I am a Carolinian. Are you referencing hurricanes? The storms we get summer-fall? The same type storm that wiped out Galveston in 1900? Or the one that slammed New Jersey in 1903? Hazel in NC in 1954? Hugo in SC and NC in 1989? Hurricane Andrew in 1992?

Is climate changing? Sure. It has changed well before industrialzation and will likely change well after we humans kill ourselves off. No doubt there are natural and human components to that change. If you are on the right you sound like a moron not admitting to the fact that humankind does have an effect. On the left, you likewise sound like a moron not admitting to the fact that nature does have an effect. So we have concluded the majority on both sides are morons...

I dislike Trump, but on this I can see his point. He shouldn't say scientists should not be trusted but that Earth is a complex system and we may or may not be sure how the climate change process works. This is a complicated nonlinear system we are talking about, not a simple linear system. Hell, we seem to waffle back and forth about whethereggs, alcohol, red meat, etc are good or bad for us every few years. Why does one lifelong smoker develop lung cancer yet another doesn't? Organic systems are tough nuggets to crack, yet our hubris gets hold of us and we swear we know more than the smartest lady in the room, Mother Nature. Only she knows the answer, and she holds those secrets close to the vest.

I dont know anyone who is saying that nature changes over time. I dont think anyone arguing climate change doesnt also say that nature goes through different patterns.

Any credible person seems to say that what humans are doing is impacting the planet. Their differences seem to be the degree of what that impact is.

Trump seems to think it is all a conspiracy theory.

And in many ways it is a conspiracy theory, but it's one played by both the right and left for their own zombie followers.To his credit, it seems like he isn't as closed off as most on the right. Likewise, he's not as willing as most on the left to accept full blame on behalf of humankind. The real answer is somewhere between 0% and 100%, and he seems to accept that. The right and left, by and large, are on those extremes. Our problem as a society is the lack of vocal credible people that sit between those two extremes.

I think in zero ways man made climate change a conspiracy theory. The actual impact it is having sure, we could discuss that.

We have those on the right who are, by your definition, morons. Some of them even hold positions of great power in our current government. I don't recall hearing *anyone* on the left saying that nature does not have an effect, so you've got a false equivalency there.

The climate change we are experiencing is unprecedented in its speed. That's a big difference between what is going on now and the tired "climate has always changed, so no big deal" excuse.

As for being sure: the current understanding of the process has allowed predictions to be made, and those predictions have been shown to be correct. Again, saying that science doesn't know everything about X has no bearing on what the science says about climate change. Another logical fallacy.

I have no idea what you are saying about what Mother Nature knows.

You sound more like a denialist than a skeptic, since you trot out the usual denialist arguments.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I am a Carolinian. Are you referencing hurricanes? The storms we get summer-fall? The same type storm that wiped out Galveston in 1900? Or the one that slammed New Jersey in 1903? Hazel in NC in 1954? Hugo in SC and NC in 1989? Hurricane Andrew in 1992?



I have no idea why you are referencing hurricanes to me but the history lesson is appreciated.

But if there is a connection, I will say in general that climate does go back further than 100 years and that the term "global" warming doesn't just refer to Carolina or any specific places that can be held in isolation.

If you want to consider arguing that climate change is a hoax, look at the global average temperatures over the past 100 years and see if you can see a trend. And then, compare that to the global average amount of pollution emitted and then see if you can see a trend. Don't just look at North or South Carolina, it's a big world.

Sometimes I'm astounded by how and why climatology has a left/right divide. I don't remember it always being this way.

Somehow we don't meet relatively uneducated people with staunch opinions on oncology, astrophysics or herpetology who proclaim to be better informed than the scientists who are specialists in those fields, despite having a obvious inability to hold a rational discussion on a professional level with such scientists.

We meet these uneducated people with opinions on fields like immunology (vaccines) and oncology (alternative treatments for cancer) all the time. Scientific ignorance spans disciplines. Then there's the Flat Earth Society...

