Ice we skate is gettin pretty thin, water's gettin warm so you might as well swim

[msstate7]

Atmospheric isotope data from polar ice-cores, for example. Data going back over 700,000 years. Amazing stuff.

And here's what their estimated data chart looks like...



https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...rths-ever-been

[Really Clark?]

What agenda are the people who say "hey maybe we shouldn't kill the earth" driving? What's the worst case scenario if they are in charge? Earth is healthier and they make a bunch of money and we show global cohesion? As opposed to now when oil / fossil fuel based agenda is being driven and we're potentially killing the planet and they are making a bunch of money in control?

When the science is being made to work toward a political ideology, it loses its meaning. And the ones who actually care and have the correct ideas that would work, they don't get a voice at the table. That's what I mean by agenda driven political science. The answer is very complex, the ones who are biggest abusers globally either don't care or can't afford to care. If people want change globally, you have to acknowledge that until those things are addressed, abuse will still take place. I think Hydrogen may be one of the better long term solutions but the technology is not there yet but I believe that it could be a really good answer. The nuclear technology is getting better and some new breakthroughs are making it even cleaner than before. I believe that actually preserving ecosystems will give us better results. I do I believe we are warming, yes. Do I believe that a significant portion of the warming is natural? Yes. Do I believe we have contributed to a percentage increase above normal trend? Yes. How much? The scientists don't agree on that even or can't quantify it because looking back in history shows those events have occurred before that had nothing to do with man. It's a complex issue that honestly will not work with a global answer. It has to be segmented. And again, if you look at the true global problems, climate change is not the most prevalent issue that needs to be addressed on that scale. There are others more pressing with easier answers to those problems and as a byproduct, environmental issues become increasingly more prevalent to those countries over time.

[Ranchdawg]

Climate change, hotter than ______ you fill in the blank, records being broken ect ect. All I know the Thursday before 1st game the high is forecasted to be 88degrees and low 67 in Starkville. I?m loving that forecast. I?m ready to strap on the shoulder pads and lace up the cleats let?s play some FOOTBALL

[Tater]

When the science is being made to work toward a political ideology, it loses its meaning. And the ones who actually care and have the correct ideas that would work, they don't get a voice at the table. That's what I mean by agenda driven political science. The answer is very complex, the ones who are biggest abusers globally either don't care or can't afford to care. If people want change globally, you have to acknowledge that until those things are addressed, abuse will still take place. I think Hydrogen may be one of the better long term solutions but the technology is not there yet but I believe that it could be a really good answer. The nuclear technology is getting better and some new breakthroughs are making it even cleaner than before. I believe that actually preserving ecosystems will give us better results. I do I believe we are warming, yes. Do I believe that a significant portion of the warming is natural? Yes. Do I believe we have contributed to a percentage increase above normal trend? Yes. How much? The scientists don't agree on that even or can't quantify it because looking back in history shows those events have occurred before that had nothing to do with man. It's a complex issue that honestly will not work with a global answer. It has to be segmented. And again, if you look at the true global problems, climate change is not the most prevalent issue that needs to be addressed on that scale. There are others more pressing with easier answers to those problems and as a byproduct, environmental issues become increasingly more prevalent to those countries over time.

You didn't answer my question. What's the difference that makes us worse in having people who think climate change is a problem in charge versus those who don't.

[Really Clark?]

You didn't answer my question. What's the difference that makes us worse in having people who think climate change is a problem in charge versus those who don't.

I did answer the question. The true people who actually have a global view of what are the real problems and what is needed to be done first is who I was speaking of in the first post. Nothing wrong with having a concern for the climate. But on a global scale of issues, climate change is not at the top. Not Top 10 either. It's well down the list of what problems and what answers actually can make the world a better place. Some of those answers are actually achievable quicker as well. A byproduct would address environmental issues sooner than many believe.

I think we have too many from various ideologies who run around with answers that immolate their politics looking for problems to implement their answer. That's completely reverse of how real answers to questions come about.

