For me, it's like watching people on the Titanic deny the ship is sinking becase they were told the ship was "unsinkable" and they put their faith in that rather than the water rising around them...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/05/13/you-idiots-bill-nyes-fiery-message-leaders-stalling-climate-change/

Jor-El before the High Council Of Krypton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsNjYQMPA1o

On Earth, religion is one of the prime factors that prevent people from denying reality:
https://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/dealing-with-doubt/

https://www.ucsusa.org/fa17-inquiry-katharine-hayhoe
"Dr. Hayhoe, you’re a climate scientist and an Evangelical Christian. Many in your faith are among the loudest voices denying the reality of climate change in our country today. How do you personally reconcile your religion and your life’s work?

Katharine Hayhoe: One of the most interesting things I have learned from talking to people is that every major world religion’s core values are care for creation, nature, and the world, and care for people who are poor, who have fewer advantages. The Bible doesn’t mention climate change, but it has a lot to say about our responsibility for this world that we live in, and our responsibility to care for people, especially the poor and vulnerable of this world, who are being disproportionately affected by a changing climate.

I’m a Christian, and my husband pastors an Evangelical church. If it weren’t for the fact that the group that I’m part of disproportionately rejects the science on climate change, I don’t think I would have ever told anybody where I go to church on Sunday—because that’s not what scientists talk about when we gather around the water cooler! We talk about science, because that’s what we love.

The reason I decided to make my faith public is the fact that, among Evangelical Christians, only about a third agree with the science of climate change, and two-thirds don’t. That number is very similar among white Catholics. This doesn’t have anything to do with people’s faith, or what they believe about the Bible or God. It’s the fact that in the United States, faith and politics have become so intertangled that for some people, their statement of belief is dictated first by their politics, and only second by the Bible. And if the two come into conflict, they’ll go with their political ideology over what the Bible says, or what a religious leader such as the pope says."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2019 03:30PM by anybody.

ziller just makes them listen to NPR until the denier is brainw... ~

er ~ um ~

ziller just makes them listen to NPR® until the denier turns from they ignerent ways and just beleefs ~


in b 4 ~ if that doesn't work ~


ziller just makes the denier read the OP ~

I try to reason with the deniers.

When that doesn't work, I leave the RfM page and go feed the cows.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2019 04:19PM by Lot's Wife.

>> How do you react when you are confronted with climate change denial?

I deny what they're telling me.

I just keep work on fixing the problem. And that's a big part of my job.

Can you be more specific? It sounds interesting.

My TBM daughter is one of the strongest believers and has been for a long, long time. (You have to remember that she was not raised mormon from age 8. She went back at age 20.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2019 05:23PM by cl2.

My argument isn't with those who deny anthropogenic climate change, which I consider to be a fact, it is with those who use it to create unrelated and exploitative taxation.

But you are presumably comfortable with negative taxation, meaning the failure to tax commensurately with the damage to public commons done by certain commercial activities?

Totally.

Of course humans are contributing to some amount of climate change. But silly legislation like the Green New Deal is the climate change equivalent of the Godmakers.

Doesn't do anything but keep climate change deniers comfortably numb to what's going on.

That's called a red herring: when people are talking about one thing and you introduce an unrelated topic as a means of changing people's perceptions about the first subject.

Jordan referenced exploitative taxation, and I responded with a clear cut example of that: the Green New Deal.

And I even tied it into mormonism by equating it to the Godmakers, which is a totally appropriate comparison.

So, why say it's a red herring?

He said he doesn't disagree with climate change, only with the exploitation of that for political ends. You then write about the Green New Deal, which is a stupid idea that has garnered very nearly zero support.

That diversion may be good for you, since it makes people smirk at climate change; it may even be good for Jordan. But it is a digression from the topic, sort of like saying that instinctive discomfort with the word "Arabic" is reasonable because the true descriptor should be "Indian." The accurate history is useful in a general discussion but not when it is employed to "explain" why hostility to the word "Arabic" is not xenophoic.

