Why is the climate change issue divided along party lines?

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by anomalous

I agree. This is a topic that really brings out the best in people. But interestingly most of the vitriol comes from those on the "left" of this issue, despite in many cases these people being completely unaware of the pertinent primary data.

There is no "left" or "right" on this issue, there are simply indisputable facts, upon which ALL real climate scientists agree.

Posting some nonsense site hosted by someone who isn't even a scientist, and who has been shown numerous times to be an inept fool is just laughable.

[Oerets]

We can have a conversation but little headway will be accomplished. Due to the fact of 40 billion tons of carbon is released annually for many years is evidently being ignored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_carbon_cycle

Jump to the 1:18 to 1:30 time frame in this NOVA and see it put into a prospective.

https://www.pbs.org/video/polar-extremes-mfaum5/

Spoiler alert, a gal of gas = 5 lbs of charcoal so a mountain the size of 4 miles across by a mile high is sent up into the sky as CO2 a year.


Like have stated before, little will change your mind in what I can say. Believe what you want but I fear most humans secretly know the truth now. Just realize the drastic measures needed and put up their hands and accept it is to late anyway.

[anomalous]

Originally Posted by Oerets

One paying attention must see the climate has changed for the warmer. In my local the winters are no longer drastically cold. This year it was almost 60* in January a month a few short years ago in the teens. My sons in their thirties unaware two years ago when it dipped below zero the need to leave water dripping.

I have see a ever steady warming and wetter weather pattern.

My grandson still have not used the snow toys we bought them a few years ago. Never snowed enough. In other ares the lack of rain is causing fires. Farmer are inundated with rain at opportune times destroying crops.

For one will be glad if my descendants think me silly for the belief in climate change. Rather then willfully ignorant of the signs and arrogantly probating nothing to see here move on attitude.

I replied to your initial anecdote with actual data, and you replied to the data I provided with anecdotes, and more anecdotes.

Anecdotes can be important when we have no data to go by, but in this case we have very good quality data and lots of it.

So let's take the case of your sons in their thirties. Below is a plot of the actual NOAA data since 1980 for the CONUS, which spans this lifetime of your sons.

Eyeballing it you can see that the temperature anomaly averaged about -0.5 F from 1980 to 1998, and averaged about +0.75 F from 1998 to now. Thus the years from 1998 to now averaged about 1.25 F warmer than those from 1980 to 1998.

You can also see that last year (2019) was actually cooler (on average) than 1981, 1986, 1987, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.

So 2019 was #19 on the list of hottest years in the CONUS instrumental record.

Of course you are free to interpret these data however you wish, but in my opinion is that the data do not support your anecdotes.

Finally, note that the scale of the Y axis actually only spans ~5 F, thus greatly magnifying the extent of the temperature differences among the data points.

In the second graph the Y axis is adjusted to ~100 F, a range we are more used to for considering differences among temperature values.

Again, interpret this however you think reasonable, but the graph shows the average temperature anomaly of the CONUS over the last 40 years, on a scale we associate with comparing temperatures.

[anomalous]

Originally Posted by Chicks

There is no "left" or "right" on this issue, there are simply indisputable facts, upon which ALL real climate scientists agree.

However certain you may be in your beliefs, dismissing one side of an issue out-of-hand seems rather an immature approach to a debate, does it not?

Secondly, scientific hypotheses by definition are falsifiable. Therefore "indisputable facts" do not exist in scientific investigation.

If a person does not understand this, they are not capable of debating any scientific topic.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by anomalous

However certain you may be in your beliefs, dismissing one side of an issue out-of-hand seems rather an immature approach to a debate, does it not?

Secondly, scientific hypotheses by definition are falsifiable. Therefore "indisputable facts" do not exist in scientific investigation.

If a person does not understand this, they are not capable of debating any scientific topic.

Give it a rest. Your "side" is bunk.

[Chicks]

Here are the facts, from NASA, which the Trumpkins haven't (yet) taken down.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

[anomalous]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Give it a rest. Your "side" is bunk.

"I'm right, you're wrong, because I said so", the last argument of the intellectually bankrupt, or a five-year-old.

If you would like to actually discuss this topic like an adult, I would be happy to provide and discuss relevant primary climate data for all to consider and from which to form their own opinions.

In my experience, when most people see some of the primary data for themselves, they at least begin to think that this issue may not be so cut-and-dried as we are led to believe.

On the other hand, if your opinion is already made up, and for whatever reason your mind is not cautioned by the political nature of this topic, then please feel free to continue with your insults as they are more amusing than annoying to me and I might pick up a good one to use someplace else.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by anomalous

"I'm right, you're wrong, because I said so", the last argument of the intellectually bankrupt, or a five-year-old.

If you would like to actually discuss this topic like an adult, I would be happy to provide and discuss relevant primary climate data for all to consider and from witch to form their own opinions.

In my experience, when most people see some of the primary data for themselves, they at least begin to think that this issue may not be so cut-and-dried as we are led to believe.

On the other hand, if your opinion is already made up, and for whatever reason your mind is not cautioned by the political nature of this topic, then please feel free to continue with your insults as they are more amusing than annoying to me and I might pick up a good one to use someplace else.

There is no intellectual argument for your side. It's entirely bunk funded by Big Energy. End of story.

[Chicks]

How the fossil fuel industry got the media to think climate change was debatable


https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...was-debatable/

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by Chicks

There is no intellectual argument for your side. It's entirely bunk funded by Big Energy. End of story.

No sense in debating with anyone who still fails to see. You will only be wasting your time and energy.
You could point out how the Dutch now go to Italy for years, IIRC to run ice skating races. To Greenland loosing ice.
Whole swaths of the planet getting to be to hot to be outside during the day.

Like I have stated before many times, much like arguing with a drunk it seems. Goes in circles and circles. No end.

So I will let my writing stand for the future to read.
Hoping to be wrong can they who deny also say this?