[BeardoMSU]

And here's what their estimated data chart looks like...



https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...rths-ever-been

Show that chart to your 6000 year old Earth friends***

[Coach34]

And yet we keep on re-electing these same old baffoons! We all like to bitch but we never seem to do anything about it - why?

Yes. And it's BOTH parties doing it

[Extendedcab]

Yes. And it's BOTH parties doing it

I heard that!

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

Lot of poor arguments in here.

1) yes there's money to be made on the "global warming is real" side, but let's not pretend oil companies don't also have an incentive to buy scientists and pretend man made climate change isn't a thing.

The question is not "who has money in their side", because they both do. The question is "who has the science on their side". I'm not a climate scientist, so all I can do is look to them. And they pretty much all -even climate scientists from small countries with little Govt grant funding- agree man made climate change is a thing.

2) "I don't believe man can change the climate"- why not? If we detonated all our nukes we obviously would. We've hunted various animals to extinction. Our plastic has made its way into almost every living being. Why's it hard to believe pumping billions of tons of carbon out of the ground and burning it would affect the atmosphere?

3) "the earth has been hotter before"- yes, it has. But that's a far slower process where nature has time to adjust- this is over a few decades, totally different for animals and human infrastructure to cope with as it happens. Humanity and most animals will survive, but why go though chaos and exoenses later when we could avoid it with less money spent today?

4) "we just had snowstorms in Texas"- yeah because climate change produced a massive storm that knocked the polar vortex south. Warmer oceans = worse storms = more chaos, even when it comes to cold.

5) "if we did away with gas cars we'd just have to make electricity with coal!"- what if I told you renewable and nuclear exist? Moreover, burning coal to make electricity is way more efficient than burning gas in cars. The coal plant doesn't have to worry about weight, size, or being reliable in a variety of rev ranges- they just design it for efficiency and low pollution. Cars have a lot of other considerations and less control over theor opperating conditions.

6) "I remember one summer when it was hotter than now!"- nobody is saying every year will break all the previous records for everywhere. Freak hot -or cold- seasons have absolutely always been a thing. The difference is that this past 10 year temperature average was hotter than any 10 year average we've lived though, and the next 10 years will be hotter still. That's what matters- the gradual average climb up. But individual records in individual places can still last a while, yes.

7) "those politicians are just using this for their own self interest"- YES! 100% they "never let a good crisis go to waste" as the saying goes... but that doesn't mean there is no crisis. They may be liars and corrupt and untrustworthy... but that doesn't mean literally everything they say on every topic is false. If science aligns with their agenda they'll happily use that science, but the science is still real.

8) "when science is used to support a political ideology it looses its meaning"- it shouldn't, thats a you problem. Science is science, politics is politics. If your most hated politician said "the sky is blue", it's either true or it's not, and youd be a fool to pretend the sky is green just because you dont lile the messenger. NOW, I can agree with what a politician is saying regarding the science but disagree with their political solutions. For example, I do believe in man made climate change but I don't agree with giving Govt the power to micromanage our industry in the name of reducing greenhouse gases. But I don't suddenly not believe scientific evidence just because I don't like the person saying said science.

9) "The media blows this thing into a bigger deal than it really is"- yeah, because all the media cares about is getting your attention, and being overdramatic is how they do that. But being overdramatic doesn't mean there's nothing at all to worry about or fix though.

10) "I remember when I head a climate prediction that didn't come true"- yeah, climate science changes as we get more data and knowledge. Some stuff we used to think we now know is wrong. That doesn't mean there's no truth in what's being said now.

But most of the time those ridiculous predictions aren't the scientists fault. They'll publish a page that says "we fed our model X Y and Z assumptions about what will happen in the future, and it said there's a range of outcomes, with a 1% chance of the worst case Q happening" and it's the media who then goes SCIENTISTS SAY Q WILL HAPPEN!!!!!! Then people like you see Q fail to happen and think all scientists are quacks. They aren't. It's just the media creating clickbait.

11) "we've got waaaay bigger problems than climate change"- ok, and? That doesn't mean we shouldn't fix climate change. Moreover, most of the people who say things like that aren't doing crap to solve those "bigger issues" either. They're typically just looking for an excuse to not do anything, and saying "we've got bigger issues" provides that excuse.

