29 ms·

You don’t understand climate change. Nobody denies the climate has always changed. The issue is with human induced climate change is the rate of change. It’s

You don’t understand climate change. Nobody denies the climate has always changed. The issue is with human induced climate change is the rate of change. It’s the difference between bringing a car from 100mph to a gentle stop and slamming it into a brick wall. The rate of change we’ve introduced doesn’t give ecosystems or species the time they need to adapt.

avazhi 2y ago
I've got a BSc and I'm fully acquainted with the arguments for man-made climate change, as well as the proposed solutions. Even if one concedes that the climate is 'rapidly changing' solely or primarily because of man-made action, it doesn't follow that those changes will lead to catastrophe for people everywhere, particularly those in the first world. Having said that, Phoenix hitting 100 degrees for 100 days in a row doesn't support 'rapid climate' change occurring when the reference is the past 150 years. To put it another way, suppose the planet is warming (for whatever reason) - eventually we would get 100 days of 100 degrees in Phoenix, right? Who are you to say that it's rapid or unnatural? Cycles happen - neither of us can say this didn't also happen 500/1000/2000/10,000 years ago. I live in Melbourne and the winter we just had (here in the southern hemisphere) was the coldest I can remember. The year before was mild. Variance happens, in both the short term and the long term. Hysteria is laughable. I'm not saying we shouldn't take care to pollute as little as is reasonably possible, but promulgating wholesale societal change is never going to get the Green left (or whatever they prefer to be called) what they want.
- Perenti 2y ago
  Comparing Melbourne's weather to global patterns is a stretch. For non-Australians, Melbourne weather is the subject of the song "Four seasons in one day".
- lm28469 2y ago
  > it doesn't follow that those changes will lead to catastrophe for people everywhere, particularly those in the first world. lmao, the irony of talking about narcissism in your previous post
  - avazhi 2y ago
    I know subtlety is quite difficult for certain people, but you should consider the difference between narcissism and a lack of empathy. Turns out they aren't at all the same thing so it isn't even subtle. You can do it.
- carlmr 2y ago
  >Cycles happen - neither of us can say this didn't also happen 500/1000/2000/10,000 years ago. There are methods to do just this: https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/ https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-an... Also about the rapidity of change: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ And if you're thinking, hey it's probably not that bad after 2016: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/c...
- abenga 2y ago
  > it doesn't follow that those changes will lead to catastrophe for people everywhere, particularly those in the first world. Because screw those who do not live in the first world, right?
  - avazhi 2y ago
    Not so much 'screw them' as much as pointing out that the hysteria surrounding 'climate change' is not proportional to the impact it will have on the very people who are being hysterical about it. I'm all for trying to minimise pollution and greenhouse gases and for using renewables where it's reasonable and economically feasible. I'm not in favour of dismantling a system because of something that won't really affect my society all that much. The cure has to be worth the cost.
    - abenga 2y ago
      > I'm not in favour of dismantling a system because of something that won't really affect my society all that much. So pretty much "screw all those societies who will be affected".

avazhi 2y ago

I've got a BSc and I'm fully acquainted with the arguments for man-made climate change, as well as the proposed solutions. Even if one concedes that the climate is 'rapidly changing' solely or primarily because of man-made action, it doesn't follow that those changes will lead to catastrophe for people everywhere, particularly those in the first world. Having said that, Phoenix hitting 100 degrees for 100 days in a row doesn't support 'rapid climate' change occurring when the reference is the past 150 years. To put it another way, suppose the planet is warming (for whatever reason) - eventually we would get 100 days of 100 degrees in Phoenix, right? Who are you to say that it's rapid or unnatural? Cycles happen - neither of us can say this didn't also happen 500/1000/2000/10,000 years ago. I live in Melbourne and the winter we just had (here in the southern hemisphere) was the coldest I can remember. The year before was mild. Variance happens, in both the short term and the long term. Hysteria is laughable. I'm not saying we shouldn't take care to pollute as little as is reasonably possible, but promulgating wholesale societal change is never going to get the Green left (or whatever they prefer to be called) what they want.

Perenti 2y ago
Comparing Melbourne's weather to global patterns is a stretch. For non-Australians, Melbourne weather is the subject of the song "Four seasons in one day".
lm28469 2y ago
> it doesn't follow that those changes will lead to catastrophe for people everywhere, particularly those in the first world. lmao, the irony of talking about narcissism in your previous post
- avazhi 2y ago
  I know subtlety is quite difficult for certain people, but you should consider the difference between narcissism and a lack of empathy. Turns out they aren't at all the same thing so it isn't even subtle. You can do it.
carlmr 2y ago
>Cycles happen - neither of us can say this didn't also happen 500/1000/2000/10,000 years ago. There are methods to do just this: https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/ https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-an... Also about the rapidity of change: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ And if you're thinking, hey it's probably not that bad after 2016: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/c...
abenga 2y ago
> it doesn't follow that those changes will lead to catastrophe for people everywhere, particularly those in the first world. Because screw those who do not live in the first world, right?
- avazhi 2y ago
  Not so much 'screw them' as much as pointing out that the hysteria surrounding 'climate change' is not proportional to the impact it will have on the very people who are being hysterical about it. I'm all for trying to minimise pollution and greenhouse gases and for using renewables where it's reasonable and economically feasible. I'm not in favour of dismantling a system because of something that won't really affect my society all that much. The cure has to be worth the cost.
  - abenga 2y ago
    > I'm not in favour of dismantling a system because of something that won't really affect my society all that much. So pretty much "screw all those societies who will be affected".