We do not have time to "debate" climate change

[Hugabear]

Even here on DU, there are those who seem to think that we should just slow down and "debate" the issue of global warming and climate change. There are two huge problems with this:

1. The science is settled, climate change is a FACT.
2. We can't just ask climate change to pause while we "debate"

On the first point, pretty much every respected climatologist in the world agrees that climate change is occurring. The world is getting warmer, and will continue to do so. We're already witnessing such things as the disappearance of the Arctic ice shelf during summer months (previously unheard of in modern times), as well as glaciers in full retreat, ice caps melting, etc. We've seen record droughts and heat waves. Conversely, we also see record cold and snowfall in certain areas - as was predicted would happen

We just don't have time to "debate" this. We can't pause time. The AGW crowd is not interested in legitimate debate. The only thing they're interested in is creating as much confusion as possible, obstructing progress, buying time for Big Oil. This whole argument about "just give us the data" is a red herring, since they already know what they want to make that data say. Why haven't they been doing any of their own original research over the past decade or so? Where are their peer-reviewed papers? The point is that they don't have anything - all they know how to do is obfuscate, attack the messenger. It's no different from what a defense attorney would do, all they're trying to do is create "reasonable doubt" within the general public. Their ultimate goal is to confuse the public, and for them to vote AGW-friendly politicians into office.

Again - we do not have time to play games with something so deadly serious. By the time the AGW crowd realizes that climate change is for real, it will be far too late. Many of these people will not admit climate change exists until cities like London, New York, and New Orleans have to deal with rising sea levels.

[arbusto_baboso]

1. Wow, the unreccers got on you early.

I took care of that.

I wholeheartedly agree.

My basic premise is this: if GW science is fact, then we don't have time to debate this. If GW turns out to be false, what have we lost by acting as if it were true? A little money? What else?

[Don Caballero]

2. Thank you.

The science is settled and has been settled. We must ignore those who claim otherwise. They are shills for big oil. Our planet is in serious condition right now. If we do not attempt to reverse the man made climate change right now, we do not have long for this planet.

[endless october]

3. but we have time to debate the solution.

and cap and trade is not it.

it does nothing to solve the problem, and only enriches banksters and traders worldwide.

stop war / interventionism; build nukes and renewables. coast to coast. now. that's the solution i support.

[petronius]

6. That I agree with - I'm fine with people who have honest differences of opinion

about responses to climate change. I'm fine with people who have genuine informed questions about aspects of the science (real skepticism, in other words). I am very much not fine with people who think that disliking a response calls the science into question.

And I absolutely despise people who attempt to invalidate or undermine science in general - those who cry "hoax" or "scam" or "elitist" or any of that foolishness. Anti-science and anti-intellectual attitudes are a huge danger to the US...

[Richard D]

4. Even when NY is underwater . . .

. . . the AGW nutcases will be saying that it isn't.

[Jkid]

5. You're right, any attempt to debate climate change is merely delaying the envitable

By the time 2100 comes around and this global warming has not been resolved there won't be an economy.


Tell that to any fossil fuel company that denies global warming or climate change.

[arbusto_baboso]

8. You think they care?

Truly, the problem is that corporations now think ONLY of their short-term bottom-line and completely disregard any long term consequences, whether those consequences will be suffered by their own shareholders, or by the planet in general.

And making corporations "persons" will only cement this way of thinking.

[frustrated_lefty]

7. There is nothing to debate.

Wasting time arguing with climate change deniers is akin to arguing with flat-earthers. It provides them with credibility, the very act of debating passively accepts that there is something to debate.

The only answer to the knuckle-dragging neanderthals is to provide them with a library card, let them go get an education while the grownups go about the process of fixing shit.

[timeforpeace]

9. Like it or not, we got lots of time now thanks to idiot scientists like Prof Phil "no warming in

last 15 years" Jones. Or Phillip as his friends call him.

[petronius]

12. It's funny - what Prof. Jones actually said has been posted repeatedly on this site,

in threads that you've participated in. And yet, you still post this wildly inaccurate misrepresentation. I can't help but wonder why... :shrug:

[Uncle Joe]

10. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Hugabear.

[ConcernedCanuk]

11. It' sort of hard to get concerned about climate change/global warming

.
.
.

When the USA is running around the Globe inciting nuclear war.

Many may not admit it openly, but I think a majority of humans that are even a little aware of the political situation globally

have a feeling that our demise will come about as a result of war - not climate.

Most of us are aware of the nuclear threat,

and the USA just keeps on aggravating the situation by invading other countries - -

I think that ONE of them will retaliate,

and the the USA being the "Superpower" will show them just "who" has the super power

Just ask Japan

(sigh)

[Therellas]

13. i was assured this evening in geology that its waaaay to late.

whos got the tequila?

seriously though.
wtf