Why is the climate change issue divided along party lines?

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by Oerets

No sense in debating with anyone who still fails to see. You will only be wasting your time and energy.
You could point out how the Dutch now go to Italy for years, IIRC to run ice skating races. To Greenland loosing ice.
Whole swaths of the planet getting to be to hot to be outside during the day.

Like I have stated before many times, much like arguing with a drunk it seems. Goes in circles and circles. No end.

So I will let my writing stand for the future to read.
Hoping to be wrong can they who deny also say this?

Yes, you're right. These clowns are like little pathetic nazis, with no real understanding that there is simply no basis for their arguments. One of them actually works for Big Energy, so his motivations are obvious, the other, who knows, likely just an uneducated troll, like Whell.

[anomalous]

Originally Posted by Oerets

No sense in debating with anyone who still fails to see. You will only be wasting your time and energy.
You could point out how the Dutch now go to Italy for years, IIRC to run ice skating races. To Greenland loosing ice.
Whole swaths of the planet getting to be to hot to be outside during the day.

In Chicks' defense, he (she?) is not actually debating.

Yes the Greenland ice sheet is losing ice. This has been going on more-or-less since the end of the last glacial maximum, but I agreee that it does seem to be accelerating since the 1980s. However the total amounts lost may not be as much as you might think.

The Dutch going to Italy to practice ice skating doesn't make any sense as Italy is south of the Netherlands, unless they are going to the mountains (when there are closer mountains than Italy).

If you could, please provide legitimate links about "whole swaths of the planet getting too hot to be outside during the day", I am genuinely curious. This contention seems absurd at face value.

[Oerets]

Took me a whole three minutes to find....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-a6710121.html
""The countries that will be so hot by 2100 humans won’t be able to go outside""

""“If we don't limit climate change to avoid extreme heat or mugginess, the people in these regions will likely need to find other places to live.”

Dr. Howard Frumkin, dean of the University of Washington school of public health, who wasn't part of the research, told the Associated Press that the implications of the paper for the Gulf region “are frightening”.

“When the ambient temperatures are extremely high, as projected in this paper, then exposed people can and do die.”


https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/f...iddle_east.pdf


I was wrong it was at Austrian mountain lake town of Weissensee. Not in the mountains of Italy



https://www.viacomcbspressexpress.co.../view?id=54724

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by anomalous

Globally, 2019 was the second hottest year on record, behind 2016.

Of course the instrumental temperature records used for these comparisons only go back back to 1880, so we can only say that 2019 was the second hottest of the last ~140 years.

I stand corrected, thanks.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

Stop projecting.

FWIW, I started a thread on Global warming back in early 2006 that got over 6000 comments. Research? Yeah, I've done it. Are you aware of the changes to earth temperature stations? Are you aware of the concept of the "urban heat island"? Have you seen original graphs from Nasa or NOAA, and then seen the "adjusted" ones foisted on the public? Have you seen the graphs that are intentionally started at a time of dramatically unseasonably cold temperatures used to show the world is "warming", when all it really did was get back to normal (whatever that is). Have you heard of the "pause"? How about the utter buffoonery behind the "hockey stick"?

Do some research? Stop projecting.

You burn coal for a living, and you really don't want to believe, and you're smart enough to stroke your confirmation bias in complex and baroque ways. That's what I think. I also think you're so deeply invested in your mindset after all this time that no one has a prayer of cracking your beliefs one millimeter. Especially people you are in the habit of fighting, antagonists on the Internet. I've been on the edges of the debate long enough to recognize many of the long-standing shibboleths of the deniers to which you allude, but unlike you, I don't have a crying NEED to hash through all this stuff, especially vs. a tightly-closed mind. Like, if we were both to argue fairly, you might have some points I'd concede, and I might debunk some of that old shite. But in the end, you would accept no debunking, you'd always have another argument. Wouldn't you? Haven't you always, up to now?

Do you really think it's because you're a frigging genius who's always right and never wrong?

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by Oerets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record

Wow, the planets climate extends beyond the CONUS? Who'd a thunkit. What, you mean climate and temperature aren't the same thing. Since things are "cooling" here maybe we can send some of that over to Australia. Things are heating up down-under.

[anomalous]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Wow, the planets climate extends beyond the CONUS? Who'd a thunkit. What, you mean climate and temperature aren't the same thing. Since things are "cooling" here maybe we can send some of that over to Australia. Things are heating up down-under.

Of course the planet's climate extends beyond the CONUS, I made this perfectly clear in my post.

In case you missed it, I was responding to an anecdote involving a 5th grade child (who presumably lives in the CONUS), who could no longer go sledding in the winter, presumably because of "global warming".

