by "Jcarr" (jcarr)
Published 06/02/2017 at 16:13
by "Jcarr" (jcarr)
Published 06/02/2017 at 16:13
No Tags
STARS: 0
Looking for some suggestions.
I’m interested in reading up on it in order to expand my understanding and see what all the fuss is about, but I would really like to not read a bunch of commentary that is laced with political bullshit. I just want to get to the hard info without having to hear about how Republicans are idiots and we’re all going to die now because of them.
Whatcha got, Oppo?
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
06/02/2017 at 16:15, STARS: 3
Noaa is okay. EPA is okay. Universities have decent data that isn’t politically charged but not all data is public.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
06/02/2017 at 16:17, STARS: 6
EPA is no longer ok because fuckhead Scott Pruitt took down all their climate change information a while back.
"Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell." (oppisitelock)
06/02/2017 at 16:17, STARS: 3
It’s a minefield, I study flooding for work and yeah, climate change is real and very serious. That’s hard data, but in terms of stuff that’s publicly available, as you say everyone seems to have bias. Journals and studies are the best place to look but it’s not exactly easy reading.
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
06/02/2017 at 16:19, STARS: 0
ah.
"Jcarr" (jcarr)
06/02/2017 at 16:20, STARS: 0
This is a good illustration of my point. One side (that may very well be right) says that this EPA head is a fuckhead (which he may very well be). What’s to say that the one he replaced isn’t a fuckhead? This leads me to be skeptical of said organization no matter who’s in charge because their leadership are political appointees.
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
06/02/2017 at 16:20, STARS: 1
The university of Utah has some decent climate data to share
https://environment.utah.edu/research/resources/
"If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent" (essextee)
06/02/2017 at 16:20, STARS: 1
Good luck finding what you’re looking for, as climate change clearly doesn’t exist.
"Jcarr" (jcarr)
06/02/2017 at 16:21, STARS: 0
I’m not afraid of hard reading. I just want dispassionate explanation of the information that isn’t Gawker/Huffpo/Vox-ized.
"oneavejoe" (oneavgjoe)
06/02/2017 at 16:25, STARS: 0
Whattsupwiththat.com
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
06/02/2017 at 16:28, STARS: 7
Here is all the data you could possibly want from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
And now for some political bullshit.
Questioning the existence of global warming is a uniquely American phenomenon. And frankly, it’s uniquely goddamn stupid.
Whether any politician or lobbyist says it or not, the only real reason people deny global warming exists is because they don’t like the regulations enacted to slow it down.
Basically every other country in the world, even ones with right-wing governments, have accepted the science, and done varying degrees of things to try and work with it.
But in the US, because the response to global warming is to enact regulations that limit the things that cause global warming, and one side of our political spectrum has a moral objection to regulations in all forms, that side of the political spectrum instinctively fights back against those regulations.
But rather than saying, “this science makes sense but we need some other solution that is not burdensome regulation,” they instead decided to attack the reasons for the regulations to exist. It’s argumentation 101: rather than accepting the premises on which a conclusion is based but arguing for some other conclusion, discredit the premises and the conclusion becomes invalid.
The problem is that literally anything anyone has ever said to try and discredit the science is plain old incorrect.
"Rust and Dust - Oppositelock Forever" (rustanddust)
06/02/2017 at 16:29, STARS: 1
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange_.html
There’s a cached snapshot of the EPA site prior to changes.
"Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell." (oppisitelock)
06/02/2017 at 16:29, STARS: 1
All I can suggest is journals and studies then. If you can find flooding maps theyre an interesting way to see how much it has increased over the years and the risks to different parts of the country. I keep going back to that since it’s the only thing I’m really familiar with.
"jkm7680" (jkm7680)
06/02/2017 at 16:33, STARS: 4
It’s kind of hard to find truly unbiased sources as far as climate change goes. You either get Al Gore and his fear mongering cronies, some crazy hippie lady posting on her blog about how climate change killed her baby, or some Alex Jones nutjob just generally screaming. Make sure to research whatever sources you use and don’t use news websites.
I currently do a lot of work relating to certain aspects of climate change from a nonpartisan standpoint. I have a ton of resources compiled. Coincidently, listed by bias/reputability. I’m probably not going to post them here until I change jobs a bit later this month. I probably can’t release the full impact report and papers though, but I’d definitely like to get a little something in here.
