Why I no longer even care about climate change deniers.

There are more advantages than many folks realize to being old. I'm comforted to know I won't be around long enough to see idiots like trump destroy the only world we've got.

 

And if there IS something we can do about it? Something that might cause a little pain now for a lot of gain later?

 

By that logic we SHOULD pay to clean up our own messes

And I do not mean just CO2

 

Yeah suuuuuuure!

She says from Aus

 

As to physical pollution and such? Yes. There is no hypothetical to what actually exists.

And not only do we currently pay for our messes, but many also volunteer their time to clean up other people's messes. And some of us have gotten down right confrontational with those who add to that mess right in front of us.

 

Not anymore....the tipping point has been reached.

 

Has it?

 

Just because you cannot touch and feel the mess does not mean it does not exist

 

This may be true in certain circumstances. I do not deny that Climate Change exists, it obviously does.

I just do not believe that mankind has had, and therefore will have, the impact that some people indicate, based on the fact that Climate Change has existed a few Million years prior to man.

 

Unfortunately...YES.

 

Never been to LA or Flint?

 

You're affirming a disjunct again.

 

I don't know man. Even the most aggressive estimates for hothouse tipping points is about 2C of warming. I agree that 2C of warming is a likely trajectory, but I don't think it's necessarily a given that these hothouse tipping points really are as low as 2C.

 

When we consider that most models are based on CO2 and a few other variable but I am talking about Methane (over 20 times as potent) it is a different ball game. Fortunately Methane does break down much faster than CO2 but the result is additional water vapor (another greenhouse element) and the heating changes surface albedo as Ice melts That tipping point has been crossed and cannot be changed.

 

No, actually, I'm not.

 

You said you don't think mankind will have the impact some people think based on the fact that climate change occurred prior to man. That is affirming a disjunct. That is you are assuming if A then not B where A is "the climate changed because of nature" and B is "the climate changed because of mankind".

Think about it. I could use the same if A then not B argument to say that because wildfires were caused by nature a million years then they can't possibly be caused by mankind today. Obviously that is a ridiculous argument because some wildfires are quite clearly caused by mankind today.

 

There is quite a difference between an event set intentionally, and something that happens spontaneously. While there will be fires set intentionally, there will also be fires caused by nature.

Climate change has been happening over millions of years, without man's involvement. It is going to continue to happen without man's involvement.

Your parallel doesn't work.

 

Yes, climate change will continue to happen without man's involvement. But, it does so with man's involvement as well. It's a not binary thing. Both can (and are) happening at the same time.

So what physical law or principal can you identify that says if nature can do it then mankind cannot?

And what natural-only process is causing the warming we observe today if not via the net effect of all process both natural AND anthroprogenic?

 

I choose to believe the 3400 plus accredited institutes of higher learning, every research facility dedicated to climate and all the major corporations and govts of the world. Besides, what ever we do long term to address climate change, helps us short term environmentally. It’s stuff we should be doing regardless.
A quality environment increases the value of property, enhances the opportunity for businesses to locate in those areas once polluted, and makes for cleaner air to breath and water to drink.
What’s the argument. It makes economic, health and long term sense.

 

Unfortunately there are those among us that think those onesie-twosie sources they found on a blog ran by a conspiracy theorist outweighs the conclusion of all of these credible sources.

And the strange thing is the more times these skeptic/denier arguments get debunked the more they take hold with a certain segment of the population. And the more evidence that keeps piling on to support AGW the more they reject it. It's the strangest thing.

 

It’s called identity politics. The only way they are diswayed, is the only way they change their mind about anything.....it has to hit them in the pocketbook. Otherwise, they just identify with conservatives, either republicans or as libertarians when the party is too much of an embarrassment for them. Their only source of news is Faux and a few other conservative outlets. Their responses and quotes mimic all the talking points of the Hannity crowd on every issue. They’re in the bubble.

 

It may even go deeper than that - if this study is accurate:

There seems to be a strong sense of not being lectured to and refusing to toe the environmentalist line even though it may cost a little extra.

Likewise, conservatives seem to have had a downer on energy efficient lightbulbs.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/23/9314

 

I actually do most of the 'environmentally friendly' stuff myself, but not because of the supposed impacts of 'climate change', but because excess garbage doesn't help anyone, kills sea life, birds, and pollinators. I have no issues with recycling, up-cycling, reducing plastic dependency and such.

But I do, whole-heartedly, disagree with taxing people to try and enforce it, make it mandatory and demand people follow my beliefs.

And therein lies the difference.

 

Then advocate for cleaner air and water. AGW doesn't address either. The tactic is simply misaligned if you believe that AGW was going to get you to a cleaner world.

The divergence started the very second greedy people understood that they could bilk billions of tax dollars out of government in the "quest" to improve things... It's gone downhill ever since.

We all want better air, clean water, and a life absent crazy chemical, or biological, or radiological threats. And yet, the very same folks who support the AGW orthodoxy are the same folks flooding our nation with yet more and more population density. Which simply tells me that they themselves don't believe in the orthodoxy.

 

You seem to contradict your own question having identified both natural and anthroprogenic (whatever that is..) If, as you suggest there is an expectation of a natural process, the task then is to determine the percentage to which the natural processes are being affected additionally by anthropogenic means. right? So how much is that? I've seen you write before that the natural process hasn't added to the global mean temp, right? So now they do? That seems a monumental departure from your normal rhetoric. If it is genuine, well, it shows growth. We all can applaud that.