That's a red herring too since it's effect is subtly to denigrate the very real topic that was under discussion. No worries, though. You SJWs have been waging serious war with the tyranny of truth for a long time, and no weapon is too banal to wield in that virtuous struggle to prove one's own victimhood.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2019 12:22PM by Lot's Wife.

Is that what this is about? The arabic numerals thread?!

To be clear, Jordan said:

"My argument isn't with those who deny anthropogenic climate change, which I consider to be a fact, it is with those who use it to create unrelated and exploitative taxation."

And I wholeheartedly agreed with him. I agreed that humans contribute to climate change, and I further agreed by giving a concrete example of what he called "unrelated and exploitative taxation" vis a vis the Green New Deal.

Then you said:

"He said he doesn't disagree with climate change, only with the exploitation of that for political ends. You then write about the Green New Deal, which is a stupid idea that has garnered very nearly zero support."

Which makes me think you're not even trying to understand my point, because you just made it for me! The Green New Deal is unrelated and exploitative taxation masquerading as a solution to human-caused climate change.

Again, where is the red herring? Or is this all about the arabic numerals thread?

It ain't rocket science.

Of course I understand your point. It isn't that complex.

But apparently you don't understand what a red herring is. It is when there is a discussion whose main point you dislike, so you introduce a clue (very possibly true) that subtly undermines the main point.

Thus, morons do not like the term "Arabic Numbers" and that fact implies something about the morons. If a person dislikes the "something" we are learning about those people, he might say "oh yeah that's real but it's not important because 'Arabic numbers' are really 'Indian numbers." The effect of that red herring is to excuse the discriminatory impulses of the morons through an argument that they patently did not understand let alone utilize.

Or hear, where the topic is the problem of climate denial. Uncomfortable with where that is going, you neo-SJWs grant the premise and then denigrate the conclusion. Thus climate change may be real but it should be discounted because it is not anthropogenic and/or it is used tendentiously to support higher taxes. The rhetorical purpose is to undermine agreement with the original topic--climate denial and its cost--by shifting discussion to a peripheral and somewhat contradictory point.

I hope you understand this; I hope it is not operating on a subconscious level, for you deserve credit for adopting red herrings as a rhetorical practice so adeptly.

Maybe I'm just a dumb kid, but you don't seem to be following the conversation (either one) very well. I think it's because you're salty about someone so much younger than you pointing out your biases, which is why you're resorting to using ad hominems like "SJW" or "moron." It's beneath you.

A few points to address:

You said: "where the topic is the problem of climate denial. Uncomfortable with where that is going, you neo-SJWs grant the premise and then denigrate the conclusion."

How did I denigrate the conclusion? I agreed with Jordan that human-caused climate change is real, and his other point that it's used as a means of passing unrelated and exploitative taxation. I gave a concrete example of that: the Green New Deal.


"Thus climate change may be real but it should be discounted because it is not anthropogenic and/or it is used tendentiously to support higher taxes."

This is weird. You're attributing statements to me that I never made. When did I say climate change should be discounted? Can you please point to such a statement? Pretty please?

Also, I never said climate change is not anthropogenic. Where's that coming from? Project much?

"The rhetorical purpose is to undermine agreement with the original topic--climate denial and its cost--by shifting discussion to a peripheral and somewhat contradictory point."

Nope, I was just agreeing with Jordan that climate change is real and that it's also used as an excuse to pass unrelated and exploitative taxation.

Also, on the other thread (as anyone can go read) I only referenced the fact that our numerals actually originated in India because you asserted that only culturally illiterate people didn't know our numerals were arabic. Then, once I schooled you on that, you moved the goalpost and asserted that, well, everybody calls them arabic numerals so that should be good enough.