I’m a big believer that climate change should not be a partisan thing. I never asked to be put onto a project involving climate change, but here I am now and I enjoy working with it. However, I definitely believe that everybody should be able to build their own understanding of climate change without having to deal with anybodies political agenda.
I discussed this a bit yesterday, but I’m pretty far from a liberal. This is just one of the big issues I believe in....
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
06/02/2017 at 16:36, STARS: 1
In the history of the EPA, there have only been two fuckheads who led it.
Scott Pruitt, current EPA fuckhead in chief, previously was the fuckhead attorney general of Oklahoma, where he sued the EPA 14 different times to prevent the EPA from doing its job. Sounds like a great person to put in charge of the EPA!
The only previous fuckhead to run the EPA was Anne Gorsuch Burford , and if that name is familiar it’s because she’s Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mom. I’ll let Wikipedia sum her up:
She believed that the EPA was over-regulating business and that the agency was too large and not cost-effective. During her 22 months as agency head, she cut the budget of the EPA by 22%, reduced the number of cases filed against polluters, relaxed Clean Air Act regulations, and facilitated the spraying of restricted-use pesticides. She cut the total number of agency employees, and hired staff from the industries they were supposed to be regulating.
Gorsuch Burford fucked up the EPA so bad that Reagan had to replace her with William Ruckelshaus , who was also the very first EPA administrator, originally appointed by Nixon, to clean up the mess she left behind.
Basically everyone else to run the EPA, regardless of which party appointed them, has generally tried to fulfill the EPA’s stated mission of protecting the environment.
Hell, Nixon managed to appoint not only Ruckelshaus, but also a really, really good EPA Administrator in Russell Train .
"Jcarr" (jcarr)
06/02/2017 at 16:41, STARS: 1
I’m inclined to agree with you. I definitely lean right more than left, but I’m will to challenge tightly-held beliefs on either side in the interest of cutting through bullshit.
I’m more than willing to accept the fact that CC exists, but as someone who is not from the left, I can say that the way the left tends to go about trying to prove the point can be a pretty big turnoff.
"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
06/02/2017 at 16:41, STARS: 1
And now for some political bullshit.
Questioning the existence of global warming is a uniquely American phenomenon. And frankly, it’s uniquely goddamn stupid.
Whether any politician or lobbyist says it or not, the only real reason people deny global warming exists is because they don’t like the regulations enacted to slow it down.
Basically every other country in the world, even ones with right-wing governments, have accepted the science, and done varying degrees of things to try and work with it.
But in the US, because the response to global warming is to enact regulations that limit the things that cause global warming, and one side of our political spectrum has a moral objection to regulations in all forms, that side of the political spectrum instinctively fights back against those regulations.
But rather than saying, “this science makes sense but we need some other solution that is not burdensome regulation,” they instead decided to attack the reasons for the regulations to exist. It’s argumentation 101: rather than accepting the premises on which a conclusion is based but arguing for some other conclusion, discredit the premises and the conclusion becomes invalid.
The problem is that literally anything anyone has ever said to try and discredit the science is plain old incorrect.
*Claps and cheers*
This so much. The evidence is abundant how much damage humans have on the planet. I live a mile away several millions of tons of asbestos, a lot of which gets into Lake Michigan and peppers the beaches for miles. Old school nuclear generation plants leak radiation into the groundwater. Coal plants tend to call for gosh awful air quality. Even wind farms kill birds. Forested environments disappear faster than they can be rebuilt. Some species have been brought to extinction because of humans. There have been days where China was so polluted that it was effectively perma-night. These are things that you literally have to close your eyes and ears to ignore. :/
I mean sure, the Earth has its own natural climate cycle, but humans aren’t helping whatsoever.
"Future next gen S2000 owner" (future-next-gen-s2000-owner)
06/02/2017 at 16:42, STARS: 1
Always be skeptical, even of peer reviewed sources. One of my best classes in college was all about destroying peer reviewed an published articles. For 8 weeks we read a new peer reviewed publication from a journal and poked holes in it.
Look for holes and see if they were adequately addressed or don’t affect the results. Critical thinking is sorely lacking in much of today’s society.
"Jcarr" (jcarr)
06/02/2017 at 16:45, STARS: 0
Still, the amount of mudslinging and pearl-clutching from both sides about appointees doesn’t do much to bolster confidence in whoever the appointee is.
Side note: How is the construction around the 18/12 interchange in Madison? Going through there later this summer.
