Did you ever go to see a Glacier when you were younger?
Go visit that Glacier now. Is it the same? bigger? or has it shrunk?
The only Glaciers that have managed to maintain their size are those on the north sides of mountains or those substantially shielded from sunlight.
This Glacial shrinkage is repeated all over the planet and to my knowledge nowhere are any Glaciers increasing.
There are many other directly measured effects that point to substantial, rapid climate change.
If you choose to not believe the specialists on these issues, who do you believe?
Politicians? Newspapers? That well presented article on Facebook? Anyone who panders to your personal viewpoint?
I personally am a specialist on a particular piece of Cancer Treatment Management software?
Would I listen to someone who doesn't even work in Cancer care when they comment on the software I work with?
No, they have no idea what they are talking about. They may well have an opinion but they have zero knowledge of the software or the field.
If they are someone who works in Cancer care, then I'll listen, but they are still not a specialist in the software I work with and they are probably not knowledgeable in how that software works, but they do have a somewhat valid viewpoint, so I will listen.
Most of the people who work for my company have less knowledge of the software than I do, but again they probably have a valid viewpoint, so I listen.
A very small number of people know more about the software than I do, and those I listen to attentively and I believe what they tell me.
However, even they are not perfect or infallible, but that doesn't mean that I should ignore them.
Most scientists do not have an axe to grind. Yes, they may well promote their work in the hopes of getting funded, but their colleagues are far nastier towards them than anyone in the general public, and that's a good thing. There are thousands of experienced, qualified people out there desperately trying to disprove their published theories. The process is called Peer Review and as a balance to the excesses of some scientists it works well. If they publish bullcrap, somebody is going to prove them wrong because that leads to more available funding for them. Remember Cold Fusion? That was published before it could be Peer Reviewed and as a consequence made the publishers of it into a scientific laughing stock.
The problem today is that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can invent some load of bullcrap and publish it and there are plenty of people out there who will believe and promote/propagate it. It's still bullcrap, but it is popular bullcrap.
As for reality,.... none of you really exist at all and I am having this discussion with myself,... which makes me bipolar,.... where are my pills?
<snip>
The problem today is that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can invent some load of bullcrap and publish it and there are plenty of people out there who will believe and promote/propagate it. It's still bullcrap, but it is popular bullcrap.
As for reality,.... none of you really exist at all and I am having this discussion with myself,... which makes me bipolar,.... where are my pills?
Must I remind you nitwits of the rules of engagement? Don't make me stop this car and focus, especially whilst drinking my whiskey on vacation.
Must I remind you nitwits of the rules of engagement? Don't make me stop this car and focus, especially whilst drinking my whiskey on vacation.
Maybe, yeah. ?? What nitwits, and what rules have been violated? Happy to comply but not able to follow your complaint.
but here, the issue of global warming is split down party lines. I find this the most amazing thing of all because there is not the slimmest, faintest reason why a physical characteristic and whether or not it exists, and if so what might be causing it should be in any way related to politics or a political party. ?? Really, this is truly incredible, at least to me.
<snip>
But what makes it so political is what to DO about it. That is where it potentially starts getting scary. One extreme would like the government to ban everything it thinks might be "bad", ruin the economy, lower standards of living, and block any talk to the contrary. The other extreme would like to do nothing at all, or even expand doing activity supposedly causes the issues, while defunding any study of the issues.
<snip>
So, where is the electric Concours with 0-60 in 2sec, 300 mile range, 10 minute recharge, and $15K price tag? I want it now
Personally, I believe the mostly "natural" progress of technology improvement, combined with the economics of scarcity will take care of the majority of the problem. Plus, reducing & changing the supposed main contributors of warming- energy use, method, and production, have other known good aspects that make them attractive, regardless of where one falls on the spectrum (reduction of pollution, comfort, reliability, energy independence, reduction of nation conflict, better power distribution options, more comfort, etc). Markets and consumers have, will, and will likely continue to respond in ways mostly positive to the situation. I am always encouraged by trying to see win-win situations.
I respectfully disagree- I think people at least a lot of people though certainly not all, are taking their 'belief' from a political structure. That is what gets the whole ball rolling for confrontation as well as probable poor response, if any response is needed. Making 'decisions' based on any party line is a bad idea at best and disastrous for the entire society at worst, and we seem to be leaning toward the latter unfortunately.
As to that electric Concours you mention, I can tell you exactly where it is...... in the future :-)
I hope you are right max', but to me it's the same solution whether one expects technology to fix it or some deity on high, wishful thinking. Although your explanation is more thought out than most, people just aren't that bright and don't enjoy thinking much. They want easy answers like "God will take care of it" or "Technology will provide the answer" then we move on to the answer is "Solar" or the answer is "windpower" and then when you dig deeper you find that each "green" solution has it's own environmental handicaps.
Of course there are now just those that want to call it fake facts or fake news and there really is no problem to be solved.
Personally I doubt there will be a solution other than an eventual large reduction in population brought about by conditions unable to sustain as much life as we currently have on earth.
In summation, I think it can be debated and researched on and on, but I doubt any solution will be found that we will voluntarily implement, the solution/consequences will be forced upon our descendant's descendants after we are all gone.