I disagreed with that, because lots of people still call native americans "Indians" even though they're not from India, although our numerals are.

honklermaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe I'm just a dumb kid, but you don't seem to
> be following the conversation (either one) very
> well. I think it's because you're salty about
> someone so much younger than you pointing out your
> biases, which is why you're resorting to using ad
> hominems like "SJW" or "moron." It's beneath you.

I have no idea how old you are and I don't mind your pointing out my biases. Frankly, if you dislike the pejorative "moron" we can use some term you prefer for those with profound ignorance regarding their own culture. What shall we say? "The uninformed?" "The perpetually truant?" Pick your poison.


-----------------
> This is weird. You're attributing statements to me
> that I never made. When did I say climate change
> should be discounted? Can you please point to such
> a statement? Pretty please?

As I noted, you did not SAY that. But you did take a point and then discount the policy implications by citing an example that you apparently find unreasonable. That would be great if the discussion were on remedial measures, but it was not. Hence red herring.


----------------
> Also, I never said climate change is not
> anthropogenic. Where's that coming from? Project
> much?

I did not accuse you of saying anthropogenic climate change is a fraud. I said that is one of the motivations for people who use red herrings as you do, which is different. Moreover my statement was not a projection; it might have been if the skepticism regarding climate change were mine. But it is not, so you are describing the opposite of projection.


-----------
> Nope, I was just agreeing with Jordan that climate
> change is real and that it's also used as an
> excuse to pass unrelated and exploitative
> taxation.

So it was an unwitting red herring.


---------------
> Also, on the other thread (as anyone can go read)
> I only referenced the fact that our numerals
> actually originated in India because you asserted
> that only culturally illiterate people didn't know
> our numerals were arabic. Then, once I schooled
> you on that, you moved the goalpost and asserted
> that, well, everybody calls them arabic numerals
> so that should be good enough.

You didn't school me on anything. When discussing cultural literacy, the standard is--wait for it--cultural literacy. Where does one find that? Textbooks and dictionaries. Using those metrics, the question is whether someone recognizes the term "Arabic Numbers" and not whether someone knows the earlier history, which does not show up in dictionaries and textbooks.

The question remains, what were the reasons people who didn't know we use Arabic numerals had such a visceral reaction against that term? You haven't elucidated those reasons. And your attempt to derail the debate are transparent even if unwitting.

Well, that's just like, your opinion man.

I do appreciate a nice classical allusion!

Thank you, Jordan.

When I was a school boy, I was taught that the policeman was my friend, that teachers were caring and that firemen never set arson fires in order to make overtime and be decorated with awards.

https://www.firerescue1.com/Arson-Investigation/articles/63926018-Firefighter-gets-5-years-in-prison-for-setting-30-fires/

I recall a San Diego State Fire Chief who even wrote a book of his heroism, but then was imprisoned for setting autumn fires, yearly.

I think that many people won't get it until the water is lapping at their doorsteps. Perhaps when Wall St. is underwater?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2019 05:41PM by summer.

No, summer. Like the Defense Department, Russia's military and the supermajor oil companies, Wall Street is invested massively in the implications of global warming since it is established fact. The more sophisticated investors are betting not just on warming but on technologies designed to contain the resulting damage.

The last holdouts against anthropogenic global warming will likely resemble flat-earthers: the ones with either a lack of education or, for whatever reason, an inability to learn from education.

The climate does the talking for me. I need prove nothing.

For climate change deniers it isn't going to help solve the problem we're confronting in our generation and the ones to follow. We can either be part of the problem, or part of the solution. We cannot be both. It is not going to solve itself if we do nothing.

Many climate believers and deniers are bogged down in religious fervor and they must find their way to rationality. If they want to study and ask questions, that will happen. Back and forth arguing probably won't work.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many climate believers and deniers are bogged down
> in religious fervor and they must find their way
> to rationality. If they want to study and ask
> questions, that will happen. Back and forth
> arguing probably won't work.

