WWTBAM Bored

Re-Climate Change

From this week's "The Economist"-they are Global Warming hawks.

>>>In America....climate change is becoming harder to ignore. Extreme weather has grown more frequent.....Last week Chicago was colder than parts of Mars.<<<<

I don't know if Chicago having a cold week or two in January is evidence of Global Climate Change. It is called WINTER, you dolts.

If the Chicago winter had been warmer than normal*, they would make the argument that is also evidence of Global Climate Change. No matter the data point, they claim it as supporting the theory of global Climate Change. This ain't science, it is a frick'n religion.

*Notably, Amy Klobuchar made that argument when Minnesota had a few warm winters in a row. I always wanted to ask her if Minnesota had a string of cold winters in a row, would that be an argument against the theory of Global Climate Change.

No, a bit of hot or cold weather isn't evidence for or against climate change. If anyone says so, they'd better just be kidding.

I can't find Klobuchar's quote but I doubt it was serious.

Spock wrote:
I don't know if Chicago having a cold week or two in January is evidence of Global Climate Change. It is called WINTER, you dolts.

It's not winter in general; it's the polar vortex, and there's some indication that the increasing fluctuations in recent years are linked to climate change, although it's certainly not settled.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -whiplash/

jarnon wrote:No, a bit of hot or cold weather isn't evidence for or against climate change. If anyone says so, they'd better just be kidding.

I can't find Klobuchar's quote but I doubt it was serious.

She's serious and she may well be right. The reduction in polar ice is destabilizing the polar vortex, so instead of staying near the Arctic where it belongs, it's crashing our borders with increasing frequency. And no wall's gonna stop it. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

jarnon wrote:No, a bit of hot or cold weather isn't evidence for or against climate change. If anyone says so, they'd better just be kidding.

I can't find Klobuchar's quote but I doubt it was serious.

She's serious and she may well be right. The reduction in polar ice is destabilizing the polar vortex, so instead of staying near the Arctic where it belongs, it's crashing our borders with increasing frequency. And no wall's gonna stop it. --Bob

Nah.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

jarnon wrote:No, a bit of hot or cold weather isn't evidence for or against climate change. If anyone says so, they'd better just be kidding.

I can't find Klobuchar's quote but I doubt it was serious.

She's serious and she may well be right. The reduction in polar ice is destabilizing the polar vortex, so instead of staying near the Arctic where it belongs, it's crashing our borders with increasing frequency. And no wall's gonna stop it. --Bob

Nah.

The oil industry thanks you for your careful and thorough analysis. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:She's serious and she may well be right. The reduction in polar ice is destabilizing the polar vortex, so instead of staying near the Arctic where it belongs, it's crashing our borders with increasing frequency. And no wall's gonna stop it. --Bob

Nah.

The oil industry thanks you for your careful and thorough analysis. --Bob

You, too.

It seems like the theory of "Global warming" or "Climate change" or whatever moniker it evolves into it is the Boogie Man causing every single catastrophe or disaster or odd occurrence on the whole planet if you believe the media. I recognize that there is likely some impact from changing weather but I just can't believe that the wide myriad of calamities being attributed to the phenomenon are entirely the result of that changing weather. Spock is right in that the people selling the climate change theory want to have it both (actually all) ways. If it is unusually cold, that's climate change, if it is unusually hot, that's climate change too. If we have too much rain and it floods, that is climate change but if we are in the middle of a drought, that must also be climate change. When will someone pushing climate change ever admit that sometimes it is just nature?

lilclyde54 wrote: When will someone pushing climate change ever admit that sometimes it is just nature?

My view of the relationship between climate change and these global phenomena is similar to that of the link between smoking and various diseases. Some people who never smoked develop lung cancer, and obviously many people who don't smoke have heart attacks. So, any time a smoker dies of a disease like that, you can' say for sure that it was caused by smoking. But, it would be silly to make the argument that just because some people will develop lung cancer anyway, there's no reason not to smoke. And that's the equivalent of what climate change deniers do. Statistically, those freak occurrences are becoming more common. And you're right that sometimes it's just nature. But it's within our power to do something about it and instead, some people want to bury their heads in the sand and say we've been through bad weather in the past.

So let me make sure I'm following correctly. Since climate change is bullshit, we can all adopt an Alfred E. Newman attitude and carry on with a business...excuse me, Big Business as Usual...policy? We certainly don't need to do anything at all to try making this planet a little more of a habitable place for future generations, because we definitely don't want to piss our friends in the oil and coal industries off. And on the ridiculously slim chance we're wrong, well, most of us won't be around to witness anything significant anyway. Screw the great-grandchildren, it's not our concern.


Got it.