5 ms·

I am amused by the way climate deniers love to cherry-pick sources like NASA to give themselves a superficial veneer of scientific credibility. From the very p

I am amused by the way climate deniers love to cherry-pick sources like NASA to give themselves a superficial veneer of scientific credibility. From the very page you reference about Milankovitch cycles there's a link to "Why Milankovitch Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming" -> https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-m...

tastyfreeze 3y ago
No need to call me names for providing evidence that supports my opinion that humans aren't doing a damn thing to change the climate for good or bad. If you disagree that's fine. I find Milankovitch cycles and catastrophic events explain enough historical climate change that I can use it as a baseline for what to expect in the future. The climate has changed drastically over millennia without any human influence. It is irrational hubris to look at the small slice of time since industrialization and say "aha, we did something different and the ice is melting it must be our fault". The ice was already melting at an unknown rate. Saying we caused it is a post hoc rationalization. I do not ascribe to the belief that humans are a scourge on the planet and we should do everything we can to undo our sins of using energy to improve the lives of billions of people globally. Since the start of the industrial revolution humans have raised atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 410ppm. A change in atmospheric fraction of CO2 from 0.028% to 0.041%. Plants require 150ppm CO2 to survive and grow significantly better in concentrations around 1000ppm. This is why greenhouses increase CO2 levels inside. Higher atmospheric CO2 means more plants to photosynthesize it. The argument for human caused climate change and that we must do something about the changing climate is simply unconvincing to me. If you are worried about CO2 emissions we are improving on that front by using cleaner fuels like natural gas instead of coal. If we used nuclear we could reduce CO2 emissions even further.
- gottorf 3y ago
  I wager that over the next century, more human lives will be harmed by efforts to counter climate change than will be by the changing climate itself. The WMO estimates[0] that over the 50 years from 1970 to 2019, global climate-related deaths dropped to one-third. Not one-third per capita; one-third in absolute number of deaths, even as the world population more than doubled. This can be mostly attributed to the rising standard of living in developing countries, through the use of cheap energy from fossil fuels, which lets people better master their environment. On the other side, we have the example of Sri Lanka, which banned chemical fertilizer (produced from fossil fuels) and pesticides partly out of environmental concerns[1], and is now undergoing widespread hunger. [0]: https://library.wmo.int/viewer/57564/download?file=1267_Atlas_of_Mortality_en.pdf&type=pdf https://library.wmo.int/viewer/57564/download?file=1267_Atla... [1]: https://fee.org/articles/sri-lanka-s-food-crisis-is-man-made-and-demonstrates-the-danger-of-faux-environmentalism/ https://fee.org/articles/sri-lanka-s-food-crisis-is-man-made...
  - Daishiman 3y ago
    I cannot imagine a more intellectually dishonest position than this one which willfully ignoring the vast and accelerating scale of change in the global climate system.
    - gottorf 3y ago
      A "vast and accelerating scale of change" that heretofore, as evidenced by data, yielded no climate-related burden on humanity. Atmospheric CO2 went from ~280ppm pre-Industrial Revolution to ~325ppm in 1970 to ~410ppm in 2019[0], during which time we 10x'd the number of humans and as I stated, reduced the human toll on the climate by over 6x in the past 50 years. But sure, call me intellectually dishonest in the absence of any evidence; without which your position is just another Malthusian or Ehrlichian doomsday prediction. [0]: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-concentration-of-carbon-dioxide-5/download.table https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-co...
      - Daishiman 3y ago
        The idea that there is no climate-related burden on humanity is more intellectual fallacy. Extreme weather events have been ocurring more frequently and we have hit record-high global temperatures and record-low Antactic ice surfaces. Ocean acidification has real and quantifiable effects on plankton and mollusks which are the base of the global food chain. You're suddenly shifting the conversation as though doubling the proportion of a gas responsible for global warming in the span of a century was not a concerning thing in geological timescales. So yeah, not just an intellectual fake but also a willful liar.
- chimprich 3y ago
  > No need to call me names for providing evidence that supports my opinion that humans aren't doing a damn thing to change the climate for good or bad You chose a source to illustrate your point that disagreed with you. It didn't support your opinion. > It is irrational hubris Argument by incredulity. The science doesn't care about whether we think its hubris. > Plants require 150ppm CO2 to survive and grow significantly better in concentrations around 1000ppm Plants do grow better with higher CO2 concentrations - but they also grow much worse with higher heat stress, which counteracts this. Growing crops will become unsustainable in large regions of the tropics. > The argument for human caused climate change and that we must do something about the changing climate is simply unconvincing to me. Based on what? What sources have you read? What makes them unconvincing? > If you are worried about CO2 emissions we are improving on that front by using cleaner fuels like natural gas instead of coal. If we used nuclear we could reduce CO2 emissions even further. That is true, though natural gas is only as partial improvement. Renewables and nuclear are much better solutions.