Very well stated - there is a cultish element to the recent "Extinction Rebellion". Trying to *prevent* people using public transport is a bizarre tactic for people trying to encourage people away from cars. They win no one over.

As for the deniers... Urgh...

The modern internet is partly to blame. It allows people to block and delete opposing viewpoints instead of addressing them or persuading them.

I usually ask the climate-change denier if he or she took any science courses in high school or even middle school.

I hope you ask verbally since a written communication is unlikely to elicit a reply.

Not really.

I just thought the notion of someone concerned about global warming keeping cattle was an amusing paradox. The truth is I have not fed cows for a long time.

Right, and I try not to use any words with more than two syllables when I ask them.

in b 4 ~ 1 Timothy 6:20 ~

I once wandered by a room full of convinced climate-change "scientists".

Most of them were cone-heads ala SNL.

Their pointy skulls were full of holes.

I believe in climate change. The climate has been changing from the very beginning.

Just look at the geology of the west and southwest, the enormous size of the lava flows and the number of them.

Look at the mountains and and the fossilized sea life on the highest peaks.

The earth hasn't been around long enough to have made one orbit around the Milky Way.

Any time we approach or leave the influence of other planets and suns, it has affects on earth like earth quakes, changes on our atmosphere, basically all living organism around us.

How much of our climate change is due to human activities, in my opinion not much. When nature feels we are a problem, nature will take care of the problem. Too many of us, crop failures or wide spread disease and epidemics. Nature does not care.

My understanding, the world's population has been decimated several times. It'll happen again, when who knows.

>The earth hasn't been around long enough to have made one orbit around the Milky Way.

The solar system orbits the Milky Way every ~230 million years

https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html

The Earth is ~4.5 billion years old.

Thus, Earth has made ~ 18 trips around the Milky Way.

Most of tumwater's other statements are also false. Earth has never left the "influence" of other suns, or other planets, except for whatever knocked a divot out of early earth, creating the moon.

As for when the earth's overall population will be decimated again, we're in the middle of the sixth great extinction right now. There's even a book by that name that gives the details. Quite a few larger animals are already gone (e.g. Wooly mammoth, Irish elk) and a fair number of highly valued animals almost everyone wants preserved are in danger, like tigers and orangutans and polar bears.

I applaud. Because man made climate change is a big fat lie. What we know is that the earths temperature grew slimly last century. That's all we know. Everything else is a guess. The so called scientists have a very small amount of data for any region. It gets modeled using linear regression analysis. With man made, man defined coefficients. Those coefficients are not well understood because the sample set is only 120 points or 120 years. The correlation coefficient understandably is +-.5 or less. We need 1000's of years of data to get anything reliable.

Seriously people, take a stats course....

Whether or not you believe we are causing it, there is a clear case IMHO for cutting pollution in general. Putting less filth in the air is a GOOD thing. As is having rivers and seas that are clean. Someone has just dove down into the Marianas Trench recently and found human debris down there - this is a region of the Trench that humans have never visited. The results of plastic contamination can be seen in the deep ocean, even the polar regions.

There are a few things about this post that concern me, macaRomney.

First, when you speak of 120 years of data how do you account for the evidence in ice cores and the plant and geological records? Do you just ignore it? If so, why?

Second, a logical question. People propose that humans are causing climate change and proffer evidence in support of that proposition. You argue that the evidence in favor of that proposition is unpersuasive. But then--and this is the logical problem--you state that the absence of good evidence proves the converse of the proposition. Could you explain that? Because usually the lack of good evidence is taken as leaving the question open, not proving its converse.

Finally, you urge us to "take a stats course...." Really?

...this predicament was amazingly predicted in the movie "Soylent Green". In that scenario, the world's oceans no longer produced the needed plankton, which, had earlier produced the Soylent Red and Yellow wafers. The "Soylent Corporation Oceanographic Report", dated 2015-2019 (go figure), had determined that plankton production had collapsed, due to world pollution and environmental deterioration. Then, new sources of protein sources were explored. Use of expired human remains seemed to fill the bill.

