3 ms·

Ice ages occurred over the span of thousands to tens of thousands of years. The current change is happening in the order of decades to centuries. Not only will

Ice ages occurred over the span of thousands to tens of thousands of years. The current change is happening in the order of decades to centuries. Not only will plants and animals have a hard time adapting to change that rapid, it will cause huge amounts of misery. Maybe where you live 83 vs 86 degrees doesn't matter, but there are hundreds of millions of people that are living on the edge already. Once a century droughts are becoming common. When people are fighting for their lives and the lives of their children, they will move anywhere where things are marginally better ... causing economic chaos, and even war. But that doesn't seem to affect you in your air conditioned house. > Most of our models from 20 years ago didn't play out, That is false. The IPCC reports of 20-25 years ago are wrong only in that they undershot the severity. All of them, for political reasons, knowingly under reported the severity. I agree, don't listen to Al Gore, listen to the climate scientists. BTW, why do you think the paper you are reading is any more informed about climate change than Al Gore?

blagie 3y ago
> Ice ages occurred over the span of thousands to tens of thousands of years See "Little Ice Age" and it's effects. > Once a century droughts are becoming common "Climate change" not "global warming." On the whole, global warming makes for more rain. You can see another post here about rising atmospheric humidity. > I agree, don't listen to Al Gore, listen to the climate scientists. BTW, why do you think the paper you are reading is any more informed about climate change than Al Gore? A key difference are things like error bars. With /proper/ error bars (accounting for all possible sources of error), right-wing media would have a hard time playing back false predictions.
- tasty_freeze 3y ago
  Both terms have been in use for at least 50 years. It is a complex topic so no matter which two word moniker you coin to represent it, you can always poke a hole in it. The people who think "climate change" is a fig leaf to cover up the fact that the globe didn't warm monotonically are simply ignorant. The models have always shown that some places will get drier, some will get wetter, some places cooler. One of the things deniers always cherry pick is when some study mentions higher snowfall or rainfall in some particular region of the world. Odd that they believe the scientist when when they thing the datum supports their claim, but then will dismiss the same person who wrote the paper they cited as being in the pocket of George Soros or someone when the researcher doesn't support their preferred conclusion.
  - blagie 3y ago
    In my original post, I wrote: "'Climate change' was a step forward in terminology from 'global warming,' but we need about five more steps before it's something people care about." Yes, words do matter, and "climate change" is a huge step forward from "global warming" in terms of convincing people and affecting change.

blagie 3y ago

> Ice ages occurred over the span of thousands to tens of thousands of years See "Little Ice Age" and it's effects. > Once a century droughts are becoming common "Climate change" not "global warming." On the whole, global warming makes for more rain. You can see another post here about rising atmospheric humidity. > I agree, don't listen to Al Gore, listen to the climate scientists. BTW, why do you think the paper you are reading is any more informed about climate change than Al Gore? A key difference are things like error bars. With /proper/ error bars (accounting for all possible sources of error), right-wing media would have a hard time playing back false predictions.

tasty_freeze 3y ago
Both terms have been in use for at least 50 years. It is a complex topic so no matter which two word moniker you coin to represent it, you can always poke a hole in it. The people who think "climate change" is a fig leaf to cover up the fact that the globe didn't warm monotonically are simply ignorant. The models have always shown that some places will get drier, some will get wetter, some places cooler. One of the things deniers always cherry pick is when some study mentions higher snowfall or rainfall in some particular region of the world. Odd that they believe the scientist when when they thing the datum supports their claim, but then will dismiss the same person who wrote the paper they cited as being in the pocket of George Soros or someone when the researcher doesn't support their preferred conclusion.
- blagie 3y ago
  In my original post, I wrote: "'Climate change' was a step forward in terminology from 'global warming,' but we need about five more steps before it's something people care about." Yes, words do matter, and "climate change" is a huge step forward from "global warming" in terms of convincing people and affecting change.