Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter ZAGGIN
  • 3,626 comments
  • 204,918 views

Which of the following statements best reflects your views on Global Warming?

  • Global warming is occurring and human activity is the main cause

    Votes: 152 31.1%

  • Global warming is occurring, but human activity is only playing a minor role

    Votes: 87 17.8%

  • Global warming is occurring, but it is entirely natural

    Votes: 57 11.7%

  • Global warming is occurring, but anthropogenic global warming theory is a fraud

    Votes: 23 4.7%

  • Global warming is occurring, but the causes are not known

    Votes: 32 6.6%

  • Global warming is not occurring at all

    Votes: 17 3.5%

  • Global warming is not occurring at all and anthropogenic global warming theory is a fraud

    Votes: 50 10.2%

  • Global warming is occurring, and human activity plays a significant role (this option was added afte

    Votes: 70 14.3%
  • Total voters
    488
Danoff
I agree that you can't just spout off facts to someone who has no critical thinking skills. But "speaking their language" is also a way to foreclose reaching the truth. Because "their language" doesn't necessarily lead to the truth. Ultimately you have to motivate the person to use whatever critical thinking they do have.
Click to expand...
Thats why I choose to lead by example vs. spouting facts to someone who has their head in the sand. This allows someone to see how life can be and perhaps realize it's not as bad as they had imagined. This can lead to their feelings changing on a subject. If that opens them up to seeing the subject from a different angle, then you are in a position to give some facts about the subject to them. I don't see this as manipulating anyone as it is their choice to open up to other possibilities.

While we are on the subject of emotional manipulation, is it really so wrong to try to appeal to someone's emotions if it's something that literally can save the only habitable planet that we as a species has ever discovered in the known universe? Emotional manipulation happens in just about every situation we are put in. Want to watch a movie of a television show? Emotional manipulation. Advertising? Emotional manipulation. Flip through Instagram? Emotional manipulation. News and Politics? Emotional manipulation. Religion? Emotional manipulation. You like the Stock Market? Emotional manipulation. It's rampant and it's almost exclusively done for money. So, if we have a chance to use emotional manipulation to save the only known planet that can support complex life, I'm going to give that a pass. Of course, that would then make me a hypocrite, right? Damnit! :lol:
 
Tommy_D
Thats why I choose to lead by example vs. spouting facts to someone who has their head in the sand. This allows someone to see how life can be and perhaps realize it's not as bad as they had imagined. This can lead to their feelings changing on a subject. If that opens them up to seeing the subject from a different angle, then you are in a position to give some facts about the subject to them. I don't see this as manipulating anyone as it is their choice to open up to other possibilities.
Click to expand...

I agree that leading by example is not manipulation. As I mentioned before, it's more of a way to get someone to take ownership in the conversation. By letting them lead the dialog, you're more likely to change their mind. It's not the only technique for getting someone to buy in, but it is a good one. It does require that someone is actually paying attention and interested, though. It won't work on everyone. Not that it has to of course.

Tommy_D
While we are on the subject of emotional manipulation, is it really so wrong to try to appeal to someone's emotions if it's something that literally can save the only habitable planet that we as a species has ever discovered in the known universe? Emotional manipulation happens in just about every situation we are put in. Want to watch a movie of a television show? Emotional manipulation. Advertising? Emotional manipulation. Flip through Instagram? Emotional manipulation. News and Politics? Emotional manipulation. Religion? Emotional manipulation. You like the Stock Market? Emotional manipulation. It's rampant and it's almost exclusively done for money. So, if we have a chance to use emotional manipulation to save the only known planet that can support complex life, I'm going to give that a pass. Of course, that would then make me a hypocrite, right? Damnit! :lol:
Click to expand...

Yea I didn't say it for sure wouldn't work. But I wouldn't count on myself to out-manipulate the masses over someone as practiced as Donald Trump or similar. I just can't think like an emotionally manipulative person as effectively as I can think rationally or logically (or critically). I think I prefer it that way, because being proficient at emotional manipulation seems to come with some baggage of its own.
 
Last edited:
Tommy_D
So, if we have a chance to use emotional manipulation to save the only known planet that can support complex life, I'm going to give that a pass. Of course, that would then make me a hypocrite, right? Damnit! :lol:
Click to expand...
The issue isn't so much hypocrisy as much as it's short term vs long term gain. You might manipulate someone into reaching the correct conclusion in one instance, but fail to give them the tools to do so in another instance. Or worse, you've made them more vulnerable to picking the wrong conclusion when evaluating other issues.

As far as arguing through emotion or facts, I'd still go the facts route even if someone resists it. They may ignore facts initially, but that doesn't mean they will forever.
 
On a marginally brighter note, Earth Overshoot Day is one day later then last year.
For the past 15 years, EOD came earlier, year after year.
Since 2018 this has been beginning of August.
 
Very interesting. It's not good news either way, but it does go to show that our actions on this planet have a direct impact on the climate changes we are seeing.
 
Tommy_D
Very interesting. It's not good news either way, but it does go to show that our actions on this planet have a direct impact on the climate changes we are seeing.
Click to expand...
I'm with Hank that it ultimately seems like good news. It shows that we have some levers we can use intentionally.
 
Danoff
I'm with Hank that it ultimately seems like good news. It shows that we have some levers we can use intentionally.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think throwing sulfur into our atmosphere is the answer, but geo-engineering may be the only thing that will actually save us in the short term. The problem will be that geo-engineering may actually work to keep global temperatures in check, but the progress towards a cleaner and more sustainable future gets derailed because global climate change isnt a problem anymore.
 
