We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So

[watsup]

Which part of the UN climate emails leaking out did you not understand? True peer review has never been accepted by the man-made warming cult. You are proving that yourself with your instant default to "Denier" every time you see an opposing viewpoint. Take care. I am signing off until tomorrow.

Again, can you provide actual sources for your accusation, or are they just your "opinion"? I truly hope that you can come back tomorrow with a willingness to discuss the matter in depth instead of posting one denier talking point after another.

 

[Glitch]

Really? " Over two million acres of land have been burned in California, compared to 118,000 acres burned during this time in 2019. "

The mind-boggling scale of California's wildfires

Over two million acres of land have burned in California, compared to 118,000 acres razed in 2019.

www.bbc.com

So? Why did you pick only one year? I'll tell you why. Because you are afraid that all the prior years will show that you are flat out lying, as usual. It is not the year with the biggest fires, nor the year with the most fires, despite your dishonest attempts to make it appear that it was.

I demonstrated with actual data over a 21-year period that wildfires are not climate driven. All you have is your cherry-picked single year. Your deliberate dishonesty is laughable, and so predictably leftist.

 

[cabse5]

Ahh, I see you are confused when someone is honest about their skills.

I have a doctorate in geology (geochemistry focus) and decades of experience in R&D chemistry so I've got some experience in relevant topics but I'm honest enough to understand that I'm not an expert on the topic. FAR FROM IT.

Perhaps you are more educated in this topic. Of course I wouldn't know because you have yet to post anything that even remotely resembles "informed commentary" on the topic.

You can't be a scientist since you take the word of others.

 

[cabse5]

They said "We aren't operating as scientists! We are living in the 12th century AD."

That might help you better understand how OUT OF DATE your "examples" are. (As for modern flat earthers, well they don't like what the experts on the topic say either!)

This.

You can't be a scientist since you take the word of others.

 

[cabse5]

False equivalence.

So wrong...
Flat earthers, earth as the center of the universe enthusiasts AND imminent climate change disaster due to too much CO2 in the 'sphere enthusiasts all declared their theories w/o any scientific data to back up their theories.

 

[istodolez]

You can't be a scientist since you take the word of others.

I love your cartoonish oversimplification of the human condition and science in general. Let me clarify something for you:

When I "take the word of others" it is usually in cases of things in which I am not an expert but they are. Indeed healthy skepticism is required and thankfully I have a PhD in the sciences and decades of professional experience to rely on for me to do a simple overview: "does the science seem reasonable?" "When I read it does it make sense on a basic level?" Both of those things check off for me just fine in AGW.

But I am honest enough to know that I am not an expert on this. If the science seems reasonable and I have a basic understanding I'm more comfortable in accepting the decrees of the experts.

I honestly don't know how folks like YOU function. Do you not rely on experts in your world? I bet every penny I have that you DO. On a daily basis. Every day.

Your cartoon view of science is sweet and naive and bereft of anything like a rational basis. Which is fine for the non-scientist. Just don't think you have any insight into what it means to be a scientist just because you picked up a "Golden Book of Science for Kids" at some point.

 

[watsup]

You can't be a scientist since you take the word of others.

What a silly post!

 

[Ren]

Nobody cares what a chatter in an online forum "sees", only about the research and data of climate scientists..

Nobody cares about research and data that doesn't prove your case.

Show me the emergency.

 

[watsup]

Nobody cares about research and data that doesn't prove your case.

Show me the emergency.

Do you have smoke detectors in your home? Why? Show me the emergency.

 

[Ren]

Psychological projection.

Truth.

 

[Ren]

Do you have smoke detectors in your home? Why? Show me the emergency.

 

[watsup]

Same same. The smoke detectors are there because of POTENTIAL emergency. In the case of AGW, the potential is for disaster on a worldwide basis. Why wouldn’t we want to take reasonable precautions, which in this case would be reducing the spew of human-produced CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

[Ren]

Same same. The smoke detectors are there because of POTENTIAL emergency. In the case of AGW, the potential is for disaster on a worldwide basis. Why wouldn’t we want to take reasonable precautions, which in this case would be reducing the spew of human-produced CO2 into the atmosphere.

