Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9102 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 904,721 Year: 1,602/14,231 Month: 526/1,076 Week: 259/376 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Winter: Baby, It's Cold Outside!
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 7508
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 16 of 114 (904308)
12-26-2022 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by marc9000
12-26-2022 9:45 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Why wasn't the midwest better prepared? Could it be that the drumbeat of global warming / climate change has at least subconsciously caused the public to somewhat discard the possibility of extreme cold?
Rahvin has given an excellent response.
All I can do is ridicule your dumb ass.
Here the world is burning and you try to make a political fight over the perceived color of the flames. Typical religious nutter.
You are still a religious nutter, aren't you? You haven't seen the light, had the scales lifted, experienced an epiphany and become a sane humanist, have you?

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by marc9000, posted 12-26-2022 9:45 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6244
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


(3)
Message 17 of 114 (904309)
12-26-2022 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by marc9000
12-26-2022 9:45 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Why wasn't the midwest better prepared?
I'm in the midwest. It seems to me that we were pretty well prepared.
News reports over the past weekend and undoubtedly through this week will show countless examples of needless suffering, deaths, and monetary costs, from things like unnecessary travel, flooded buildings from burst water pipes, power outages, etc.
Some people ignore the warnings. Are you suggesting that we should become a police state, and force everybody to obey the warnings?
Could it be that the drumbeat of global warming / climate change has at least subconsciously caused the public to somewhat discard the possibility of extreme cold?
Unlikely. We expect periods of cold in winter. We have seen worse weather than this in previous years, though usually not in December.
It seems more likely that the drumbeat of right wing denialist propaganda may have caused some people to ignore the warnings.
Climate change and global warming are supposedly two completely different things.
Who is dumb enough to suppose that? Oh, I guess that right wing extremists such as marc9000 might be foolish enough to make that mistake.
Democrats aren't to blame?
Human failures are to blame. There are plenty of fallible humans on both sides of politics.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by marc9000, posted 12-26-2022 9:45 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by marc9000, posted 12-27-2022 9:27 PM nwr has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9323
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(3)
Message 18 of 114 (904337)
12-27-2022 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by marc9000
12-26-2022 9:45 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
Could it be that the drumbeat of global warming / climate change has at least subconsciously caused the public to somewhat discard the possibility of extreme cold?
That's about the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
And Democrats and the mainstream media chose to emphasize global warming a few decades ago for political purposes, and they made a pretty abrupt switch to climate change, now using it for the exact same political purposes.
What purpose is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by marc9000, posted 12-26-2022 9:45 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by marc9000, posted 12-27-2022 9:31 PM Taq has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 19 of 114 (904373)
12-27-2022 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rahvin
12-26-2022 10:02 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
So let me get this straight.

You apparently agree on some basic facts:

- scientists note that the average temperature of the Earth is rising.
So far, so good. But some scientists without a political agenda also note that the temperature of the earth rose even more 1000 years ago, and other periods much earlier than that, when the earth's population was a small fraction of what it is today, and no fossil fuel was being used.
Our world was hotter 1,000 years ago
This is projected to eventually cause massive ecological disaster, including increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, concentrated areas of drought and floods, superstorms, and other not-good things for life on Earth in general, and human society specifically.
"This is projected" yes, by some scientists and some politicians with a political agenda. Fear sells.
- scientists talk about global warming, trying to warn the population while there is still time to change course. A shift away from the fossil fuels and similar measures are needed to stop the increased concentration of greenhouse gasses and keep the climate relatively unchanged. This was noticed many decades before it would be too late.
Yes, some scientists still talk about "global warming", not realizing that the terminology has changed. Chances are some of them haven't bothered to learn the difference between climate change and global warming, as defined by that government website that I linked.
- "global warming" enters the common popular vernacular. However, because the dramatic effects at this point were still in the future, and because of strong economic incentive to downplay it or pretend it didnt exist, people tended to disregard it.
That could be, but the main reason they disregarded it is because they don't believe humans can control the weather or planet temperature, no matter what they do or discontinue doing.
- Conservatives, mostly led by the petrochemical companies that stand to lose profit as the world reduces reliance on fossil fuels, engage in full-throated denial which continues today.
Conservatives tend avoid demonizing companies that make useful products that the public willingly buys in free markets. They're not jealous of them. They don't hate them.
- As time went on, scientists noted that "global warming" was not the best term, even though it's accurate at a global scale. It implies a uniform warming of the planet, which is not what actually happens. A shift to the term "climate change" begins.
That's not exactly what the government link that I shared with you above said. Apparently there are several explanations of why the terms changed. But all the explanations motives can be reduced down to one thing - politics.
- Now in late 2022, we are experiencing more frequent and more extreme weather events, as predicted by climate change.
More than when? Are new records being set? I haven't noticed the mainstream media trumpeting that. And it's certain they would if they could. A lot of records were set before fossil fuels were being used to anywhere near the extent they are today.
You are now asserting that somehow Democrats are to blame for inaction on climate change, because they said it was going to get warmer and the Midwest is currently facing a very cold extreme weather event, as predicted all along? Because of the "global warming" term?