To be clear, I'm not even a doomer. I have no idea how bad climate change will get, because I don't study this and I cant trust the lying media to tell me. I'm just addressing the God awful logic used to pretend all is well

[Tater]

I did answer the question. The true people who actually have a global view of what are the real problems and what is needed to be done first is who I was speaking of in the first post. Nothing wrong with having a concern for the climate. But on a global scale of issues, climate change is not at the top. Not Top 10 either. It's well down the list of what problems and what answers actually can make the world a better place. Some of those answers are actually achievable quicker as well. A byproduct would address environmental issues sooner than many believe.

I think we have too many from various ideologies who run around with answers that immolate their politics looking for problems to implement their answer. That's completely reverse of how real answers to questions come about.

I guess you're comparing them to an ideal where we have people in charge care about actual problems. If Climate Change isn't top 10 to you and you think having focus elsewhere is where we should be then I can respect that opinion. I fully disagree that it's not top 3, but at least we understand each other and can agree to disagree there.

Where I'd rather steer the convo is back to the ideal. I know for a fact we don't have anywhere close to ideal leadership for any ideology. Most things done are to serve corporate interests. I can agree that having an ideal group running it is better than a corporate interest group who benefits from green policies and ideologies. But can you agree that a corporate interest group who benefits from green policies and ideologies is better than the trash we have running now? If they're gonna do nothing for us, at least try to tidy up the place.

[DownwardDawg]

Lot of poor arguments in here.

1) yes there's money to be made on the "global warming is real" side, but let's not pretend oil companies don't also have an incentive to buy scientists and pretend man made climate change isn't a thing.

The question is not "who has money in their side", because they both do. The question is "who has the science on their side". I'm not a climate scientist, so all I can do is look to them. And they pretty much all -even climate scientists from small countries with little Govt grant funding- agree man made climate change is a thing.

2) "I don't believe man can change the climate"- why not? If we detonated all our nukes we obviously would. We've hunted various animals to extinction. Our plastic has made its way into almost every living being. Why's it hard to believe pumping billions of tons of carbon out of the ground and burning it would affect the atmosphere?

3) "the earth has been hotter before"- yes, it has. But that's a far slower process where nature has time to adjust- this is over a few decades, totally different for animals and human infrastructure to cope with as it happens. Humanity and most animals will survive, but why go though chaos and exoenses later when we could avoid it with less money spent today?

4) "we just had snowstorms in Texas"- yeah because climate change produced a massive storm that knocked the polar vortex south. Warmer oceans = worse storms = more chaos, even when it comes to cold.

5) "if we did away with gas cars we'd just have to make electricity with coal!"- what if I told you renewable and nuclear exist? Moreover, burning coal to make electricity is way more efficient than burning gas in cars. The coal plant doesn't have to worry about weight, size, or being reliable in a variety of rev ranges- they just design it for efficiency and low pollution. Cars have a lot of other considerations and less control over theor opperating conditions.

6) "I remember one summer when it was hotter than now!"- nobody is saying every year will break all the previous records for everywhere. Freak hot -or cold- seasons have absolutely always been a thing. The difference is that this past 10 year temperature average was hotter than any 10 year average we've lived though, and the next 10 years will be hotter still. That's what matters- the gradual average climb up. But individual records in individual places can still last a while, yes.

7) "those politicians are just using this for their own self interest"- YES! 100% they "never let a good crisis go to waste" as the saying goes... but that doesn't mean there is no crisis. They may be liars and corrupt and untrustworthy... but that doesn't mean literally everything they say on every topic is false. If science aligns with their agenda they'll happily use that science, but the science is still real.

8) "when science is used to support a political ideology it looses its meaning"- it shouldn't, thats a you problem. Science is science, politics is politics. If your most hated politician said "the sky is blue", it's either true or it's not, and youd be a fool to pretend the sky is green just because you dont lile the messenger. NOW, I can agree with what a politician is saying regarding the science but disagree with their political solutions. For example, I do believe in man made climate change but I don't agree with giving Govt the power to micromanage our industry in the name of reducing greenhouse gases. But I don't suddenly not believe scientific evidence just because I don't like the person saying said science.

