Global Warming Has Been A Hot Topic At Congressional Town Halls

Submitted by: squrlz4ever 4 months ago in News & Politics Science


According to the latest Gallup poll data, 71% of Americans say most scientists believe that global warming is occurring and 68% of Americans believe that global warming is being caused by human activities.

In this video by Peter Sinclair for Yale Climate Connections, citizens push back against evasion, obfuscation, and misinformation. Despite the backwardness of the Trump administration regarding climate change, the tide seems to be turning in the direction of the science.
There are 94 comments:
Male 3,212
Venting at town hall meetings make ya feel good, voting makes you feel as if you've fulfilled your civic duty. You are wrong.
Your vote counts for nothing, the back room wheeling and dealing amongst the big corporations, the mega rich, and powerful lobbyist groups will decide who is in charge of gathering the graft off the nation.
Legislators are increasingly eroding the rights of citizens to speak their minds at political events. They use violence to get their way.
Our government does not fear the citizenry, so they act as they will.
If we want a government that is open, accountable and responsive to the public, they must fear the consequences of failing those goals.
Until then, we are fucked.
0
Reply
Male 595
In other news, the ignorant masses start to figure something out twenty years past the point it'd have really mattered.
0
Reply
Male 4,945
thething911 It still matters.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
daegog There are exactly 100 people who are against the notion of clean, renewable energy.  The problem many have is one: "the science is settled."   No reasonable scientist can say this as it is the nature of science to constantly challenge itself.  Consensus is not settled science, its means reach for your wallet and do as we say.  If AGW was really a proven scientific concept like say basic arithmetic  it would never occur to any climate scientist to claim a "consensus".  You would never hear a math teacher claim a consensus that 2+2=4.  Two: if AGW is real, not one person has put forth a viable answer to solving the problem short of the complete abstention of the use of fossil fuels. (and nobody has show that even doing that would work)  How many would then die due to the hundreds and hundreds of benefits that energy provides modern society.  So really, even if this is all man's fault, nobody has a solution that will work right now or even a few years from now.  The left is debating the wrong side of the issue and if you don't agree they fall back on character attacks.  The clean energy solution will present itself in time.  This isn't "The Day After Tomorrow"  For 40 years I've listened to how we only have 10 years left.  Mankind will adapt and survive.  
0
Reply
Female 8,056
dromed depends what you mean when you suggest the science is settled. we very definitely are responsible for warming the planet at a ridiculous speed- far faster than could happen without our input. We are finding out more detail, gaining a deeper understanding as time passes. What IS known so far is that the situation is graver than we thought- right now optimism is ill placed. For example- the pause in predicted warming was because we didn't understand how much hewat the oceans absorbed- more scary is that for many years it was thought the currents which drive weather would take at least a hundred years to slow and finally stop- now it seems they may stop very quickly. Are you a betting man? If I told you to bet every single thing you owned, and your families lives on a horse with a 30% chance of winning- would you? There is less than a 5% chance that this will pan out okay without massive, immediate action- and if we ignore it the death toll will be billions. 
1
Reply
Male 7,934
dromed The problem many have is one: "the science is settled."   No reasonable scientist can say this as it is the nature of science to constantly challenge itself. 


As far as AGW is concerned yes the "science is settled".  What ISN'T settled is HOW MUCH man is affecting.  It's not IF, it's not maybe, we ARE.  That's not in dispute.  It's simply not in dispute, that's what you have to get past for this conversation to move forward.    Just for the record you are aware that Gravity is scientific consensus right?  We still can't prove Gravity with 100% certainty.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Please I know you want to doubt or maybe you don't want to doubt but look at that list.  These are some of the best and brightest in all of the world.  For this to be fake would require an incredible conspiracy theory that would require every person involved lying or hiding the truth.  THe odds of that being possible are so minute.....It would be the biggest lie that never got out in the history of man by magnitudes of millions.  Look at the White House and all the leaks there, and that's the POTUS.  You don't think there are Conservatives in science or NASA?  Someone would have blown this lid wide open if it was fake.
1
Reply
Male 2,694
normalfreak2 And your solution?  
0
Reply
Male 4,945
dromed That's great that you're asking that question, as it suggests you aren't caught up in denial, which is where a lot of conservatives are.

A favorite saying of mine comes from the ancient Seneca: It is part of the cure to want to be cured.