Do I have that right?
No. Your phrase "inaction on climate change" isn't an accurate description of what I said. Inaction on climate change is what Republicans are constantly accused of, while ACTION on climate change (destroying / taking control of free markets, and/or the stripping of money and freedoms from the public to dispel their fears of WARMING) is what Democrats long to do. By invoking fear of warming it tends to cause the public to disregard a fear of very temporary, yet very dangerous COLD.
The Democrats, for all their many flaws, who have been at least talking about climate change and moving away from fossil fuels, the things that would actually help mitigate these extreme weather events, are the ones responsible for a Midwest blizzard? Not the Republicans?
It's not possible to politically move away from fossil fuels, the world runs on them, and there are no alternatives that come close. Solar and wind are in their infancy, and it's very questionable if they'll ever move beyond that. Their fragility was made clear in Texas less than two years ago. I never said Democrats were responsible for the blizzard, I said they shared in some responsibility for the lack of preparation to deal with it.
The Democrats are at fault for trying to turn off the doomsday device because the public was too stupid to listen past the two-word name they used for it, and the Republicans who were shooing away every attempt to disarm the doomsday device bear no mention?
Non-atheists don't believe humans have the capacity to "turn off", or "disarm" anything involving weather, global temperatures, or any weather events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rahvin, posted 12-26-2022 10:02 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 12-28-2022 10:46 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 26 by Theodoric, posted 12-28-2022 11:04 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 20 of 114 (904374)
12-27-2022 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by nwr
12-26-2022 10:43 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
I'm in the midwest. It seems to me that we were pretty well prepared.
I'm in the midwest too. I've been watching the news.
Some people ignore the warnings. Are you suggesting that we should become a police state, and force everybody to obey the warnings?
No, I'm suggesting we don't try to scare them about new, record warmth, and threaten their freedoms with the false hope that government can mandate action that would avoid it.
It seems more likely that the drumbeat of right wing denialist propaganda may have caused some people to ignore the warnings.
That doesn't make sense. Republican opposition to government meddling in taxing, freedoms, and free markets would cause people to avoid warnings?
marc9000 writes:
Climate change and global warming are supposedly two completely different things.

Who is dumb enough to suppose that?
Uh, the scientists who wrote that non-partisan link that I referred to above? (I love this place)
Oh, I guess that right wing extremists such as marc9000 might be foolish enough to make that mistake.
quote:
Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.
EVERYTHING ELSE, and it's a lot. Global warming involves warming, climate change involves warming, cooling, unusual cold blasts from the arctic, hurricanes, tornados, floods, rising seas, falling seas, melting ice. I'm not sure yet if it includes earthquakes, aggressive behaviors of animals, the sexual drives of fish , increased drug use by the homeless, riots by liberals and tons of other things, but I'm sure if there's a way to do that, it will be done by Democrats.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 12-26-2022 10:43 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 12-27-2022 9:38 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 12-28-2022 10:35 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 21 of 114 (904375)
12-27-2022 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taq
12-27-2022 10:46 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
And Democrats and the mainstream media chose to emphasize global warming a few decades ago for political purposes, and they made a pretty abrupt switch to climate change, now using it for the exact same political purposes.