tastyfreeze 3y ago

No need to call me names for providing evidence that supports my opinion that humans aren't doing a damn thing to change the climate for good or bad. If you disagree that's fine. I find Milankovitch cycles and catastrophic events explain enough historical climate change that I can use it as a baseline for what to expect in the future. The climate has changed drastically over millennia without any human influence. It is irrational hubris to look at the small slice of time since industrialization and say "aha, we did something different and the ice is melting it must be our fault". The ice was already melting at an unknown rate. Saying we caused it is a post hoc rationalization. I do not ascribe to the belief that humans are a scourge on the planet and we should do everything we can to undo our sins of using energy to improve the lives of billions of people globally. Since the start of the industrial revolution humans have raised atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 410ppm. A change in atmospheric fraction of CO2 from 0.028% to 0.041%. Plants require 150ppm CO2 to survive and grow significantly better in concentrations around 1000ppm. This is why greenhouses increase CO2 levels inside. Higher atmospheric CO2 means more plants to photosynthesize it. The argument for human caused climate change and that we must do something about the changing climate is simply unconvincing to me. If you are worried about CO2 emissions we are improving on that front by using cleaner fuels like natural gas instead of coal. If we used nuclear we could reduce CO2 emissions even further.

gottorf 3y ago
I wager that over the next century, more human lives will be harmed by efforts to counter climate change than will be by the changing climate itself. The WMO estimates[0] that over the 50 years from 1970 to 2019, global climate-related deaths dropped to one-third. Not one-third per capita; one-third in absolute number of deaths, even as the world population more than doubled. This can be mostly attributed to the rising standard of living in developing countries, through the use of cheap energy from fossil fuels, which lets people better master their environment. On the other side, we have the example of Sri Lanka, which banned chemical fertilizer (produced from fossil fuels) and pesticides partly out of environmental concerns[1], and is now undergoing widespread hunger. [0]: https://library.wmo.int/viewer/57564/download?file=1267_Atlas_of_Mortality_en.pdf&type=pdf https://library.wmo.int/viewer/57564/download?file=1267_Atla... [1]: https://fee.org/articles/sri-lanka-s-food-crisis-is-man-made-and-demonstrates-the-danger-of-faux-environmentalism/ https://fee.org/articles/sri-lanka-s-food-crisis-is-man-made...
- Daishiman 3y ago
  I cannot imagine a more intellectually dishonest position than this one which willfully ignoring the vast and accelerating scale of change in the global climate system.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    A "vast and accelerating scale of change" that heretofore, as evidenced by data, yielded no climate-related burden on humanity. Atmospheric CO2 went from ~280ppm pre-Industrial Revolution to ~325ppm in 1970 to ~410ppm in 2019[0], during which time we 10x'd the number of humans and as I stated, reduced the human toll on the climate by over 6x in the past 50 years. But sure, call me intellectually dishonest in the absence of any evidence; without which your position is just another Malthusian or Ehrlichian doomsday prediction. [0]: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-concentration-of-carbon-dioxide-5/download.table https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-co...
    - Daishiman 3y ago
      The idea that there is no climate-related burden on humanity is more intellectual fallacy. Extreme weather events have been ocurring more frequently and we have hit record-high global temperatures and record-low Antactic ice surfaces. Ocean acidification has real and quantifiable effects on plankton and mollusks which are the base of the global food chain. You're suddenly shifting the conversation as though doubling the proportion of a gas responsible for global warming in the span of a century was not a concerning thing in geological timescales. So yeah, not just an intellectual fake but also a willful liar.
chimprich 3y ago
> No need to call me names for providing evidence that supports my opinion that humans aren't doing a damn thing to change the climate for good or bad You chose a source to illustrate your point that disagreed with you. It didn't support your opinion. > It is irrational hubris Argument by incredulity. The science doesn't care about whether we think its hubris. > Plants require 150ppm CO2 to survive and grow significantly better in concentrations around 1000ppm Plants do grow better with higher CO2 concentrations - but they also grow much worse with higher heat stress, which counteracts this. Growing crops will become unsustainable in large regions of the tropics. > The argument for human caused climate change and that we must do something about the changing climate is simply unconvincing to me. Based on what? What sources have you read? What makes them unconvincing? > If you are worried about CO2 emissions we are improving on that front by using cleaner fuels like natural gas instead of coal. If we used nuclear we could reduce CO2 emissions even further. That is true, though natural gas is only as partial improvement. Renewables and nuclear are much better solutions.