I've already answered those questions. Our views differ on whether it causes the end of the world or not. — Tzeentch

No you haven't. You sidestepped them.

You said:

It's highly questionable whether such a rise in temperature would be caused by man — Tzeentch

If you believe it's questionable, you ought to be able to point out what step in the physical process you think gives rise to the question.

If you can't do that, that suggests that you are either trying to fool us or yourself.

I'm assuming you're referring to a notable drop in biodiversity?

Ehh... Maybe? What does it have to do with climate change? — Tzeentch

Oh, nothing... nothing at all. I'm not sure why you bought it up...

It may result in difficulties, the scale of which is probably nowhere near what people are currently claiming. (mass extinction, the end of the world, etc.) — Tzeentch

(my italics).

So you are now saying the notable drop in biodiversity is not a mass extinction? Ot that it is a mass extinction, but that's not cause for concern? I'm just trying to make sense of your position.

It's highly questionable whether such a rise in temperature would be caused by man, considering the world has been steadily warming up long before man started burning fossil fuels and we are currently living in a cold period in the Earth's history, making a rises in temperature not just likely, but also inevitable. — Tzeentch

Highly questionable to who? You, obviously; but perhaps you are just unwilling to be convinced? Others - those with a handle on such things - say otherwise. And they show us disconcerting facts, damn them; correlations, chemistry, physics and all that stuff.

Better you go on ignoring them.

Be fair; it hasn't caused the end of the world yet.

But I suspect that even after it has, @Tzeentch will still be mumbling some excuse.

What does it have to do with climate change? — Tzeentch

The species are fucking dying off, that's what it has to do with climate change. Most species evolved to fit a specific environmental niche. When the niche disappears, the species often goes with it. Environmental change like early or late arrival of blossoming dates or migratory bird arrivals can be curtains. in North America and Europe bird and insect populations are falling. This is really, really bad news.

So who is it I am talking to?

When we think we see an object, we are not actually directly experiencing it, but instead looking at an image that our mind creates. Thus, we are not directly experiencing the object. — Tzeentch

Ah. It's all in out heads. Perhaps cannot directly experience climate change; perhasp if we all ignore it, it will go away.

I don't agree.

Be fair; it hasn't caused the end of the world yet. — Banno

But this doesn't matter, does it? If you're saying some prediction is wrong, you must be able to identify just where the prediction fails. If you can't do that, at best you're suffering from cognitive dissonance.

If you believe it's questionable, you ought to be able to point out what step in the physical process you think gives rise to the question. — Echarmion

Two things;
- The conclusion that man's Co2 emissions are the primary cause of changes in the Earth's climate and average temperature.

- The conclusion that man-made climate change causes the end of the world.

383
Good day,

I had a most disturbing dream tonight.

Together with my family I was in a house in a rural area. Then, for a reason that was either trivial or for no reason at all, or as part of a game, I shot my brother dead. After this I ran into the night in a sort of drunken haze.

I ran until I came across some town or village, where I met some people, but this part of the dream is rather vague.

Then I woke up. Rather, I thought I woke up. You know that feeling when you had a bad dream and you wake up to realize it wasn't real? I woke up with that feeling in the house I ran from, but I was still dreaming.

It quickly dawned on me that something was wrong, as everyone was in a grave mood. Apparently some time had already passed since that night, but it soon became clear that my brother was actually shot, presumably by me, but all I had was a recollection of the dream.

Now I was filled with the feeling of dread of knowing I may have shot my brother and will probably go to jail for a long time. I also felt the grief of my mother who had found my brother where I had shot him in my dream.

At this point I was the only one who seemed to realize that I may be the culprit, but apparently cameras had recorded the whole ordeal. The last part of the dream is me insisting on wanting to see the footage, and the other people for some reason being reluctant to show it. Right before I finally was shown the recording I woke up (this time for real, I hope...).

A very unpleasant dream, especially after having been lured into a false sense of relief by "waking up" inside my dream.

