Here you are trying to equate a local one day variation of 50 degrees with an average global annual temperature. Eye roll indeed.
This must be the motto of some here.
Facts in, garbage out.
Here you are trying to equate a local one day variation of 50 degrees with an average global annual temperature. Eye roll indeed.I myself am not so sure. My container blueberry bush almost died when I took it in last winter. And although it survived, the lack of a sufficient chilling period resulted in no berries this year. Considering that fruit is the strategy many plants use to reproduce, it doesn't take much of an imagination to project a pretty big die-off of plant species if the climate gets warm enough.
We are talking about people asking for "Bermuda shorts in Buffalo in January" weather, remember. That's a 50 degree increase. I doubt the last ice age reduced average temperatures by anything close to that much.
Edit: I wanted to check my guess, and a fast Google found this:
Quote:
The Earth is ancient. Scientists estimate that it is about 4.6 billion years old. Over all those years, the climate on Earth has changed back and forth between warm and cold. At times, the Earth has been a tropical, humid place. But now and again, the Earth turned cold and wrapped itself in sheets of ice. These cycles of warm and cold take millions of years. They are caused by changes in the way the Earth orbits the sun and how it tilts on its axis, which affect how much of the sun's heat reaches the Earth. The last great cold cycle, which we know as the Ice Age, ended about 10,000 years ago.
During the Ice Age, the Earth's average temperature was about 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than it is today.
12 degrees. And you're "confident" that 50 would be no problem.
I think this is what the "debate" boils down to. "Well, I'll be dead long before any of this matters for me, so fuck the third world." As an upper class white male, I don't worry about climate change having any significant impact on MY life. Some things may get slightly more expensive, but that's about it. For the third world, though, who will feel food/water shortages first and harder? I suspect it won't be so pleasant.
Warmest in history you say? So at no point in 4.8 billion years was there a warmer month on earth? Sure thing.
Anyway, so what? Until someone proposes an actual workable solution to the supposed problem, it's all just political agenda bs and meaningless drivel. I'm sure there's some group that will love to take your money and promise to fix the problem in return
Sucker born every minute I guess.
It's a Chicken Little issue.
Everyone wants to run in circles with their hands in the air, they want to make lots of dire predictions, they want expert climatologists to tell us the end of times is here. All well and good, now what?
It's more of a science issue. Conservatives don't like the policy implications of what the science says so they look for ways to convince themselves that the science is fake/wrong/a conspiracy/whatever.
This is why liberals need to frame it as a national defense issue. Ice melts and then something Islamic State Al Qaeda something. We need to upgrade America's infrastructure and invest in residential 100mb internet otherwise Russia wins.
I heard Putin is fixing Russia's roads. We can't let him upstage us!
This is why liberals need to frame it as a national defense issue. Ice melts and then something Islamic State Al Qaeda something. We need to upgrade America's infrastructure and invest in residential 100mb internet otherwise Russia wins.
I heard Putin is fixing Russia's roads. We can't let him upstage us!
Higher temperatures lead to a pool of warmer water somewhere near Alaska. That leads to a trough or something just over the Canadian border, which leads to some sort of blocking mechanism for the polar jet stream, which leads to the circulation of very very cold weather at the north pole to dip down into New York. Remember last winter? Last winter sucked balls in Western NY. Snowballs.
On the other hand, progressives love the policy implications of what the "science" says so they look for ways to convince others that the "science" is predicting impending doom.It's more of a science issue. Conservatives don't like the policy implications of what the science says so they look for ways to convince themselves that the science is fake/wrong/a conspiracy/whatever.
On the other hand, progressives love the policy implications of what the "science" says so they look for ways to convince others that the "science" is predicting impending doom.
On the other hand, progressives love the policy implications of what the "science" says so they look for ways to convince others that the "science" is predicting impending doom.
It's more of a science issue. Conservatives don't like the policy implications of what the science says so they look for ways to convince themselves that the science is fake/wrong/a conspiracy/whatever.
Nice scare quotes around science, by the way; you're basically proving my point. You don't like what the science says so you're trying to pretend it's not valid.
Scientists in the other hand can predict stuff 1000's, millions or even billions of years into the future depending on the topic of course.
.
No, the science itself might be valid, but the supposed implications and inferences are not. It stopped being science long ago.
On the other hand, progressives love the policy implications of what the "science" says so they look for ways to convince others that the "science" is predicting impending doom.
Of course the implications and inferences are valid.
As I said, the science doesn't care if you like what it has to say or not.
Here's a fact for you. You're an idiot...always have been, always will be.You hate facts huh? Gotta suck for you.
No wonder you troll so much.
Here's a fact. You're an idiot...always have been, always will be.
Of course the implications and inferences are valid.
As I said, the science doesn't care if you like what it has to say or not.
Eski,
What do you infer by the much higher biodiversity of life on earth in eras of much greater CO2 and temperature than we currently have? Are you going to deny the fossil record like a creationist? You guys SPRINT from this inconvienent truth everytime I bring it up.
Eski,
What do you infer by the much higher biodiversity of life on earth in eras of much greater CO2 and temperature than we currently have? Are you going to deny the fossil record like a creationist? You guys SPRINT from this inconvienent truth everytime I bring it up.
Poker Guy said:No, it's not a science issue at all. It stops being a science issue when people with agendas start using the scientific information to push political agendas. That's when it becomes political stupidity, a political movement rather than a rational discussion about an problem and possible solutions. When hysterics don't work, the rabid lefties double down and come up with even more idiotic nonsense, like how we can predict now what the economic impact of nebulous climate changes will be 85 years from now. Good stuff!