Counter-argument…
1 Like
Doesn’t matter what you or I believe if climate change is man made or not. It’s like it doesn’t matter what you or I voted for individually. What matters is what the public as a whole thinks, and then reason its economic consequences.
Here’s the latest Pew poll:
54% of Americans say Climate is a major threat
I am actually not sure it is a “major” threat, but I am very happy with the economic effect of every country seeing climate as a threat. We are re-orienting the global economy because of this. Changing the energy source entire economies run on is an extremely big deal. I look forward to the day we don’t need to care about Middle East any more. Those Saudies can go f*** themselves.
Climate also forces a growth agenda on the left. Mainstream Dems are starting to form a consensus that we need to build more to deal with climate change - more solar, more wind, more transmission lines, more nuclear power, more and denser housing near public transit, more EV and battery plants. The list goes on and on. We will have a domestic manufacturing boom because of climate change.
.
Major threat is extreme American’s anxiety whenever they need to depend on other. For energy, the threat is Middle East.
…
You didn’t own any ESG stocks 
Currently trending ones are: TSLA, ENPH, ENVX
If folk are more concerned about their pocketbooks and health insurance premiums just how “major” a threat can they be making this out to be? Definitely not an existential one.
If wallet issues trump climate change just wait until the bill for the Green New Deal starts coming due.
So science doesn’t matter anymore, and it’s just a matter of religion. It’s amazing how the media can misinform the public on so many issues. Amazing how all of that misinformation aligns with one side of the political aisle too.
Science matters of course, at the collective society level. It doesn’t matter much at the personal level. You can function perfectly fine believing the earth is flat.
I agree with this statement though:
but I suspect we have the opposite sides in mind.
Unless you’re counting Fox News, all the major media outlets align pretty hard left. You can even track political donations which I think go over 90% left. If you’re trying to claim CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC, NY Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal lean any direction other than left, then I’m just got fro laugh at you.
The majority of Americans have been brainwashed by idiots that hate us and capitalism. Maybe they think communism will work better. Like the Russians and the Chinese give a fuck about global warming?
There are two separate issues here.
- Do you think the current scientific consensus on climate change is credible? I believe so and you may not.
Here’s the Wikipedia summary on the current thinking:
- What should the policy response be? That’s the debate between growth vs de-growth. The de-growth camp used to be the mainstream. That’s where the “anti-capitalism” label gets applied. The de-growth camp wants people to consume less, but that would cost our economy to shrink. The radical de-growthers even want fewer humans.
But that’s the old thinking. More and more people now realize de-growth is a dead-end. The new thinking is we need to grow our way out. That means more energy, not less. More housing, not less. More humans so we have more brainpower, not less.
1 Like
Does any of it matter? You’ll just pivot. It doesn’t matter that they constantly alter the data, so it shows more warming than actual measurements, It doesn’t matter than the models that say it’s due to CO2 levels don’t work. Those models are the justification that it’s caused by human activities,. If the warming isn’t due to CO2 increase, then how is it due to human activities? That’s not even getting into how the science is funded. Expecting any impartial results isn’t reasonable. It’s literally the sugar lobby funding research that says fat is bad all over again.
Arguing more humans will solve the problem is not even worth debating. It’s like saying a family can solve its debt problems with more debt.
Arguments for and against it being an existential crisis; economic consequences of policy decisions.
“Consider the supposed rise in “superstorms” such as stronger hurricanes. What do we actually know? The annual number of hurricanes that make landfall in the U.S. since 1900 is slightly declining, not increasing. The same is true for major hurricanes (category three and above) hitting the U.S. We see the same thing if we look at world data for total hurricane energy in the satellite era, 1980-2022. In fact, 2022 was the second lowest recorded year. Did you hear that reported anywhere? No, because it doesn’t fit the dominant narrative.”
It sounds like gun violence. The media creates hype and fear. The public thinks it’s worse than ever and a huge threat. The reality and data say differently. It’s a politically driven misinformation campaign to push an agenda. Brainwashed people think they are informed.
…and even if you believed the narrative the corrective actions currently proposed incur costs which exceed the benefits.
I heard people are looking for data.
1 Like
Some more data for “data people” to ignore.
So far I didn’t see concrete proofs for the following:
a. Warming is due to CO2
b. Human activities cause the most of the release of CO2
2 Likes
You can go down to the references on this Wikipedia page and read the reports there
Efforts to scientifically ascertain and attribute mechanisms responsible for recent global warming and related climate changes on Earth have found that the main driver is elevated levels of greenhouse gases produced by human activities, with natural forces adding variability. The likely range of human-induced surface-level air warming by 2010–2019 compared to levels in 1850–1900 is 0.8 °C to 1.3 °C, with a best estimate of 1.07 °C. This is close to the observed overall warming during that time of 0.9 °C to 1.2 °C, while temperature changes during that time were likely only ±0.1 °C due to natural forcings and ±0.2 °C due to variability in the climate.[4]: 3, 443
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2021, it is “unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land since pre-industrial times.”[5]: 3 Studies on attribution have focused on changes observed during the period of instrumental temperature record, particularly in the last 50 years. This is the period when human activity has grown fastest and observations of the atmosphere above the surface have become available.[6] Some of the main human activities that contribute to global warming are:[7]
- increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, for a warming effect
- global changes to land surface, such as deforestation, for a warming effect
- increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols, mainly for a cooling effect
Even NOAA is distancing itself for the latest heat wave fear mongering.
Both things can be true at the same time:
- There is a secular warming trend due to greenhouse gases, and
- There are cyclical variations due to good old nature.
I don’t understand why this concept is difficult. People understand secular vs cyclical trends when it comes to stock market.
And the warming trend talks about the average temperature over the whole planet. Like this summer the Bay Area is colder than normal. Doesn’t mean jack. Need to look at the whole planet. That’s why it’s so dumb to hear pols on the right saying I have snow in my backyard therefore climate change is fake. Dumb as a rock.
If claims can be considered as proofs… then is true.