I've been trying to make sense of it. Perhaps there are some dream interpreters who can help me here, especially considering this important plottwist: I don't actually have a brother.

Also, feel free to share any of your own disturbing dreams.

Regards,

Tzeentch — Tzeentch

There's something in this, perhaps, about bad faith. About being overwhelmed for the consequences for yourself rather than grief at your brother's death. About denying the evidence until it is too late.

- The conclusion that man-made climate change causes the end of the world. — Tzeentch

It seems that our interlocutor will not be convinced.

- The conclusion that man's Co2 emissions are the primary cause of changes in the Earth's climate and average temperature. — Tzeentch

graph of co2 and temperature

But this, of course, is not evidence...

- The conclusion that man's Co2 emissions are the primary cause of changes in the Earth's climate and average temperature. — Tzeentch

We have physical models telling us roughly how much of an effect how much CO2 in the atmosphere has. According to these models, CO2 is the primary cause. Do you disagree with the physics?

Other factors have also been conclusively ruled out by studies. What factor was overlooked or wrongly assessed according to you?

The conclusion that man-made climate change causes the end of the world. — Tzeentch

I agree it will not cause the end of the world. It might cause a whole lot of death though. How many lifes are you willing to risk, and to what end?

Two things;
- The conclusion that man's Co2 emissions are the primary cause of changes in the Earth's climate and average temperature.

- The conclusion that man-made climate change causes the end of the world. — Tzeentch

The CO2 emissions by themselves aren't the primary cause, it's all the emissions from earth outwards - in due to fossil fuel sondages. Simply not burning coal or oil will do little in comparison to the stop of their exhumation which is public enemy number one.

Secondly, the end of the world as in the end of the established routine is an imminent and unavoidable reality. This is precisely Titanic gazing out at the tip of the iceberg, and one either takes heed or nonchalantly sinks the ship.
If mankind keeps pushing well past their boundary, it's obvious that the recoil will fling it off the planet.

Massive social mobilization would probably be required. Because of the economic impact of the policies that are now required, we're looking at the equivalent of aglobal communist revolution. — Echarmion

See this language is what fuels skepticism about taking radical action to avert climate catastrophe. It comes off sounding like an excuse to implement a preferred system by certain leftists. If you read any of the comments on Reddit related to climate change, you will see all sorts of things about eating the rich, destroying capitalism, and forcing a one world government on everyone.

It will also sound potentially threatening to the mainstream. Who wants to be forced to drastically reduce their lifestyle? Do the developing countries want to be told they can't continue developing by the developed countries?

And how do we know that such radical economic and political polices won't be the wrong action? Maybe the only way forward is to adapt with technological innovation and encourage the markets to transition, instead of trying to force everyone to consume less, which would likely cause a worldwide depression, which means less innovation.

Does anybody know how to trigger major simultaneous and coordinated behavior changes in several billion people -- within 10 years? Within 50? Never mind, 50 years will be too late to begin changing. — Bitter Crank

Nope. It won't happen. Also, we'll be adding a couple more billion while large parts of Asia and Africa finish catching up. Add to that the majority of the world's population who probably don't want to go along with making major sacrifices. It's nice and all if people who agree with Greta do that, but that will be offset by 7 billion people just living their lives. A few million protesting and riding their bicycles while going vegan is a drop in the bucket.

The only way is to adapt. But I also don't believe it will end civilization. Humans are very good generalists, and we have technology. We survived an ice age with stone-aged tools and migrated all over the planet thousands of years ago.

We have physical models telling us roughly how much of an effect how much CO2 in the atmosphere has. According to these models, CO2 is the primary cause. — Echarmion

The climate and temperature are complicated systems; much more complicated than most people realize. The idea that CO2 is the primary factor in either of them is questionable. I would be surprised to find a scientist make such a claim, and there are certainly scientists who would dispute such claims (and I'd be happy to link them).