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

At the end of the day its lobbying.

Just trying to create unwinnable businesses like drug enforcement, border crossings, and terrorism.

True.But they are really fringe idiots. This has become mainstream idiocy with a divide in both the media and politics.

True.But they are really fringe idiots. This has become mainstream idiocy with a divide in both the media and politics.



The media and politics are 2 sides of the same coin.

There was a report in the NYT last December that looked at how members of the political parties viewed climate change. Some of the observations were,

• Over the past two decades, Republicans have grown increasingly doubtful about climate change, even as Democrats have grown increasingly convinced that it’s happening and is caused by humans.
• But recent research reveals greater nuance in partisan climate opinions across the country.(ie. more living on the coast see it as a problem)
• Fewer than a third of registered Republicans nationwide say that climate change is caused mostly by human activities, while nearly half say it’s mostly due to “natural changes in the environment"
• Since the election of Donald Trump as president, belief that climate change is human-caused has declined among registered Republican voters, according to another recent poll. (ie. Republicans believe Trump over scientists...go figure)

However, there are good signs,

• there’s a long history of “support among people of all partisan backgrounds for regulating pollution – basic things like clean water and clean air,”

And herein lies my biggest beef with “climate change”.

As someone who’s boots are on the ground in the pollution prevention business I have seen resources shifted away from protection of the air and water (protections that have proven measurable results) to “combating climate change” with no evidence at all of doing any good.

A perfect example of this is the best, most efficient system for handling gasoline storage tank overpressure issues (that cause VOCs to be realeased) is system that burns off the vapors.

In many jurisdictions they are not allowed because they create CO2. The average daily amount of CO2 that these systems produce is equivalent to 3 people breathing.

Another stupid fucking thing that California did was require new Diesel engines to use Diesel Exhaust Fliud (DEF) to combat global warming and reduce particulates (based on a proven to be fraudulent study, btw). Well this DEF mostly comes in plastic containers (1 or 5 gallon) that cannot be recycled.

I service one site that is a truck stop and they fill a dumpster every singe day with discarded DEF containers.

Straight to the landfill.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Not speaking for tgrunnin but I surmise he was referencing hurricanes as there have been articles the recent hurricane Michael was caused in some part by man-made global warming/climate change and there will be more intense and more consistent massive hurricanes in the future due to climate change. His point appears to be that we have had intense and significant hurricanes in the past ( the ones cited) prior to the promotion of climate change as the cause or the greatest moral crisis of our time.

Trump is making a strategic move on the climate change front and it will bolster ihs side and possibly bring in some folks. Most folks that take any time to look at it will tell you man is having some effect on the environment. The amount (overall)and accuracy of the predications is still up for debate. But most importantly, Trump basically said he is not going to take drastic steps in terms of opening up the government spicket of funding or make drastic changes to our society as a result of the current knowledge on climate change. Most would probably agree with that position. The majority of people don't want 15$ gallon gas, 2,000 energy bills etc.

Its most likely the changes needed to stave off the drastic effects of climate change according to the scientist will not be made and we will simply have to adapt to whatever climate we have. In the meantime, we should clean up the oceans (plastic floating islands) recycle, clean up the water supply, and do what we can within reason.

Do you really think the consensus of science was that the world was cooling in the 70s.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8199/full/



If so, where do you get you information from?

Just to let you know. Your sources are just wrong and most likely to lazy to actually care if they are right or wrong.




I will recommend everybody to watch this video.
It is going through how a anti science guy Steve Crowder is just plain wrong when he tries to read science. Nothing surprising there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeOZSMrwnYw


I am looking forward to the list of scientific papers supporting the view that the science consensus was that the world was cooling in the 70s.

As someone who’s boots are on the ground in the pollution prevention business I have seen resources shifted away from protection of the air and water (protections that have proven measurable results) to “combating climate change” with no evidence at all of doing any good.