And as for the solution? There are many, many options out there, and more are becoming available every year. One of the first major steps would be to stop building new coal-powered and lignite-burning power plants. As another saying goes, When you're in a hole, the first step to fixing things is to stop digging the hole deeper.
0
Reply
Male 1,511
squrlz4ever The problem is, the general consensus seems to be 'throw money at the problem'. (Though not the money of those that are telling everyone their solution is the only one that will work. Carbon credits, anyone?) Especially tax money, increase the burden on the general public and that'll stop global warming! 

0
Reply
Male 4,945
squidbush Guess what? I'm going to say something here that people who debate and discuss global warming seldom say: I don't know much about that topic.

It's true. I generally focus on the science and pay less attention to the policy aspects. That's for two reasons: (1) Until there is acceptance and understanding of the basic science, it's hard to build any kind of support for policies; and (2) I find science a lot more interesting than politics.

My desires for policies are pretty modest at this point. Starting with this: Let's not turn off the NASA satellites that take temperature, carbon dioxide, and other readings from space, as the Trump administration wants to. Can we agree that it would be sensible to continue the funding for those satellites? I hope?

I'm encouraged by your comment because you're thinking and I can enjoy the exchange of ideas, even if we disagree.
0
Reply
Male 1,511
squrlz4ever Unfortunately while the science is being done, politicians want votes. So to get votes, they waste colossal amounts of money for 'fixes' that don't do anything. (or in some cases make the problem WORSE)

Honestly, we REALLY need to get politics out of science.
0
Reply
Male 7,934
dromed A great question. One better suited for those that have the power to make those decisions.  



If I had to answer it would be this:  Small things at first.  You don't want to overreact and assume the sky is falling.  You do want to gather data though.  I think now is math things out, start simulations and start ACTING on what the science is saying.  If they say we need to curb Green house gas emissions, by god do it, if we can't power what we have with this then invest in alternative energies assuming you are getting "realistic results"  (IE throw money at innovators like Elon Musk or those trying to address our Power needs.)  The investment we make now will pay off in spades in the future.   Experiment, if  you position the money towards green energy guess where Capitalists will go?  They will follow the money.  Fossil Fuels will run out, that's for certain.  Better to save what we have in case we DO need them instead of get to a crisis situation where we are fighting wars over this stuff when it becomes scarce.  

I THINK this is a good start.
0
Reply
Male 859
Don't forget, if we solve the CO2 problem, we are still in a net heat problem.  Human lives needs energy and after we're done making heat,light, sound, and motion with that energy, it all turns to heat.

If we turn to fusion (or fission) to generate our hunger for energy, all of that heat energy released will need to be shed by the earth.  For now, with a lot of energy coming from solar, hydroelectric, and wind, and all of these sources are derived from incoming solar radiation, we'll use some of that incoming solar energy.  By supplementing these sources with fusion (or orbital solar) this energy is no longer 100% earth solar normal, so we'll need to get the extra heat out of the atmosphere.

Thankfully, our current energy usage is substantially less than the total solar uptake of the planet.  If we ever learn to make cheap, near limitless power from fusion sources, we will eventually return to ACG, but without the easy target of CO2.  

For then, the only solution will be to use less energy and I can't see humans ever intentionally turning that clock back.
-1
Reply
Male 4,945
punko My dearest gargoyle, if humanity ever gets to the point that it needs to worry about heat energy unrelated to the Greenhouse Effect, it will be a gloriously fortuitous turn of events.

Let's keep things in perspective. In 90 minutes, the amount of solar energy reaching Earth is greater than all of mankind's energy consumption for an entire year (source here: see Question 12). Meaning: The amount of heat created by man's generation of energy, in the big picture, is a pittance. And as solar energy becomes a larger and larger portion of our energy generation, the amount decreases still further.

Let's keep our eyes on the immediate, and far greater problem: namely, the Greenhouse Effect related to rising carbon dioxide levels.
0
Reply
Male 859
squrlz4ever I quite agree that I'm looking a long way down the road, but we need to face:

1) we will never get CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels
2) we will never eliminate releasing CO2 from fossil fuels
3) not only will the amount of total energy consumed by the human race continue to rise, but the rate of increase will continue to rise
4) just like the greenhouse effect has adjusted the solar heat balance, the ever increasing heat load from non-solar sources will affect the balance.
5) at best we can convert <25% of incoming solar energy to useful energy

A tiny fraction now, but get fusion to work and when the population on the planet exceeds 15 B and gets to current western levels of per-capital energy consumption, watch out.

The ONLY way to eliminate any form of ACG is to reduce per capital energy consumption
-1
Reply
Male 4,945
punko You're worrying about problems that are not even problems now or in the forseeable future. Worse, in worrying about problems that are currently non-existent, you're providing a great excuse for global warming deniers to advocate doing nothing at all.