Huge land masses of "plastic islands", and refuse, thrown from military and cruise ship vessels, are having a much more immediate and deleterious effect on the world's oceans, which are at the the bedrock of the world's food chain. Deep sea fish are currently caught and dressed, showing shocking amount of internal plastic consumption. I'm Not even counting the mutating deep-sea fish effected by Fukushima....what do you think?...

One of my children doesn't want me moving to the Sunbelt because of global warming.

He worries that when the earth gets warmer it will become too uncomfortable for me, and would prefer me in a cooler climate.

But I cannot bear the thought of growing older in a cold northern climate as global warming heats up. Why??????

Because global warming makes the cold temps go more extreme. We've had several winters in just the last five years with Siberian Polar Vortexes. That is something we never experienced before until recently. We've hit record highs and record lows in just the past 5-10 years during winter and summer months.

The seasons have become more extreme in every climate zone. I don't believe it matters where you live to experience extreme climate change.

As for heat waves, last summer alone up in Montreal there were dozens of people dying from heat stroke during its extreme heat wave. We're talking Montreal, QUEBEC. Not sunny ARIZONA. :(

It's always been too uncomfortable to live in the Sunbelt before air conditioning was widely available. Being too hot for jets to take off in Phoenix is kind of a new wrinkle. Over the next 20 to 30 years things are not likely to change all that much, though I wouldn't buy property around Miami!

>>But I cannot bear the thought of growing older in a cold northern climate as global warming heats up

I've had a few aches and pains for some years now. Generally it hasn't been a significant issue. But toward the tail end of this winter, my arthritis was nearly unbearable. Motrin wasn't even touching it. I remember thinking, "So this is why retirees move to Florida." Thankfully, once it started to warm up, the intense pain went away.

I just say, "Hi dad, it's good to see you."

QUEBEC



LOL @ all the scaredy cat exmos ~


in b 4 ~ chicken little ~


LOL @ exmos posting about plastic in the pacific on they plastic keyboard from they mom's basement ~


just LOL ~


you exmos once beleafed everything the ass-hatted mormon leaders in SLC said ~


now ~

you exmos are willing to beleef anything some ass-hatted athiest scientist in the internet said ~


just LOL ~

I'm willing to believe peer-reviewed science. Aren't you?

I think that with the misspellings and other infelicities, Ziller is implicitly laughing at those who would deny well-established science.

Roger that. Will turn 'irony' dial up to 11.

Wow, all those here freaking out about our existence are surely walking everywhere they go, and growing their own food, right??

Fascinating how people can be that afraid, yet do little to change their lifestyle. So why does it matter? I don't see anybody doing anything about it, except scientists flying jets around the world burning fossil fuels telling us how we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

When Al Gore stops flying, and gives up his energy hog mansions, maybe I'll do more.

One reason I see to reduce energy consumption is to improve our health - I ride a bike around at work, and occasionally to work, and consider it free exercise. As opposed to those who buy gym memberships and drive to the gym.

Obesity is epidemic due to energy hogging machines, including cars, dishwashers and clothes dryers. We walk outside and hang clothes, or in winter, dry them by the wood stove.

The other reason to conserve is so we don't spend trillions more in wars over oil.

But people generally are lazy, so I don't see anything changing anytime soon. So might as well not worry.

We can’t even fix healthcare. Do people honestly think we are going to fix the planet?

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We can’t even fix healthcare. Do people
> honestly think we are going to fix the planet?

The healthcare concerns of the USA are a local issue, and the Communist dictatorship of China putting up a coal power station every week, and filling up the Pacific with plastic, isn't going to be compensated for by a few Americans going to the recycling bin every so often.

