speaking against another guy. The impression then: 50-50. It's not.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pbreit 10y ago> there is no debate Even for things that are substantially better understood no one would ever say "there is no debate".
- knowaveragejoe 10y agoThe debate is not whether it is occurring at all or contributed to by mankind, but which of our activities have what effect, and what to do about it. When folks like the above say "there is no debate", it should be quantified with that.
- pbreit 10y agoShould be but never is.
- wfo 10y agoIt doesn't need to be, anyone with the most basic understanding of the issues or anyone who cares enough to do the most basic cursory examination of the facts knows exactly what's being referred to. There simply is no worthwhile discussion to have about whether or not human activity has been a cause of climate change. 'Debating' it is akin to debating the existence of gravity or a causal link between smoking and cancer or whether or not quicksort is better than bubblesort. That is, it would be similar if there were a very wealthy and powerful 'bubblesort' lobby that funds and props up any argument that favors it, no matter how ridiculous or how much bad faith is required to make it.