What purpose is that?
I love easy questions. To attack free markets, to increase the size and scope of government. The only two things Democrat politicians and rich mainstream media anchors care about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 12-27-2022 10:46 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Taq, posted 12-28-2022 10:32 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6244
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


(4)
Message 22 of 114 (904376)
12-27-2022 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by marc9000
12-27-2022 9:27 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Who is dumb enough to suppose that?
Uh, the scientists who wrote that non-partisan link that I referred to above?
You have misunderstood what they say. Both terms have been used to refer to the affects of increased greenhouse gases.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by marc9000, posted 12-27-2022 9:27 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 8:41 PM nwr has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9323
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 23 of 114 (904381)
12-28-2022 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by marc9000
12-27-2022 9:31 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
To attack free markets, to increase the size and scope of government.
That's nothing but a fever dream.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by marc9000, posted 12-27-2022 9:31 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9323
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 24 of 114 (904382)
12-28-2022 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by marc9000
12-27-2022 9:27 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
No, I'm suggesting we don't try to scare them about new, record warmth, and threaten their freedoms with the false hope that government can mandate action that would avoid it.
Why can't governments use laws to encourage the replacement of fossil fuels? Why won't this help?
Republican opposition to government meddling in taxing, freedoms, and free markets would cause people to avoid warnings?
Republicans meddle in all those things.
Global warming involves warming, climate change involves warming, cooling, unusual cold blasts from the arctic, hurricanes, tornados, floods, rising seas, falling seas, melting ice. I'm not sure yet if it includes earthquakes, aggressive behaviors of animals, the sexual drives of fish , increased drug use by the homeless, riots by liberals and tons of other things, but I'm sure if there's a way to do that, it will be done by Democrats.
It involves trapping more heat in the atmosphere due to our use of fossil fuels. This can and does result in more extreme weather as there is more energy in the system. It's not that hard to figure out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by marc9000, posted 12-27-2022 9:27 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 8:56 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9323
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(4)
Message 25 of 114 (904384)
12-28-2022 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by marc9000
12-27-2022 9:05 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
But some scientists without a political agenda also note that the temperature of the earth rose even more 1000 years ago, and other periods much earlier than that, when the earth's population was a small fraction of what it is today, and no fossil fuel was being used.

Our world was hotter 1,000 years ago
Warming was only local during the Medieval period. It was not global warming, as explained in this article:
The Climate Epochs That Weren't
Here is the actual change in global temps:
"This is projected" yes, by some scientists and some politicians with a political agenda.
Agendas you have invented from whole cloth.
That could be, but the main reason they disregarded it is because they don't believe humans can control the weather or planet temperature, no matter what they do or discontinue doing.
Some people don't believe the Earth is round. Reality has this strange way of not caring what we believe. The fact is that we are changing the climate due to our production of greenhouse gases.
Conservatives tend avoid demonizing companies that make useful products that the public willingly buys in free markets. They're not jealous of them. They don't hate them.
You don't have to be jealous or hateful to understand what the consequences are of burning fossil fuels. Again, you are dreaming up fantasies.
More than when? Are new records being set? I haven't noticed the mainstream media trumpeting that. And it's certain they would if they could. A lot of records were set before fossil fuels were being used to anywhere near the extent they are today.
Proclaiming your ignorance does nothing to change reality.
No. Your phrase "inaction on climate change" isn't an accurate description of what I said. Inaction on climate change is what Republicans are constantly accused of, while ACTION on climate change (destroying / taking control of free markets, and/or the stripping of money and freedoms from the public to dispel their fears of WARMING) is what Democrats long to do.
Examples?
It's not possible to politically move away from fossil fuels, the world runs on them, and there are no alternatives that come close. Solar and wind are in their infancy, and it's very questionable if they'll ever move beyond that. Their fragility was made clear in Texas less than two years ago.
Fission comes to mind. 80% of the electricity in France is produced by nuclear power plants.
Non-atheists don't believe humans have the capacity to "turn off", or "disarm" anything involving weather, global temperatures, or any weather events.
They don't seem to believe in basic physics, either. Again, why do you think beliefs will change reality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by marc9000, posted 12-27-2022 9:05 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 9:31 PM Taq has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 8140
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 26 of 114 (904385)
12-28-2022 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by marc9000
12-27-2022 9:05 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
The author of this 13-year-old opinion piece
Our world was hotter 1,000 years ago
is either a liar or stupid. The author is not a scientist he is an investor. CFO of his own company. The earth was not warmer 1000 years ago. The medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon.
The 'Medieval Warm Period' myth • Skeptical Science

