5 ms·
Strange how difficult it is to get a non-political unbiased view of man-made climate change, isn't it?
by dogruck 9y ago
Strange how difficult it is to get a non-political unbiased view of man-made climate change, isn't it?
- 0xfeba 9y agoFrom major news outlets? No, not strange. Luckily the AAAS, NASA, NOAA aren't nearly as political.
- dogruck 9y agoI disagree that organizations such as AAAS, NASA, and NOAA aren't political. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of "political." Do you define it as "elected official?"
- emodendroket 9y agoAre newspaper editors elected where you live?
- dogruck 9y agoPretty much -- every reader and advertiser is essentially a voter. Many more layers of indirection for NASA officials. Still, I think NASA has heaps of politics.
- emodendroket 9y ago> Pretty much -- every reader and advertiser is essentially a voter. That is not the least bit similar to being voted for.
- dogruck 9y agoCogent. I think money talks -- in journalism and in traditional elections. I agree to disagree with you.
- emodendroket 9y agoIf a newspaper editor is a democratically elected position because subscribers can cancel their subscriptions and advertisers can pull their ads, then Supreme Leader of North Korea is a democratically elected position, because if you don't like the way they rule you can just leave.
- dogruck 9y agoBut, you cannot just leave the DPNK. See how you're wrong?
- emodendroket 9y agoMany people do. But look at Xi Jingping instead if you're so hung up on the leaving being illegal part. Also it's the DPRK
- geiseric 9y agoIf in fact climate change is man made. There is strong evidence that this is a natural cycle. Are humans contributing greenhouse gasses? Yes, but what effect are they having? We don't really know, contrary to those who say they do. We have an idea, but climate prediction is still difficult and imperfect. So NO! The science isn't final.
- polotics 9y agoYou are using a straw man: science is never final. We however do really know what effect CO2 has, you even use the term "greenhouse gases", that's the effect right there in the name. You state "strong evidence", please post links to this I have a few debunking minutes left for today. Thank you
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago> science is never final Why not wait till we're (more) certain? What's the worst that could happen? Catastrophic, runaway climate-change? I say we risk it - at least the science will have been settled... FUD works both ways.
- dogruck 9y agoProposed responses to supposed man-made climate change are not free. For example, if you're a rich American, you simply hop on the bandwagon and pay more for stuff. Buy a Tesla, live in the city, pay some extra taxes, etc. If you're not rich, you have to think carefully.
- dwaltrip 9y agoHuman CO2 contribution and the basic warming effect are well understood. Nature absorbs more CO2 than it emits, but not enough to offset the amount we are putting out. Thus, the global CO2 concentration has been rising over the past 100+ years, especially in recent decades. A higher CO2 concentration blocks more thermal radiation from exiting through Earth's atmosphere into space. When this energy is blocked, it stays on Earth, raising the temperature. Using models that have made successful predictions in recent decades, we can predict that we are in for at least another 1 degree Celsius raise in global temperature, and very likely more if we don't work hard to counteract the issue (and stop emitting so much CO2). This temperature increase will have very real, significant consequences, and we saw it coming many years ago. There is a reason all other developed countries in the world don't deny climate change.