Climate Change, Where Are Romney and Obama?

Just ran across this and found it interesting and it does make me wonder why no one is talking about this in the political arena.

From The Vid:
Question:- What do people on the right get most wrong about climate change?

"They don't look at the evidence, the whole probability distribution of temps, precipitation patterns has shifted all over the world and what used to be considered very extreme events, 3 standard deviations or more anomalies, which are less than 1% in the base period, are now 5-10% planet wide. Extreme heat, drought and rainfall occur with far more frequency all over the world."

Quote from book in 2008: "Ecological conditions will be worsened, not improved by the rapid economic growth that is in most of the world unless that growth is channeled by active public policies into resource-saving technologies."
"resource saving technologies?" What's that? < sarcasm off >

Q - Is this a political or scientific debate?

"There is a political debate driven by corporate interests, but the scientific debate is settled, one of the big climate skeptics, Richard Mueller of Berkley recently claimed "I doubted the data, I thought I was gonna prove it wrong, but it turned out to be exactly right, we do have human induced climate."

We have drought, which is intensified by climate change. LaNina was at play but high temps have intensified the effects.

Q - What about Greenland's melting ice. "The surface melt usually covers 40-50% of the surface area whereas now it is almost fully covered, and the monitoring climatologists have never seen this." Natural variation occurs but the distribution has shifted markedly, in every major category temp, precipitation etc..

The 3 standard deviation(less than 1% of the globe)events between 1950 and 1980, now cover 5-15 % of the planet
"At a global scale we have been relentlessly on a path of increasing carbon emissions and sInce signing the framework for climate change 20 years ago, we have not changed direction." No politicians want to talk about this, Romney and Obama silent.

How can you discuss the future without addressing this?!?!

Some want to wait for long term measuring but can we afford to wait?

Q - Is there still a debate scientifically?
"There is no scientific debate anymore." Some scientist work for the oil industry and some are just contrary, but they are in the minority.

So why do they avoid this issue?
My guess is no one wants to step up and absorb the costs for addressing this, and some entities do not want to compromise their business practices. Maybe some do not want to spread fear. The carbon emissions are part of this issue, but right now, I think just discussing climate change is important.

Can we please set aside our political differences and examine the facts that affect us all, regardless of our
location or party affiliation?

Peace,
spec

SCIENCE!(sorry, been watching too much Spoony)

Anyway, we can have a debate with SCIENCE

Okay so is there any misunderstandings or points anyone wants to bring up to start with?

BTW, I believe man has a lot to do with the effects of climate change. That is my position.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

I too believe our activity has played a significant part in the escalation. Significant in that we should be inestigating it openly, to determine just how much we affect it. But I don't see that issue being resolved or thoroughly approached, before full acknowledgment and discussion about general overall climate change(catastrophe). It is an incredibly complex task to determine how much our carbon emissions affect things.

I just want to hear them at least discuss it. I know many do not want carbon emission regulations, and I don't trust them fully either, but it is a simple fact that we do have an effect on the climate. I do not want this thread to unfold in that direction necessarily, rather I want to know why no politicians are talking about the climate at all.
The silence raises suspicion for me.

Peace,
spec

global warming does not exist.

but those tree ring inspectors say it was cold, now its warm.

brilliant.

now let's tax the world.

it's about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

reply to post by bjax9er

I'm sure it has a lot to do with money but what about science and observation? I don't think we should avoid the issue because of the antiquated phrase 'global warming.' It is unfortunate how that muddies the waters of facts and truth and priorities. This issue is bigger than taxes,imo.
Do things not seem to be escalating at an alarming rate?

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


Unfortunately politicians are not scientist, therefore they are ill equipped to be an informative source for the general public. They already have a lot of facts to deal with and the facts of climate change are too numerous to recount without individual study on the part of the public or some kind of expert on hand to answer questions that may elude the politicians knowledge.

The answer, of course, is to make people more aware of the discussion, but to not pretend as if they are an expert themselves.