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by marc9000, posted 12-27-2022 9:05 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8898
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 27 of 114 (904388)
12-28-2022 12:17 PM


...and in today's news in the UK
quote:
2022 will be the warmest year on record for the UK, according to provisional Met Office figures.
All four seasons have fallen in the top ten in a series which began in 1884 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2003.
As well as setting a new 139-year annual mean temperature record, 2022 will also be remembered for several other significant weather events.
Exceptionally warm start to New Year
Storms Dudley, Eunice and Franklin occurring within a week in February
Dry first half of year
Record-breaking temperature at Coningsby in July
Cold spell in early December
2022 provisionally warmest year on record for UK - Met Office
All within the model's predictions

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 28 of 114 (904397)
12-28-2022 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nwr
12-27-2022 9:38 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
You have misunderstood what they say. Both terms have been used to refer to the affects of increased greenhouse gases.
A lot of people misunderstand liberal scare tactics. A lot of people don't immediately understand how warming can mean cooling. That was part of the reason for the lack of preparedness for the cold wave. That was the reason for my entering this thread and getting called names. The fact that liberal propaganda really can do damage. Hopefully the president of Southwest airlines learned something. Or people trying to drive to grandma's house and getting their buried car destroyed by a forklift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 12-27-2022 9:38 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 12-28-2022 9:22 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 12-30-2022 11:29 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 29 of 114 (904398)
12-28-2022 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taq
12-28-2022 10:35 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Why can't governments use laws to encourage the replacement of fossil fuels? Why won't this help?
Fossil fuels are voluntarily purchased by people who desire to have them. What kind of laws would you suggest? Who should make them? Your starting point would be, of course, to eliminate any law that threatens YOUR lifestyle, right? If we ever get these laws, they will of course be implemented by politicians, and many politicians have private jets. Private jets are one of the biggest fossil fuel hogs on the planet, but they're immediately out of the discussion, right? Other fossil fuel hogs are Carribean cruise ships. What are the chances that cruise ship company presidents have friends in the Democrat party, and contribute to their campaigns? I could go on and on.
What is your suggestion for fossil fuel regulation laws that would keep them from becoming rampantly corrupt?
marc9000 writes:
Republican opposition to government meddling in taxing, freedoms, and free markets would cause people to avoid warnings?

Republicans meddle in all those things.
In what ways do Republicans meddle in those things?
It involves trapping more heat in the atmosphere due to our use of fossil fuels. This can and does result in more extreme weather as there is more energy in the system. It's not that hard to figure out.
What's hard to figure out is how to keep widespread corruption out of fossil fuel laws, and how to determine progress on the good that fossil fuel laws would provide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 12-28-2022 10:35 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 12-30-2022 11:24 AM marc9000 has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6244
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 30 of 114 (904399)
12-28-2022 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by marc9000
12-28-2022 8:41 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
A lot of people misunderstand liberal scare tactics.
Right wingers are the primary users of scare tactics.
A lot of people don't immediately understand how warming can mean cooling.
Nevertheless, refrigerators produce heat.
That was part of the reason for the lack of preparedness for the cold wave.
Do you have any actual evidence to support this claim? Or are you just making it up as one of your own political scare tactics?

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 8:41 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 9:42 PM nwr has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023