9) "The media blows this thing into a bigger deal than it really is"- yeah, because all the media cares about is getting your attention, and being overdramatic is how they do that. But being overdramatic doesn't mean there's nothing at all to worry about or fix though.

10) "I remember when I head a climate prediction that didn't come true"- yeah, climate science changes as we get more data and knowledge. Some stuff we used to think we now know is wrong. That doesn't mean there's no truth in what's being said now.

But most of the time those ridiculous predictions aren't the scientists fault. They'll publish a page that says "we fed our model X Y and Z assumptions about what will happen in the future, and it said there's a range of outcomes, with a 1% chance of the worst case Q happening" and it's the media who then goes SCIENTISTS SAY Q WILL HAPPEN!!!!!! Then people like you see Q fail to happen and think all scientists are quacks. They aren't. It's just the media creating clickbait.

11) "we've got waaaay bigger problems than climate change"- ok, and? That doesn't mean we shouldn't fix climate change. Moreover, most of the people who say things like that aren't doing crap to solve those "bigger issues" either. They're typically just looking for an excuse to not do anything, and saying "we've got bigger issues" provides that excuse.

To be clear, I'm not even a doomer. I have no idea how bad climate change will get, because I don't study this and I cant trust the lying media to tell me. I'm just addressing the God awful logic used to pretend all is well

Your first sentence disqualifies the entire rest of your post. They are "poor arguments" because they aren't your opinion.

[Tater]

Your first sentence disqualifies the entire rest of your post. They are "poor arguments" because they aren't your opinion.

An argument can be poor if you agree / disagree with it. There's literally a sport of Debate that judges this.

[DownwardDawg]

If you guys were able to visit a deep water production platform in the Gulf of Mexico, you would be amazed at just how "clean" this energy actually is. Very little carbon footprint and the corporations are working hard to make it even cleaner. The fact is that oil and gas will be here and will be the best energy available until your grandchildren long gone.

[Tater]

If you guys were able to visit a deep water production platform in the Gulf of Mexico, you would be amazed at just how "clean" this energy actually is. Very little carbon footprint and the corporations are working hard to make it even cleaner. The fact is that oil and gas will be here and will be the best energy available until your grandchildren long gone.

China is a bigger pollutant and I have a Petroleum Engineering degree from State. I've got a pretty firm grasp on knowing what the boogeyman is. We've regulated a ton in our Oil and Gas industry, those changes weren't willingly made.

[Really Clark?]

I guess you're comparing them to an ideal where we have people in charge care about actual problems. If Climate Change isn't top 10 to you and you think having focus elsewhere is where we should be then I can respect that opinion. I fully disagree that it's not top 3, but at least we understand each other and can agree to disagree there.

Where I'd rather steer the convo is back to the ideal. I know for a fact we don't have anywhere close to ideal leadership for any ideology. Most things done are to serve corporate interests. I can agree that having an ideal group running it is better than a corporate interest group who benefits from green policies and ideologies. But can you agree that a corporate interest group who benefits from green policies and ideologies is better than the trash we have running now? If they're gonna do nothing for us, at least try to tidy up the place.

To address the first paragraph, that opinion on where climate change actually ranks on large global issues was taken from studies and namely a large multinational / multi educational study done by extremely smart individuals from various backgrounds at the behest of the UN. I'm drawing a good bit of my opinions from them and their conclusions. First and foremost was educational and economical rise of third world countries was by far the biggest need global and what that actually does at every level, globally, nationally, locally and individually. But I do share that opinion but it wasn't from a place of let me find a study that matches what I believe. If that makes sense.

I don't disagree with what you are saying in the second paragraph in a wide spread sense. I guess the question I keep going back to is who are the biggest environmental abusers? Certain corporations, absolutely! But on a global scale China by far the worse emitter, triple what we do and has increased their emissions by 33% while we have reduced ours by 12% since 2010. In fact it takes the other 4 largest emitters to match China. Where is the answer to that? Extremely complex and no good solution.