If you want results get the Chinese to act. We can also stop buying some of their plastic junk (pun intended) for our kids every time one of those silly Star Wars propagand movies comes out.

Any ideas on "Climate Change" that don't get China/India on board are doomed to failure. How do you react when you are confronted with denial about needing to get the people/governments in China, India, and other countries on board with some honest global climate Change management approach that puts the best interests of the human race first?

Historians and scholars of political movements realize that governments, businesses and other interest groups never lie, tamper with evidence or generate studies that support their own profitable conclusions.

Every human should be given a noisy, bright and cold birth room experience, then injected with the latest miracle formula.

Those who resist should be labelled and shunned.

Its crucially important for anyone that cares about the Climate Change issue to honestly look at the credibility problem that the Alarmists have. Don't just brush it off. Take it on with integrity. Otherwise you are harming the cause of Climate Change getting addressed responsibly. What we need is real leadership that has the integrity to really address the issues that honest people have with the Alarmists' misses. And we need to make sure that the propaganda of the Special Interests who have their next Quarterly Profits as their Prime Objective checked with real honesty integrity and Science.


For example, this news article from 1989 says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by the year 2000. It was wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.


https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.

UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.

Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.

Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″

He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.

″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.″

He said there is time to act, but there is no time to waste.

UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya - where UNEP is based - and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year.

Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests.

″We have no clear idea about the ecological minimum of green space that the planet needs to function effectively. What we do know is that we are destroying the tropical rain forest at the rate of 50 acres a minute, about one football field per second,″ said Brown.

Each acre of rain forest can store 100 tons of carbon dioxide and reprocess it into oxygen.

Brown suggested that compensating Brazil, Indonesia and Kenya for preserving rain forests may be necessary.

The European Community istalking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said.

The treaty could also call for improved energy efficiency, increasing conservation, and for developed nations to transfer technology to Third World nations to help them save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions, said Brown.

It is not the every day people that deny climate change that concern me. It is those in high and powerful positions who deny it and who could do something about it that concern me most.

I get sad. The trajectory cannot be changed because--eight billion people still multiplying and applying for credit cards.

We have a better chance of herding cats.

1- CO2 is a greenhouse gas (traps heat)
2- without CO2 in our atmosphere we couldn’t live here
3- we can measure CO2 in ppm
4- measured CO2 ppm is higher than in the last 400,000yrs
5- ice core samples provide an indisputable record of past CO2 levels as well as extrapolations about the global climate.
6- sea bottom sediment cores containing shells act in a similar way to 5
7- mankind has, since the late 1800’s, been burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, which is principally stored carbon.
8- believe or don’t, these 7 things are facts. Not alternative facts, actual facts. It’s not difficult to logically conclude that human activity, driven by the industrial revolution, is having a huge impact on the balance of the earths climate.

Are we all going to die? No. But we will have to adapt to a new “normal”. Our society was built on a climate model that no longer exists. Change will be painful, but humans will manage.

I would like to note that a previous poster disagrees. He says there is only 120 years of climatic data and implicitly that all your claims about sediments, cores, data before 1900, and logic are misleading.

Said poster says that people like you (and me) should take a statistics course because we are conspicuously incapable of managing data and such.

I totally agree. The trouble isn't so much that the earth changes climate but more that we just don't understand what is causing the changes to occur (the coefficients in the linear regression models) or how much. Our accurate measurements in Utah only go back to about the late 1880's. But for a sample size to be accurate it needs to be larger than 120 data points.

Otherwise the margin of error is too large to rely on the findings. I would be skeptical of certain groups within intelligensia establishment and academia that are pushing this fear mongering for their own purposes. Which is to make money from government contracts and write articles for the gullible to buy.

You really, really didn't understand my post.

Some religious people are taking this position:

"Christ will return first, he said 'I come quickly', right?."

"The Millennium will arrive long before then."

"Worry about the Rapture instead, history is coming to an end anyway."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ab4BRAQElw


HH =)