I provided primary data, from the NOAA no less, that demonstrates that the average surface temperature in the CONUS has not changed appreciably during the putative 5th grade child's lifetime, demonstrating that his/her lack of being able to sled in the winter may not be due to an overall warming trend in the CONUS, but rather to "weather" as I think you meant.

[anomalous]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

I stand corrected, thanks.

De nada!

[anomalous]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Took me a whole three minutes to find....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-a6710121.html
""The countries that will be so hot by 2100 humans won’t be able to go outside""

""“If we don't limit climate change to avoid extreme heat or mugginess, the people in these regions will likely need to find other places to live.”

Dr. Howard Frumkin, dean of the University of Washington school of public health, who wasn't part of the research, told the Associated Press that the implications of the paper for the Gulf region “are frightening”.

“When the ambient temperatures are extremely high, as projected in this paper, then exposed people can and do die.”


https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/f...iddle_east.pdf


I was wrong it was at Austrian mountain lake town of Weissensee. Not in the mountains of Italy



https://www.viacomcbspressexpress.co.../view?id=54724

Thank you for providing these links, let's take a look at them one-by-one.

First, I will quote your original statement: "Whole swaths of the planet getting to be too hot to be outside during the day."

Now to me at least, these words imply that this is already happening; i.e. parts of the planet are getting too hot to be outside during the day. Which is a potentially serious issue to be sure, not being able to go outside for fear of death.

Your first link is to a newspaper site article summarizing a recent study published in a scientific climate change journal. Admittedly I have not yet read this paper, but I doubt you have either.

But to summarize the news article: If some of the current climate models are correct, then maybe, by the year 2100, parts of the Middle East will experience heat waves, "...too hot for the human body to survive."

Note that this prediction is for 80 years from now, and is a fair distance from the very misleading title of this article, "The countries that will be so hot by 2100 humans won’t be able to go outside". Considering that very few, if any, of the published climate change models have come remotely close to their predicted extremes to date, I think we all are safe going outside for the foreseeable future.

Do you honestly believe that in your lifetime (or in your children's lifetime) it will become too hot to go outside in some parts of the world for risk of death? This is absurd at face value.

The second link you provided is an obviously hypothetical examination of what may happen to Middle East security issues, on the chance that some of the current climate models prove to be correct.

It is filled with "Climate change may..." after "Climate change may...", did you actually read it?

Now your third example is interesting, I learned something. It apparently is a link to a CBS news promotion for an upcoming "60 Minutes" episode.

I will just exact quote the relevant parts:

"The Elfstedentocht ice-skating race is the longest, most-punishing outdoor speed-skating race in the world, and it’s been an essential part of Dutch life since 1909. Held in the northern province of Friesland, the 125-mile race links 11 cities over frozen canals and waterways. But climate change has changed all that, and now the race is under threat. Bill Whitaker reports on an alternative race in the Austrian Alps that’s drawing thousands of Dutch skaters, on the next edition of 60 MINUTES, Sunday, March 8 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. It hasn’t been cold enough to hold the Elfstedentocht in the Netherlands since 1997. A group of enthusiasts in 1989 began holding an alternative event 750 miles away in the tiny Austrian mountain lake town of Weissensee."

Now after reading this you might be forgiven if you came to the conclusion that this "Elfstedentocht" ice skating race is an indelible part of Dutch history and culture, and has taken place every year since time immemorial, until "climate change" spoiled everything.

However, just a quick internet search will reveal that this Elfstedentocht race is actually a rare event, having only taken place fifteen times total in its history.

The last year the race took place was in 1997, and it almost happened in 2012. The longest gap between race years is the current gap of 23 years, between now and 1997.

However the second longest gap between races was 22 years, between 1963 and 1985; and the third longest was 12 years, between 1929 and 1933. What caused these gaps which occurred (mostly) before what is considered the era of global warming?

The only thing that could be answered to this question is of course "weather".

It is curious how events that took place before ~1980 are considered "weather", while essentially identical events taking place after 1980 are uniformly caused by "global warming".

Of course the evidence is "incontrovertible" and the science is "settled", so we now know that the delineation between "weather" and "global warming" is 1980. That is probably an SAT question these days.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by anomalous

I provided primary data, from the NOAA no less, that demonstrates that the average surface temperature in the CONUS has not changed appreciably during the putative 5th grade child's lifetime, demonstrating that his/her lack of being able to sled in the winter may not be due to an overall warming trend in the CONUS, but rather to "weather" as I think you meant.

The climate affects the weather, no? Those that posit, not necessarily you, "it's not happening her so it's not important" are being incredibly shortsighted. Modern man undoubtedly has an affect on the planet and it's climate. Witness the changes to the environment because of a slowdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Nobody reasonable is advocating park all the cars and ground all the planes. I reason that what occurred in a short term by a drastic curtailing of activities may be achieved by doing it in a less drastic way over a longer term.