I do agree with you. I think there's a lot of fighting and posturing to point fingers at who is responsible while we ignore the actual pollution going into air and waters. I traveled in places like India, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia where the water was so thick with garbage that you could literally walk across it. Getting into an argument about what's happened over the last 100 years while people in large parts of the world treat the environment like a toilet is really not seeing the forest for the trees.

100% agree and why I don't get to worked up about claims of global catastrophe and drastic effects in the next 50 years. How about we focus on those countries you mentioned and put our resources in aid money towards getting them livable conditions and stopping the ground level plastic pollution, sanitation issues, deforestation etc.

I came across a neuroscientist that study sleeps on the Joe Rogan show last night. Really interesting. Whatever the topic is, it's useful to remember that there are people out there who know what they are talking about because their career is to know about it. Now it's not like those people don't have agendas that may bias them significantly but I think that's usually pretty apparent when it's going on.

Then you have most people who are just talking out of their asses.

I guess I fall into the "denier" label. From all the stuff I have read the problem (if there is one) are in the climate models that are used to project 100 years into the future. They seem weighted heavy in terms of CO2 impact and less so for clouds , solar flare, earth's position, etc. Not to mention how the historical data has been revised to the point the "pause" has now been corrected to a slight uptick in temps for the past 20 years or so.

I just think there is more for us to learn and that as Duffy said spending lots of money that may not even address the problem is just wrong headed. Not to mention the increased cost of living if we try to artificially introduce more expensive alternate energy (sun, wind) in lieu of the economy will naturally do in time.

It is partly because people are being asked to change their behavior. People don't like that. Climate deniers ("the right") opt out by denying their is a problem. And pointing out people like Al Gore and the Leonardo Decaprio's of the world. Lot of other folks opt out ("the left") by keeping the debate being about the problem of "those climate deniers" Works for both sides. Right or left the biggest indicator of what your carbon footprint will be is your income level. Uneducated folks are usually poor and they likely think it is going to cost them proportionally more if you increase the price of carbon. And they probably would be right.

No one is being asked to change their behavior wrt oncology astrophysics etc. Unless you have cancer I guess and that is personal.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I consider a denier someone who doesn't think what's going on is heavily influenced by humans.

Obviously predicting the future is less certain.

And impacts whether doing something is possible, worthwhile, etc.

"Is climate changing? Sure. It has changed well before industrialzation and will likely change well after we humans kill ourselves off. No doubt there are natural and human components to that change. If you are on the right you sound like a moron not admitting to the fact that humankind does have an effect. On the left, you likewise sound like a moron not admitting to the fact that nature does have an effect. So we have concluded the majority on both sides are morons...

I dislike Trump, but on this I can see his point. He shouldn't say scientists should not be trusted but that Earth is a complex system and we may or may not be sure how the climate change process works. This is a complicated nonlinear system we are talking about, not a simple linear system. Hell, we seem to waffle back and forth about whethereggs, alcohol, red meat, etc are good or bad for us every few years. Why does one lifelong smoker develop lung cancer yet another doesn't? Organic systems are tough nuggets to crack, yet our hubris gets hold of us and we swear we know more than the smartest lady in the room, Mother Nature. Only she knows the answer, and she holds those secrets close to the vest. "


Just because you don't know or understand something doesn't mean that no one does.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Out of curiosity, of the stuff you have read to establish your opinion, how much have read from the IPCC?

I work in a world with some pretty complicated problems. Often we deal with nonlinear systems and invariably folks will do a couple of tests, correlate their models to those tests, and claim they have a validated model. Sure it is validated for those inputs you have tested, but it is a far stretch to claim the model accurately predicts the response for any input. Correlation is not causation. The climate models are complicated and imperfect. It is a continual process to inform those models, and we must better understand the limitations of those models.

I take it you haven't dealt with the modeling of complicated systems before.

My stance is neither pro/anti climate change, only understand the limits of the models and don't use them to make low confidence claims.