What do you think about Trump's proposed budget cuts or the American First Policy choices?

If it's​ so obviously man-made, then why can't anyone prove that it's man made?

Notice how I said a lot of [quote]speculation about what the long reaching effects will be[/quote]...not that it isn't happening.

I agree with you about the funding. But note how I talked about how there is more to gain on a global scale by preventing pollution in the new asian economic powers who have little regulation than there is in tightening the already tight regulation in the west.

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

The choice is whether to believe scientists or believe politicians who take money from big-oil.

@MarsSword: Regulations in the West are not tight. Prior to Trump there where signs that the Chinese were coming on board. Between the two countries, they would have the economic leverage and political leverage to establish a world consensus.

Saying that other people do a bad thing too is not going to save the species.

@Burnley123: Consensus is not an argument. That link just has a few quotes that explain nothing and a graph of the "temperature anomalie". How does this prove that warming is man-made? If you are so we'll informed, you should be able to explain it to me in an at least mildly convincing manner.

@Burnley123: I am not talking about saying other people do bad things does anything. I am saying that while I am torn about climate change, because I like living on earth. I think it is important to look at the costs/benefit scale and working within that. Trump said that that money isn't making a lot of difference and can be better used elsewhere.

I am not to sure about whether or not there is oil money behind trump. But I recognize that that is likely a reality.

I agree, and continued relations with China would be good. I would like to see more cooperation. I do see that cutting the climate change budget doesn't send a good message.

Regulations in the west are a lot tighter than many places. And pollution control is still a big deal.

@MarsSword:

Here is info on the oil money:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-george-monbiot-misinformation

[quote]I could fill this newspaper with the names of Trump staffers who have emerged from such groups: people such as Doug Domenech, from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, funded among others by the Koch brothers, Exxon and the Donors Trust; Barry Bennett, whose Alliance for America’s Future (now called One Nation) refused to disclose its donors when challenged; and Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, funded by Exxon and others. This is to say nothing of Trump’s own crashing conflicts of interest. Trump promised to “drain the swamp” of the lobbyists and corporate stooges working in Washington. But it looks as if the only swamps he’ll drain will be real ones, as his team launches its war on the natural world.[/quote]

@Invisible: Its from NASA's website and links to other major organisations that do enviromental research. It also links to a study of scholarly articles which show a 97% consensus. That is an argument.

@Burnley123: No, consensus is not an argument, nor is authoritarianism.

@Invisible: Alternative facts from corporate lobbyists are not an argument.

@Invisible: [quote]nor is authoritarianism.[/quote]

?

@Burnley123: There are a lot of people who have pointed out some flaws with the research and with the expected implications of an average 1-2 degree temperature rise. While these people don't necessarily deny climate change they do argue about what it entails, the causes and severity.

For example, changes to the environment around the temperature measuring points. Concrete where there were field and other such changes.

@MarsSword: Could you link that please. I'd like to read it.

@Burnley123: Give me a bit to find it

If you can't provide an argument that is not either:

A.) NASA said so, so it must be correct, or
B.) XX% of scientists believe so, so it must be correct.

If either of these were valid arguments, then it would be possible to argue that the Earth is a giant watermelon because scientists agree or because NASA made a publication that said so. Now before you say that this is silly because NASA would never publish something so obviously wrong, then realize that this is also a fallacy because it relies on authoritarianism to prove the validity of authoritarianism. Circular arguments are invalid, are they not? If you claim that they are, then I've got an undisputable proof for you that God exists, courtesy of Descartes.

@Invisible: Your argument isn't all that great here to be honest...
@Burnley123: The thoughts about oil money behind trump are interesting, I appreciate it.

@Invisible: Here it is in simple form. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in pre-industrial days was about 270 parts per million. At present carbon dioxide levels are just over 400 parts per million. Mankind burns huge volumes of fossil fuels that contribute carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide correlates with increased atmospheric temperatures because it allows wavelengths related to sunlight to pass through the atmosphere, but traps different wavelengths related to heat from the earth in the atmosphere. The result is that the atmosphere heats up. There is no other plausible source for the observed heating up that the planet has experienced recently than carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (methane, nitrogen oxides, etc.) that are the result of man's activities. The exact contribution can be debated, but there is little debate with climate scientists that man is having a significant impact on the global climate.

@Invisible: You look clever by references Descartes but less clever mis-understanding what authoritarianism is. I think you mean 'authoritative', or that I am deferring to authority (opinions of experts) for my arguments.

[quote]Now before you say that this is silly because NASA would never publish something so obviously wrong[/quote]

I am saying it anyway because it is kind of important. I do have respect for expertise and opinions of people who study. If you are not a scientist (as neither of us are) then I believe that it is sensible to respect the opinions of people who are, unless you have convincing reasons to say otherwise (which you don't).