If 5cats doesn't read your previous comments here--about problems that currently do not exist--and exclaim something like the following, I'll be surprised:

"See?! The libtards will have no end of it until we're all living like cavemen eating raw food in grass huts. ALL ENERGY IS BAD! This just shows how ridiculous this libtard religion of global warming is. IT'S ALL A WASTE OF TIME.  Even Punko says so."

So thanks for that.
0
Reply
Male 859
squrlz4ever I have no doubt that at some point in humanity's future, we will be back to stone knives and bearskins.

"I have no idea what weapons will be used in World War III, but I'm sure that World War IV will use bows and arrows"
-1
Reply
Male 569
Oh, great, lol.  More Pentapuss fuel.
0
Reply
Male 4,945
irk No doubt. But I refuse to surrender the field and allow IAB to turn into some kind of global-warming-denier hangout. As much as 5cats would love that, it's not happening.
0
Reply
Male 569
squrlz4ever *sigh*  Yeah, I'm with ya on that.  Ignorance is only bliss for the ignorant.  For the rest of us, not so much...

By rights, though, you should have a severe concussion from repeatedly banging your head against the wall.  Although, I suppose the fur could be cushioning the impacts :)
0
Reply
Male 3,480
While i must admit, i'm not 100% convinced that global warming is primarily caused by human activity, I don't see how anyone could be against the notion of clean, renewable energy sources..

Unless you own a coal mine or oil field of course. 
0
Reply
Male 4,152
No questions on what viable energy solutions they know of or what they would be willing to give up.
0
Reply
Male 215
Now, as Sincere response: I'm glad to see that attention is starting to take hold in the general public. Better late than never, maybe we can save more than I'd hoped.
1
Reply
Male 215
NoWarming for 18+ years. Adjusted temp data. BigAGW made you a #StoopidSheeplePuppet. The liar MSM (sorry to repeat myself. BOOYAH!!) never reports the ReallyReal science I have access to at www.OilIsYourGodRepublicansGoodForum.com/InNoWayACorporateShill.html which is above reproach. Challenges to my claims, evidence to the contrary, dissenting views on the topic at hand, these are all ways of changing the subject from the topic at hand (which is a moving goal post, even though it's not my post, I'll TELL YOU what the fuck the topic is and you'll accept it) and means that you are therefore #LibCuckCuntVulgarIAmActuallyWinngAndNotCrushinglyInsecureAndTerrified
1
Reply
Male 1,743
AgamemnonTheGreat 

That is EXACTLY how most Republicans sound on Fox. Ha ha. *slow clap*
1
Reply
Male 215
bliznik appreciated, friend. 
1
Reply
Male 215
bliznik also keep in mind you, yes specifically you, and all others who 'believe' (not understand grade school science, but 'believe') in AGW state that 100% of Earth's warming is caused by only people. I don't care if you've never said as much, yes you have and yes you absolutely think the way I'm telling you you think. You, and all the scientists and grade-school-level-reasoning-capable-IABers think It's 100% man made 100% of the time and that the science is entirely settled and #YesYouDidTooSaySoICantBeBotheredToFindALink stop trying to change the subject, I made the only point with making, StoopidAGWSheepCunt. 
2
Reply
Male 4,945
AgamemnonTheGreat  You need to work in the phrase "the liberals and their global warming religion" and then something-something-something Al Gore. Oh, and be sure to refer to scientists with the quotes, thus: climate change "scientists."
0
Reply
Male 215
squrlz4ever and the word "agenda" used liberally. I gotta say though, amigo; it brings a smile to my face knowing you guys get a kick outta this crap. Glad I could brighten the mood here​ a bit, your day as well.
0
Reply
Male 1,018
AgamemnonTheGreat Those DAMN LIBTARDS still can't explain to me why it still gets cold at night neither! Global warming HA!
1
Reply
Male 215
marsii you know that on another post, the Feline thought that I was a sock account of yours? I cannot make this shit up.
1
Reply
Male 1,018
AgamemnonTheGreat Oh I did the same thing to him a while ago and it was amazingly effective at tilting me. I mean him. I'm not a 5Cats sock account...

Link btw I wanna see this accusation
0
Reply
Male 7,934
marsii I miss your faux Conservative side marsii, you had some great ones going back then.
1
Reply
Male 215
marsii I'm still working on linking on this site, but I tagged you in a response to said post. It should show up in your post notifications.
1
Reply