To get back on topic though, a good balance of innovation, initiatives, education and partnership between corporations and the people that doesn't harm the lower class financially is the best policy in my opinion. Not a rush to solve a problem that while it exists, is not as big of an issue as it has been politicized to be. Give technology the time to give us sound long term solutions. We need corporations to foot those bills as well so we have to find that partnership and a synergy that works for both and not at the expense of the regular working individuals

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

Your first sentence disqualifies the entire rest of your post. They are "poor arguments" because they aren't your opinion.

No, they're poor arguments because they have massive logical fallacies lol. Again, I don't even have strong convictions on the topic. I think it's clear from the scientists man is contributing to climate change. I can believe that our ecosystem is delicate and a seemingly small change can cause a lot of harm. That's it for my closely held beliefs in the issue. How bad will it get? How much can any given policy help? How does this issue rank overall? How urgent is it? What % of climate change is man made vs natural? I have no real opinion due to lack of research.

But sure, assume I'm an ideologue after 1 sentence and ignore the rest of the post. That's sound reasoning for sure

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

To address the first paragraph, that opinion on where climate change actually ranks on large global issues was taken from studies and namely a large multinational / multi educational study done by extremely smart individuals from various backgrounds at the behest of the UN. I'm drawing a good bit of my opinions from them and their conclusions. First and foremost was educational and economical rise of third world countries was by far the biggest need global and what that actually does at every level, globally, nationally, locally and individually. But I do share that opinion but it wasn't from a place of let me find a study that matches what I believe. If that makes sense.

I don't disagree with what you are saying in the second paragraph in a wide spread sense. I guess the question I keep going back to is who are the biggest environmental abusers? Certain corporations, absolutely! But on a global scale China by far the worse emitter, triple what we do and has increased their emissions by 33% while we have reduced ours by 12% since 2010. In fact it takes the other 4 largest emitters to match China. Where is the answer to that? Extremely complex and no good solution.

To get back on topic though, a good balance of innovation, initiatives, education and partnership between corporations and the people that doesn't harm the lower class financially is the best policy in my opinion. Not a rush to solve a problem that while it exists, is not as big of an issue as it has been politicized to be. Give technology the time to give us sound long term solutions. We need corporations to foot those bills as well so we have to find that partnership and a synergy that works for both and not at the expense of the regular working individuals

Some of the stuff about China is misleading. Yes they pollute the most, but they have a lot of people.

Per capita, isn't America still the #1 greenhouse emitter?

[DownwardDawg]

China is a bigger pollutant and I have a Petroleum Engineering degree from State. I've got a pretty firm grasp on knowing what the boogeyman is. We've regulated a ton in our Oil and Gas industry, those changes weren't willingly made.

But some of the oil and gas companies are striving to become much cleaner when it comes to carbon emissions. Obviously production is the number one priority, as it should be because this is a business, but the Majors are doing a lot towards cleaning up their carbon emissions and producing cleaner energy.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

But some of the oil and gas companies are striving to become much cleaner when it comes to carbon emissions. Obviously production is the number one priority, as it should be because this is a business, but the Majors are doing a lot towards cleaning up their carbon emissions and producing cleaner energy.

... because they understand Govt action around climate change is the biggest threat to their business, yes.

Exxon alone has spent 10s of millions promoting think tanks and scientists that argue against global warming. Just like tobacco companies used to hire scientist to say smoking doesn't cause cancer, so oil companies have for climate change.

[DownwardDawg]

... because they understand Govt action around climate change is the biggest threat to their business, yes.

Exxon alone has spent 10s of millions promoting think tanks and scientists that argue against global warming. Just like tobacco companies used to hire scientist to say smoking doesn't cause cancer, so oil companies have for climate change.

Meh..... since I'm in Leadership for one of the worlds largest oil and gas companies, I respectfully disagree and I'm also removing myself from this thread. Y'all carry on.