Apple falls from a tree; evidence of gravity. this is easy to see.

claimate change is so complex that the cause and effect isn't as clear.

The problems of CO2 are very long term. It stays in the air for years and years. We, as a society, have discussed this part of the problem almost exclusively. It is the 500 pound gorilla in the room. We don't have a cheap solution for this so we don't want to admit we have a problem.

At the same time black particles(from desiel fuel) arisols(spelling), and cfcs are short terms polutants. like a spider bite, we don't care too much be we notice them. these stay in the air for days or months so the damage is lesser. These items damaged the ozone. We as a society banned them and they are now a smaller problem for the atmosphere. (we could ban them becasue we have cheap substitutes to take their place.)

The problem is this: by stopping the use of these black particles, etc. the temperature didn't continue to rise so quickly and the climate change models where off becuase of it. the long term models show a slight increase over time, and then a leveling off of temperature. If you read the book-long reports from scientists you might be able to read these details. But who reads that stuff. We still have a gorilla in the room but some of the numbers don't show it because we killed a few spiders.

All in all, science used to be very tangible. That is why most "ol' folk" liked it. As a kid I learned an atom had three parts: protons, nuetrons, and electrons. This was the limit to the abstract levels of science for most popel. It is way more complex now. Too many people give up learning. And... "if you don't understand it, it must be wrong."

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


only the reporting of "things" are escalating.

these "things" have been happening since the beginning of time.

science is flawed, too many variables involved to come to an absolute truth.

also, there is way too much money to be made, for there to be an absolute truth.

reply to post by wwiilliiaamm

If you read the book-long reports from scientists you might be able to read these details. But who reads that stuff.

Good point, but we still have scientists that do gather and examine the evidence, so why not trust them, collectively? I realize one paper or one group maybe questionable, but not the majority of the scientific community. I would trust them more than a politician, especially about climate.

We as a society banned them and they are now a smaller problem for the atmosphere. (we could ban them becasue we have cheap substitutes to take their place.)

Now if we could just find an alternative to oil and chemicals.
I think Al Gore ruined that pinnacle moment for us,although I do still wonder how much(if any) merit may have been in his assessment. Man his misrepresenting the facts really brought this issue out of the science halls and into the political arena, but that doesn't make climate change, the event, any less real.

Too many people give up learning. And... "if you don't understand it, it must be wrong."

Agreed

Originally posted by bjax9er
global warming does not exist.

but those tree ring inspectors say it was cold, now its warm.

brilliant.

now let's tax the world.

it's about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Your wrong. Global warming is natural it caused the Little Ice Age in the 1600's. Mankind has been polluting the air every year and that has been growing geometrically for centuries. America alone puts millions upon millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere this has to have some kind of effect on the environment.

reply to post by bjax9er

There is no absolute truth but there is a weighing of evidence, and that is where science trumps, not as an end all, but as the right direction. 1600 records were broken last month and this guy in the vid brings up other saliant points. Putting the carbon emissions issue aside, you can not think that climate change is a farce. Even being 'natural,' it is still increasing and dangerous. Yes on the scale of earth history it may be a bump, but that does not mean that bump cannot do severe damage and potentially turn into an ice age.

Peace,
spec

reply to post by wwiilliiaamm


co2 is a natural gas, it exists at a rate of 300 ppm.
plants use co2 as food, and can survive, and might i add, thrive at a rate of 1300 ppm.

after a hundred years of adding millions of tons of co2 into the air, 300 ppm is still 300 ppm.

if global warming is in fact happening.

it's not the result of co2.

probably the result of politicians blowing hot air.


ppm= parts per million

I really, really would like the truth about climate change. It's just so hard to know who to trust or believe.

The environment is such an important issue that affects ALL of us. How crazy is it that it is skewed just for political agendas. Even many scientists are in the pockets of each parties.

It's like the left wants to use the issue just to tax us to death while the right wants to deny the issue in order to protect big business.