I agree it will not cause the end of the world. It might cause a whole lot of death though. How many lifes are you willing to risk, and to what end? — Echarmion

Humanity has coped with a changing climate since its inception. Nothing we do can stop the climate from changing, since it's a natural phenomenon. Whether we like it or not, there will be ice ages, warm-ups, droughts etc. in the future. If that reality hasn't sunk in, we best get used to it sooner rather than later.

The GISP2 data. A disappointing cliche. Now you just look sad.

Funny how climate flat-earthers always like to speak of ‘healthy doses of skepticism’ right before citing incredibly shitty corroborating data.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

Indeed; they seem to hope no one exposes their guff to that scepticism. It's an odd intellectual arrogance, akin to saying "I am the one who is allowed be critical, not you".

Shitty data?

"Conclusion

Greenland ice cores provide a high-quality high-resolution estimate of past changes in temperatures, allowing more precise comparisons with observed temperature records than most other climate proxies. While current temperatures are likely still below the highs in the early Holocene around 7,000 years ago, they are clearly higher than any temperatures experienced in Greenland over the past 2,000 years.

Greenland is just one location and temperature variations seen in ice core records may not be characteristic of global temperatures. However, global proxy reconstructions have tended to show similar patterns, with current temperatures lower than the early Holocene maximum."

You missed the very next paragraph: "Unless greenhouse gas emissions cease in the near future, warming will continue and, by the middle of the 21st century, Greenland – and the world as a whole – will likely experience temperatures that are unprecedented at least since the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago."

But of course you know you did.

I didn't include that part, because it has nothing to do with what was presented in the article. You called the data faulty. It is not. I used the graph to show how man has experienced changes in climate in the past (and is virtually guaranteed to do so in the future), as per my last point.

This is the wrong forum to try this climate denying shit.

SO - piece your argument together. Move from that data to your conclusion.

I didn't call the data faulty. I said it was shitty corroborating data: it is not data that can be used to draw the conclusions you would like.

I think you have made assumptions about conclusions I 'would like to draw' using that graph. Meanwhile, you owe me a source stating CO2 is the primary factor of temperature and/or climate change.

I don't owe you shit. You tried to use a graph of limited usefulness in order to make a bigger point to which it was not suited. I pointed that out. I’m not here to change your mind, I’m here to point out misinformation and dissimulation where I see it.

So you are going to play games. We can all play that passive - aggressive game. What conclusion would you have us draw from the data you presented? You said:

Humanity has coped with a changing climate since its inception. Nothing we do can stop the climate from changing, since it's a natural phenomenon. — Tzeentch

Your data does not address that.

I don't owe you shit. — StreetlightX

You're right. I confused you with Echarmion.

You tried to use a graph of limited usefulness in order to make a bigger point to which it was not suited. — StreetlightX

There was no bigger point, other than

Humanity has coped with a changing climate since its inception. Nothing we do can stop the climate from changing, since it's a natural phenomenon. — Tzeentch

And I think the source supports that.

Given that the general scientific consensus (>97%) is that man made climate change is a real phenomenon quite apart from the natural cycles of climate fluctuation, the attempt to collapse the one into the other and conclude that ‘there is nothing we can do’ is just trash.

Amazing post, very informative, even for someone who has done a good deal of research in this area the past few months...mostly to combat online idiots who are indoctrinated by what I (and others) have termed the regressive right...this is a political growing trend in a lot of countries, not just Trump's United States; the regressive right not only seeks to deny and continue the false narrative of infinite economic growth, but plays on people's fear of this reality. It is easy to deny something that you do not have the scientific reason to, or willingness to understand...why would you want to accept this reality? It is mind boggling.

Stupidest argument against climate change I've heard so far: "if climate change was real why are banks giving out 30+ year mortgages if there isn't going to be anyone alive to pay it back DUH"

At least this debate is bringing to light the mass ignorance and indoctrination of the world's global population..."Ignorance is the most violent element of society" -Emma Goldmam