@windinhishair: @Burnley123: Though I agree that mankind likely has something to do with the temperature change. It is also true that there is fairly drastic climate change recorded before man had much to do with it. It is also true that increased temperature will result in increased green areas and high carbon dioxide levels combined with longer growing season will result in increased plant growth, once again storing carbon.

The effects of a 2 degree climate change are often debated, which is what I was alluding to in the original question.

@Burnley123: So, what you're saying is you [i]don't[/i] have an argument for anthropogenic climate change? Thanks for confirming that. I'll suspend my belief until someone manages to explain to me what's so obvious about the issue.

@Invisible: [quote]So, what you're saying is you don't have an argument for anthropogenic climate change?[/quote]

Did I say that? No

You are familiar with the arguments anyway.

[quote]I'll suspend my belief until someone manages to explain to me what's so obvious about the issue.[/quote]

Windinhishair summarised it for you above. You are convinced now, right? 😂

@MarsSword: That's true that climate has changed significantly in the past. If it wasn't we wouldn't have had ice ages, would we? And there have been polar ice caps for only a small percentage of earth's history, maybe no more than 10%. And periods where there were 400 days a year and a much higher oxygen content in the atmosphere that resulted in huge insects that rely on oxygen diffusion. But that doesn't mean that just because those things have happened before, that we want to go back to those days.

The effects of 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature are still being discussed. Some of this is coming from the deniers who are finally seeing that they can no longer deny the existence of global climate change and are shifting into a "well, there is climate change, but it is going to be good!". I think the problem with this is that while there may be some stimulated plant growth, which as you note sequesters carbon, there will be uneven global effects, including effects we cannot foresee. Some areas may become more fertile and see more rain, others will be much drier and turn to desert. Sea levels are expected to rise, which impacts low-lying areas with huge populations such as Bangladesh disproportionately. An increase in energy in the lower atmosphere may result in an increase in unusual events--hurricanes and tropical cyclones of unusual intensity, intense rainfalls and snowfall, droughts, etc.

I for one would prefer to retain an earth with a climate similar to what we've become accustomed to, instead of running a grand experiment.

@windinhishair: As you admit it has happened before and the changes could be good or bad. The next question to rise is, "is there anything we can do to prevent it?" From everything I have read the answer is no. So we have to deal with the effects. Another question to ask is "are ineffective countermeasures worth their cost?" Yes, it is admirable to denote resources to a cause like, preventing global warming and the unknown effects of it. But we live in a world with limited resources and constant pulls. The result is that it is wasteful to denote a lot of resources to something that is not effective. When they could be devoted to improving production of food to feed the hungry or programs to improve the economy.

Please understand that I am not saying this necessarily should happen.But that these questions are worth considering.

And yes, maintaining a climate we are accustomed to eases fears. But the questions remains, is that even possible at this point?

@windinhishair:
[quote]Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in pre-industrial days was about 270 parts per million. At present carbon dioxide levels are just over 400 parts per million.[/quote]
From 1898 to 1998, CO2 levels rose from 295ppm to 367ppm, an increase of 72ppm. The increase in atmospheric temperature was 0.8 Kelvin. Since 1998, CO2 levels have risen from 367ppm to 403ppm, an increase of 36ppm. Atmospheric temperatures have not risen by 0.4 Kelvin, as we would expect. Why do we see these results if there is such a direct correlation between our measured CO2 levels (most measurements being taken in close proximity to highly populated areas) and the purported global atmospheric temperature?

@Invisible: Two reasons: 1) Because you've cherry picked the data, and 2) Because of statistical variability. 1998 was the warmest year since 1850, since surpassed by 2016. You wouldn't expect every year to have the exact same weather (short-term reflection of climate) as the previous year with a slight boost due to higher CO2 concentrations. The general trend is up significantly over pre-industrial levels, but it does vary somewhat from year to year. Carbon dioxide varies too, because there is a greater land mass in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere, and plants use carbon dioxide, so there is a curve over the year that shows slightly higher values when plants are less active and declines slightly in the northern spring. But year to year values show an increase in CO2 due to our fossil fuel use.

The other factor is that when scientists say that they expect a 2 degree C increase, they are really saying that 2 degrees in the mean expectation. There will always be a range associated with an estimate, such as 2 degrees with one standard deviation of 0.3 degrees for a normally distributed population. In layman's terms, this would mean that they expect the actual increase to be between 1.7 and 2.3 degrees roughly 68% of the time. They would also expect the increase to be between 1.4 and 2.6 degrees 95% of the time, and between 1.1 and 2.9 degrees 99% of the time. The fact that they cannot tell you with absolute certainty that the increase will be exactly 2.034 degrees in no way indicates problems with the data.

I should also point out that the atmosphere is but one of the areas that will show an increase in heat energy. The Earth is 70% water, and the mean ocean temperature is rising as well. Recent evidence indicates that there has been a bigger increase in ocean temperatures than the corresponding atmospheric temperature. In other words, a greater percentage of the heat since 1998 has gone into the oceans than in the 1898 to 1998 time frame.