I'd like to get to the facts and nothIng but the facts without politics getting in the way. We should already be as 'green' ad we possibly can be anyways but I'd like the facts.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by bjax9er
global warming does not exist.

but those tree ring inspectors say it was cold, now its warm.

brilliant.

now let's tax the world.

it's about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Your wrong. Global warming is natural it caused the Little Ice Age in the 1600's. Mankind has been polluting the air every year and that has been growing geometrically for centuries. America alone puts millions upon millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere this has to have some kind of effect on the environment.

wrong. co2 has no effect on the environment. it is natural.

co2 is not a pollutant, it is natural.

name one organism co2 has harmed.

Originally posted by bjax9er
reply to post by wwiilliiaamm

 

co2 is a natural gas, it exists at a rate of 300 ppm.
plants use co2 as food, and can survive, and might i add, thrive at a rate of 1300 ppm.

after a hundred years of adding millions of tons of co2 into the air, 300 ppm is still 300 ppm.

if global warming is in fact happening.

it's not the result of co2.

probably the result of politicians blowing hot air.

ppm= parts per million

I am sorry, but your logic is suspect.

So because Co2 has always been in abundance, and is good for plant life, then more Co2 in the atmosphere wouldn't affect the atmosphere?

Btw, its currently at 395ppm, a difference of 115 since the beginning of the industrial era.

Originally posted by bjax9er

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by bjax9er
global warming does not exist.

but those tree ring inspectors say it was cold, now its warm.

brilliant.

now let's tax the world.

it's about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Your wrong. Global warming is natural it caused the Little Ice Age in the 1600's. Mankind has been polluting the air every year and that has been growing geometrically for centuries. America alone puts millions upon millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere this has to have some kind of effect on the environment.

wrong. co2 has no effect on the environment. it is natural.

co2 is not a pollutant, it is natural.

name one organism co2 has harmed.

Have you ever left your car running in a garage?

Originally posted by bjax9er

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by bjax9er
global warming does not exist.

but those tree ring inspectors say it was cold, now its warm.

brilliant.

now let's tax the world.

it's about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Your wrong. Global warming is natural it caused the Little Ice Age in the 1600's. Mankind has been polluting the air every year and that has been growing geometrically for centuries. America alone puts millions upon millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere this has to have some kind of effect on the environment.

wrong. co2 has no effect on the environment. it is natural.

co2 is not a pollutant, it is natural.

name one organism co2 has harmed.

Ever hear of the term Ocean acidification? Judging by your reply you haven't.

Ocean acidification

Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[1] About a quarter of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes into the oceans, where it forms carbonic acid. Ocean acidification, which like global climate change is driven by excessive levels of carbon dioxide, has been regarded by climate scientists as the "equally evil twin" of global climate change.[2] As the amount of carbon has risen in the atmosphere there has been a corresponding rise of carbon going into the ocean. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[3] representing an increase of almost 30% in "acidity" (H+ ion concentration) in the world's oceans.[4][5][6] This ongoing acidification of the oceans poses a threat to the food chains connected with the oceans.[7]

Looks like it has harmed lots of organisms.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Have you ever left your car running in a garage?

Cars emit carbon monoxide not dioxide.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


have you ever left your car running in the garage?

carbon dioxide= co2
carbon monoxide= co

the amount of co2 released from the exhaust of a car is nothing compared to co
carbon monoxide is a pollutant and will kill you.
carbon dioxide/co2 is not

if you do not know the difference, you have no business debating it.

and i was using 300ppm as a round about number from my own memory.

man has only been able to measure co2 in ppm since the 1980's

so how does anyone know what the ppm was at the beginning of the industrial era?

suckered you into that one didn't I ? where did you get that from? wiki? or al gore, the politician?


i will say it again

it's about the money$$$$$$$$

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Have you ever left your car running in a garage?

Cars emit carbon monoxide not dioxide.

Oh right, I was thinking of Hypercapnia

en.wikipedia.org...

My bad.