The real drivers of popular opinion on climate change

show me.

 

I have some studying to do. Thanks, professor!

 

This is the first thing when I googled climate change predictions that were wrong. I'm sure all the scientists' predictions and facts listed in the article will be way off base, but it's just the first article on the list.


http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

 

the graph is of US carbon emissions and is scaled to make it a tent. what proceeds is a series of cherry-picked quotes of people with not studies in sight. come the [uck fay] on.

what, specifically, were the predictions made in 1989 that are now wrong? and I don't mean comments, I mean peer-reviewed published models or projections.

they've been pretty damn accurate, man.

 

also since they quotes from around 1970, they aren't being made reference to climate change anyway.

 

See. I said none of the people mentioned would be good enough. Can you give me your list of approved scientists and news outlets I can quote?

https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm

 

a peer reviewed study with a prediction. Hansen. the IPCC. etc. the link you just shared uses real sourcing and is fine.

 

Can we at least agree when climate change started gaining steam in politics, there were a bunch of people saying things like Florida would be under water and the ice caps would be gone? And some of these people took the upper limits of what "could" happen and used that info to scare us? And maybe there is some scepticism because of these kinds of things? Maybe? Am I saying the climate isn't changing? Nope. Am I saying stop with the Florida will be under water in 5 years if we don't go 100% solar in 3 months? Maybe just scale it back a smidge.

 

Of course, but I argue they were not the scientists (for the most part). And people making these scare tactic predictions are doing far more harm than good, because it hardens people like yourself.

 

Florida is experiencing sea level rise and many areas will be under water by 2100. polar ice is melting and is at a record low as we speak for this time of year. A growing amount of experts think it will be virtually ice free in the summers by 2050.

if you can find a credible paper that forecasted Florida would be gone or all the ice would be gone by 2019, then shut me up and link it or cited it.

no credible scientist said Florida will be underwater in 5 years if we don't switch to 100% solar in 3 months. for one, warming will continue for over 100 years if we all disappeared tomorrow. that's why we are talking about 2100.

I can't dial back hyperbolic shit you were never told and only made up as a rhetorical strawman, but you can and I support you doing so.

 

Which is especially troubling as the danger is real. Real, real.

Skepticism is healthy. The problems with this issue today are many fold. The non-scientific chatter you mention is a big one. Another is the obsessive focus on timing of events—which is important, but has been singled out and pushed by deniers as proof of hoax. It does great damage when folks are not clear when making generalized proclamations about having 10 years left. This number isn't necessarily hard, nor does it mean the world is ending at that point. I understand it as more a target window to avert/mitigate a runaway train scenario.

We might not be able to do much at all to stem it, but we should be actively working on contingencies. I know some cities here and abroad are, but we're not nearly as urgent as we should be.

 

And you guys are at ground zero. I am pretty safe at 1100 feet, as far as sea water goes. But 90 degree weather on October 20th like last year sucks [uck fay]ing nuts. And not in the good way.

 

Show me

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/if-glob...cdH1jSm7nQ-6zfdOHZs39PDu8L6DUG9C_cokFzDaXCyVc

 

I'll just leave this here ...

“One of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence but we’re not necessarily such believers,” Trump said during a freewheeling 20-minute Oval Office interview with The Washington Post in which he was asked why he was skeptical of the dire National Climate Assessment his administration released Friday.

“As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it,” he added.

And then there is this where he might be remembering the '74/'75 Newsweek/ Time articles (magazines with captioned pictures) ...

“If you go back and if you look at articles, they talk about global freezing,” Trump said. “They talk about at some point, the planet is going to freeze to death, then it’s going to die of heat exhaustion.”

We are so fortunate that our leader has a big brain.

 

we've had the coldest 2019 in something like 50 years in LA. only 6 times since 1887 has it been this cold. anecdotal evidence sucks

 

I get your point, but hope we all realize climate change does not mean everywhere on the planet is hotter simultaneously. The record cold in LA could be (I have no idea) more indicative of climate change than Norris' 90 degree October. Which is exactly why your point on anecdotes is so important.

 

i'm aware. both sides need to cut down on the hyperbole. every hurricane or hot day isn't caused by climate change. just as every snow storm doesn't mean climate change doesn't exist.

 

I did not intend my statement to be any sort of evidence, simply stating that as higher temps become the norm over time, it is going to suck.

 

I say we go full Gaia and blast off up off of this rock.