Nope.

The article says we are living IN a climate emergency. There's nothing POTENTIAL about it. We are living IN an emergency. That means the fire has already started. Where is it?

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We're Going to Say So

It’s time to use a term that more than 13,000 scientists agree is needed

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Lord of Planar]

Do you have smoke detectors in your home? Why? Show me the emergency.

It's mandated by regulations in many jurisdictions.

Do you have a point?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Same same. The smoke detectors are there because of POTENTIAL emergency. In the case of AGW, the potential is for disaster on a worldwide basis. Why wouldn’t we want to take reasonable precautions, which in this case would be reducing the spew of human-produced CO2 into the atmosphere.

Smoke detectors are a reasonable precaution. What are they? $20 bux a pop?

How many trillions do you want the tax payers to shell out for this AGW disaster fantasy?

 

[istodolez]

It's mandated by regulations in many jurisdictions.

Do you have a point?

The point, as I understand it, is that currently we are not yet in full "house on fire" emergency. But it's like we decided to put a can of gasoline right next to the fireplace. We are facing a potential disaster that we might burn our house down.

The experts on gasoline and fire tell us that putting the gas can next to the fireplace is a BAD IDEA that can easily result in something VERY BAD HAPPENING. Maybe you won't lose the entire house, maybe it will just burn the fireplace mantle, or maybe it will consume the entire house.

Then a bunch of "skeptics" come along and say "You know you have to have the right mix of oxygen+fuel+heat to get a fire and we don't believe that that will happen in this case of the gas can by the fireplace. So we shouldn't move the gas can." (Meanwhile 97% of the experts on this say "Oh please move the gas can! It WILL very much likely result in a fire!!!!")

Does that help explain the situation?

 

[istodolez]

Smoke detectors are a reasonable precaution. What are they? $20 bux a pop?

How many trillions do you want the tax payers to shell out for this AGW disaster fantasy?

Think of it like smoke detectors. Not individually super-expensive but spread across the entire population there's millions and millions of dollars there to prevent the loss of life and limit property damage.

WHy can't we think that way with regards to AGW? We all incur smaller costs to our daily lives so that, in sum, we put our collective wealth to ameliorating problems?

(Of course if we debate long enough the "fixes" get more and more expensive and more and more draconian so the "Skeptics" still get to whine in the end.)

 

[istodolez]

Nope.

The article says we are living IN a climate emergency. There's nothing POTENTIAL about it. We are living IN an emergency. That means the fire has already started. Where is it?

The house is not yet on fire, but we've got the gas can sitting right next to the fireplace... There's little difference between being "in crisis" and "setting the stage for the imminent crisis". The vapors are already diffusing over toward the fire... tick tick tick...

 

[Bergslagstroll]

You don't read my posts which categorically say there is no scientific evidence for catastrophic climate change due to high levels of CO2 in the 'sphere.

BTW, someone saying that too much CO2 in the 'sphere causes imminent climate change catastrophe is not scientific proof that too much CO2 in the 'sphere causes climate change catastrophe. Ya know, that's how we got flat earth theories and earth as the center of the universe theories. Have ya figured it out, yet?

Why did federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action when they where under the control and scrutiny of Republican politicians that denied the urgent need for action. If where was no evidence as you claim?

"Changes in temperature and precipitation are increasing air quality and health risks from wildfire and ground-level ozone pollution. Rising air and water temperatures and more intense extreme events are expected to increase exposure to waterborne and foodborne diseases, affecting food and water safety. With continued warming, cold-related deaths are projected to decrease and heat-related deaths are projected to increase; in most regions, increases in heat-related deaths are expected to outpace reductions in cold-related deaths. The frequency and severity of allergic illnesses, including asthma and hay fever, are expected to increase as a result of a changing climate. Climate change is also projected to alter the geographic range and distribution of disease-carrying insects and pests, exposing more people to ticks that carry Lyme disease and mosquitoes that transmit viruses such as Zika, West Nile, and dengue, with varying impacts across regions. Communities in the Southeast, for example, are particularly vulnerable to the combined health impacts from vector-borne disease, heat, and flooding. Extreme weather and climate-related events can have lasting mental health consequences in affected communities, particularly if they result in degradation of livelihoods or community relocation. Populations including older adults, children, low-income communities, and some communities of color are often disproportionately affected by, and less resilient to, the health impacts of climate change. Adaptation and mitigation policies and programs that help individuals, communities, and states prepare for the risks of a changing climate reduce the number of injuries, illnesses, and deaths from climate-related health outcomes."