Tommy_D
Well, I don't think throwing sulfur into our atmosphere is the answer, but geo-engineering may be the only thing that will actually save us in the short term. The problem will be that geo-engineering may actually work to keep global temperatures in check, but the progress towards a cleaner and more sustainable future gets derailed because global climate change isnt a problem anymore.
Click to expand...
He talks about this exact sentiment in the linked video.
 
It's definitely good that we now know that geoengineering is somewhat feasible, but another issue is that the temperature of our planet is a lot hotter than we previously thought. All our previous models and predictions are now inaccurate because they were based on historic data where we had that sulfur pollution
 
ProjectWHaT
It's definitely good that we now know that geoengineering is somewhat feasible, but another issue is that the temperature of our planet is a lot hotter than we previously thought. All our previous models and predictions are now inaccurate because they were based on historic data where we had that sulfur pollution
Click to expand...
This is also good news. Maybe not in terms of the size of the issue, but refinement of models for greater accuracy is important. It's effectively an advance in the field of climate science.
 
Last edited:
I've often wondered (admittedly in total ignorance) if catalytic converter adoption worldwide made greenhouse gas emissions worse. Carbon Monoxide is not a very potent greenhouse gas (I believe) and the other emissions from internal combustion engines typically are either particulate or stuff that hangs around low to the ground...hence smog. Now obviously, for human health reasons, catalytic converters are necessary and good, but does a car with one produce more greenhouse gasses than the same car without one?
 
Eunos_Cosmo
I've often wondered (admittedly in total ignorance) if catalytic converter adoption worldwide made greenhouse gas emissions worse. Carbon Monoxide is not a very potent greenhouse gas (I believe) and the other emissions from internal combustion engines typically are either particulate or stuff that hangs around low to the ground...hence smog. Now obviously, for human health reasons, catalytic converters are necessary and good, but does a car with one produce more greenhouse gasses than the same car without one?
Click to expand...
Well, considering CO is a poisonous gas and CO2 is... less poisonous (obviously high quantities will cause you to pass out and eventually die) burning the unburnt fuel in a catalytic converter is the better of the 2. However, it's a lot like being thrown overboard a ship out in the ocean. You can either have a life preserver or not have a life preserver. Either way, you are stuck in the middle of the ocean with no rescue ship in sight.
 
The skills needed to overcome the problems introduced by climate change are all somewhat problematic for humans. It requires teamwork, self-sacrifice, stability, and consistency on a global level. Every one of us has some level of instinctual wiring that supports these kinds of skills. But we also have competing incentives and instincts that fight each one of those skills.

For humans, the desires for each of those traits (teamwork, self-sacrifice, stability, and consistency) is tribal. And tribal is just not good enough for this particular problem. If you've ever thought "[my country] before all others", you know the kind of instinct that prevents our species from tackling climate change.

A lot of people have expressed some kind of longing for an existential threat to unite humanity. It often gets demonstrated in some kind of war scenario where the human species is tested by its ability to wage war against an alien invader. This kind of fiction says a lot about us, and it is born from the same kind of tribal instinct that is in our way with climate change. The imagined scenario is a tribe of humans, still fighting the perceived out-group and the assumed threat that those who are different or unfamiliar automatically present. Of course a problem entirely based on our animal fears is not what we face. Of course it is not tailored to our particular strengths.

Coronavirus presented us with a similar problem to climate change, one that required teamwork, self-sacrifice, stability, and consistency. As a planet, I think we failed miserably at that test. And if that's a demonstration of how we intend to tackle climate change, I think it's an indication that we're headed for failure. Climate change is even less aligned with our instincts than a pandemic was.

We need to learn to get good at these kinds of problems. We have to take our tribal skillset and broaden it to the tribe of humanity even though we don't have an outgroup to define it. In recent years, the trend seems to be the opposite.
 
Current status:

hurricane and earthquake hit California causing massive flooding

massive forest fires through Canada, Washington state, Oregon

massive forest fire in Hawaii

heat dome over central US and Europe causing record breaking temperatures and geopotential height











record breaking ocean surface temperatures




Feeling quite apocalyptic right now
 
Well, I just got my approval to turn my solar panels on today, so as soon as I got home I turned the system on. Baby steps, but hopefully others will see this as a viable option for reducing their impact on the environment and they will get them installed as well.
 
I honestly think focusing on CO2 emissions may be the wrong way to go in getting humans to generally clean up our act. Although I firmly believe belching tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is causing problems, it is demonstrably a greenhouse gas after all, a significant portion of people don’t believe in it, or worse think that warmer weather is a good thing.

So why don’t we focus the rhetoric on overall pollution? Surely nobody can deny big industries pumping all kinds of acids and other toxic sludge into rivers and the oceans is very, very bad. Same with everything else that comes out of chimney stacks, not just CO2. Is everyone aware of that utterly insane ‘plastic continent’ swirling around in the Pacific, and the several smaller ones in other oceans? And deforestation! I wish we had that rammed down our throats even half as much as CO2.

I wish the media would shine a light on these dirty industries more, and maybe/probably they are causing more problems than the likes of you and I driving around in our cars or accidentally leaving our TVs in standby.
 
Last edited:
Arthur-A
Is that concerning enough?

www.thefp.com

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published

I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.
www.thefp.com www.thefp.com
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what his point is because the paper said climate change is making wildfires worse and even the author admits that's true. Are there other contributing factors to wildfires? Absolutely, but the topic of the paper was how climate change is contributing.

It sounds like he wrote that article for The FP because he knew it would get published.
 

Latest Posts

Back