"jkm7680" (jkm7680)
06/02/2017 at 16:48, STARS: 0
Same, there’s a bit right between the beliefs of the right and left when dealing with climate change. Extreme left or right is never gonna work right. But as I said, people like Al Gore pretty much made a giant deal out of something that is a problem, but not to the extent that they originally predicted.
I kinda wish I was sticking around for longer, doing shit related to the environment is kinda interesting at the moment. However, the pay is kinda shit and I forgot how much I hate working in offices.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
06/02/2017 at 17:02, STARS: 1
Generally there’s not mud-slinging and pearl clutching about appointees for EPA Administrator.
I am a dyed-in-the-wool environmental hippie and for the most part every single EPA Administrator, with the exception of Pruitt and Gorsuch Burford, has been at least competent and several of them have been exceptional at their jobs. That includes many of the ones appointed by Republican presidents.
Pruitt and Gorsuch Burford are literally the only two controversial EPA Administrators in the history of the agency.
Every single Republican president since Nixon, who established the agency, and including Reagan who appointed Gorsuch Burford, appointed competent EPA Administrators with the proper scientific/regulatory background to effectively lead the agency.
Gorsuch Burford was a political operative before Reagan appointed her, but even she was unanimously confirmed by congress. Only once she started running the EPA and fucking it up in many ways was she kicked out.
The reason Pruitt pisses people like me off is because he has spent so much time fighting the EPA, he disagrees fundamentally with the way it is run, he wants to significantly diminish the amount of work it does, and he denies global warming exists in spite of the overwhelming amount of science that supports exactly the opposite conclusion. He is essentially the worst possible person to put in charge of the EPA.
"Aaron M - MasoFiST" (amarks563)
06/02/2017 at 18:12, STARS: 1
You need to do the work and read the IPCC report.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
The technical summary will do in a pinch, but the modeling is explained in exhaustive detail if you read the entire report. It’s several thousand pages.
"Distraxi's idea of perfection is a Jagroen" (distraxi)
06/02/2017 at 18:33, STARS: 2
Nasa’s got a pretty good page on the subject:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Also worth a look is: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ .
The fact of the matter is that as far as people who actually understand this shit go, it’s a done deal: it’s happening, we’re contributing. The only reason it doesn’t appear that way to the public is because:
(a) scientists generally don’t state it that bluntly, and find it hard not to hedge when questioned. The scientific method flat-out doesn’t allow for something to be “absolutely proven”, just “not disproven”, which the general public, media, and politicians often don’t understand
(b) the media (or at least the nominally neutral part of it) believe that “balanced reporting” means give each side equal air time, even if one side is a tiny minority. Which then leads to the nutjob right getting more support than they deserve, the nutjob left getting into a frenzy about it, and it’s all downhill from there till the rest of us throw our hands in the air and go “whatever!”.
What, if anything, we do about it is a whole other can of worms: as another commenter has already said, a lot of the debate on climate change is driven by underlying attitudes to regulation. Which is something Americans are more prone to get philosophically worked up about than anyone else.
"gmporschenut also a fan of hondas" (gmporschenut)
06/02/2017 at 22:07, STARS: 0
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
the biggest marking mistake was labeling it global warming. yes parts are getting colder, but the net overall is earth is getting warmer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Impacts_on_oceanic_calcifying_organisms
A major aspect that cimate scientists didn’t take into acount was how much the ocean will absorb in CO2 delaying the effects that we have seen.
"brianbrannon" (brianbrannon)
06/03/2017 at 12:57, STARS: 0
The problem is we don’t have the “science” to create a working model complex enough to prove anything
"Azrek" (azrek)
06/05/2017 at 14:13, STARS: 1
My suggestion is to read about the weather history of the World. This goes back millions of years. This also suggests that the world itself has its own heater (the core), the change in the sun’s rotation (the sun doesn’t have a perfect orbit) and various other reasons...then get into where mankind is getting involved.
The weather history can be really interesting. There is some debate that the air was so thick during the age of Dinos that we, humans, would suffocate.
We have to consider the perfect environment we all live in at the moment. I suck at growing plants...and this planet can grow life. So imagine screwing up a touch. There is a reason why evolution changed many species.
The issue I have with the global warming event is that folks aren’t looking back far enough. And here is the other debate. What would we be doing as a society if the weather was cooling?
Generally, I am past the idea that we can control the weather (or the tide). We need to focus on how we are going to adapt. Though I think our version of adapting is just bitching on how the past was better....