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

Also why would all the world's leading scientific organizations acknowledge the urgent need for action, if where was no evidence as you claim?

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – The Ecological Society of America

www.esa.org

That the reality is that the evidence for the urgent need for actions are overwhelming.

Evidence - NASA Science

Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...

climate.nasa.gov

 

[mrjurrs]

So? Why did you pick only one year? I'll tell you why. Because you are afraid that all the prior years will show that you are flat out lying, as usual. It is not the year with the biggest fires, nor the year with the most fires, despite your dishonest attempts to make it appear that it was.

I demonstrated with actual data over a 21-year period that wildfires are not climate driven. All you have is your cherry-picked single year. Your deliberate dishonesty is laughable, and so predictably leftist.

"There isn’t a direct relationship between climate change and fire, but researchers have found strong correlations between warm summer temperatures and large fire years, so there is general consensus that fire occurrence will increase with climate change. Hot, dry conditions, however, do not automatically mean fire—something needs to create the spark and actually start the fire. In some parts of the country (like Alaska), most fires are ignited by lightning. In other regions (like California), most fires are ignited by humans. Climate models tell us that average summer temperatures will continue to increase through this century, but ignition is the wild card. What will happen in the future is a more complicated story because we don’t understand what will happen with convective storms and the lightning."

Will global warming produce more frequent and more intense wildfires? | U.S. Geological Survey

There isn’t a direct relationship between climate change and fire, but researchers have found strong correlations between warm summer temperatures and large fire years, so there is general consensus that fire occurrence will increase with climate change.Hot, dry conditions, however, do not...

www.usgs.gov

The reason the correlation is not direct is because climate change doesn't spark the fires. And your quote, "Wildfires are not getting more numerous or bigger..." is provably false.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The point, as I understand it, is that currently we are not yet in full "house on fire" emergency. But it's like we decided to put a can of gasoline right next to the fireplace. We are facing a potential disaster that we might burn our house down.

The experts on gasoline and fire tell us that putting the gas can next to the fireplace is a BAD IDEA that can easily result in something VERY BAD HAPPENING. Maybe you won't lose the entire house, maybe it will just burn the fireplace mantle, or maybe it will consume the entire house.

Then a bunch of "skeptics" come along and say "You know you have to have the right mix of oxygen+fuel+heat to get a fire and we don't believe that that will happen in this case of the gas can by the fireplace. So we shouldn't move the gas can." (Meanwhile 97% of the experts on this say "Oh please move the gas can! It WILL very much likely result in a fire!!!!")

Does that help explain the situation?

No.

Only stupid people would do that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Think of it like smoke detectors. Not individually super-expensive but spread across the entire population there's millions and millions of dollars there to prevent the loss of life and limit property damage.

WHy can't we think that way with regards to AGW? We all incur smaller costs to our daily lives so that, in sum, we put our collective wealth to ameliorating problems?

(Of course if we debate long enough the "fixes" get more and more expensive and more and more draconian so the "Skeptics" still get to whine in the end.)

But we are speaking of several thousands of dollars per person for the level of climate mitigation they want, in a situatioon, that only has a hypothetical emergency.

 

[istodolez]

No.

Only stupid people would do that.

...but you DO get the analogy, correct? I mean you DO understand what my point was, right?

 

[watsup]

But we are speaking of several thousands of dollars per person for the level of climate mitigation they want, in a situatioon, that only has a hypothetical emergency.

How much will it cost in the long run if we don’t address it now due to the negative consequences of global warming on a worldwide basis?

 

[Lord of Planar]

...but you DO get the analogy, correct? I mean you DO understand what my point was, right?

I see a point that is closer to a hallucination, thinking that CO2 is like gasoline.