Creepy Condescending Wonka

Yeah, it's like comparing a Nurse Practicioner to a neurologist.

Oh, so meteorology is a less advance science than climatology, and not a sister science? I'd say a better comparison would be saying it's like comparing a neurologist to cardiologist.

Meteorology focuses on current weather patterns to determine what the weather is likely to produce in the short term. Acclimate scientist will research weather patterns over long periods of time: thousands of years into the past in some instances. The look for what influenced the weather during various periods and try to deduct what mitigating factors caused it. Take, for example, the year without summer, back around 1812. It was finally determined much later that the eruption of Krakatoa affected the growing season in Bangor, Maine on the other side of the globe. Actually, it affected the weather around the world. They study the data and trends that caused the weather. While an active volcano erupting may cause a drastic change for a short period of time, say as much as two years, it will eventually level out and return to a more normal pattern within a few years. Studies have found that, instead of returning to normal, the temperature has slowly, but steadily, risen over the past 50 years. Worldwide, the temps have risen about 2.5° over that time. Based on the data, the current trend shows a rise of another 1.5° over the next 50 years, however, based on current data, that could come to pass within as soon as 20 years.

Right. I understand all that. And I'm simply pointing out something that is readily apparent to anyone... scientists aren't always right, they are constantly observing and reevaluating what they've learned and what they've concluded. Science is a powerful political and cultural authority; and scientists seem to be just as prone mob-mentality and group think; it's humane nature. And... if the science that studies, determines, and predicts short-term weather patterns is so volatile, shouldn't I be just as skeptical when someone starts pontificating about weather-patterns over decades and centuries? That was what my joke was about.

Upvoted! People being funny and thinking for themselves is what I love about the internet!

That's the problem with doing socio-political jokes: while they may play to the lowest common denominator, the mob mentality, is they may not play well to others. One reason why I'm skeptical about doing socio-political memes.

But aren't all memes stabs at cultural or political hot-buttons? Isn't all humor to a certain degree a jab at the gap between expectations people have versus the result, and therefore an appeal to the lowest common denominator? But I agree, it gets too vicious. I like political memes, and debate, and sarcasm, and clever jabs, but sometimes... I read over comments and it gets way too vicious; and that's not something I want to be part of. But there has to be a place for political memes too, because that's part of life; politics.

When I was doing political memes, I did them as a headline: a grabber to get people's attention to an article one of us wrote. I did a couple on climate change, memes and articles. One that sticks out was the research I did on a climate denier. He did the research and actually replicated the findings that climate change scientists found: a key factor in modern science. If he hadn't, his benefactors would have been more than happy to pay for full page ads to promote those findings. The man's name is, IIRC, Robert Mueller.

It's doubtful to get any group of people, scientists included, to agree 100% on anything. In the published surveys, the number of scientists that agree or deny climate change varies quite a bit, but the figure I found interesting was that if those within the field. 97.5% of scientists in the field of meteorology and climate found the results of the studies to be believable. Even Mueller, skeptical as he is, finally determined they were valid. He did have some caveats, but even those he said, didn't interfere with the broad acceptance.

Overall, I choose to pay attention to what the experts find over the propaganda spread around by those that only rely on fast profits for their businesses.

Actually there is this : "NASA defines climate as the description of the long term weather pattern of a particular area.”

You aren't going to be a science denier, are you?

No John, I won't deny science, otherwise I wouldn't use studies to back up my claims. If you notice, I even mention the projection based on evidence, of a rise in temperature over a period of 50 years (best case scenario) to twenty years (worst case scenario) it will come. The difference of 30 years? It's how we react to the situation. Personally,if I were faced with a forest fire, I'd dump water on it, not gasoline.

There is the problem.

How do you KNOW dumping water is the correct thing to do?

Imagine thousands of years ago before we subdued the planet. Who put out the forest fires then? Hmmmm? Current science is pointing to the fact fighting forest fires MAY NOT be the correct course of action. It may be gasoline *IS* the correct response. We can think this all day long, but we don't KNOW.

The same goes for "global warming". There have been times in the past we KNOW have been warmer than now. Yet, the planet is still here. Can you explain this miracle? No, you can't. Nobody can because we don't *KNOW* enough about how it works.

That's the problem with your position - you are so very sure, yet you have no clue if you are right, or not.

I'm sure because I rely on the people who have made the study of climate their life work. You seem to believe otherwise. We both have our opinions. On what do you base your opinion on.

Forest fires? Short term, it does well to put them out because the loss of lives and homes are at stake. Also the potential of standing timber being lost. Can't put the lumber industry risk. In the ancient past, nature eventually put the fire out. For modern Forest fires, however, the best I've found was a Quora answer concerning putting out a fire with gasoline. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-put-out-a-fire-with-gasoline

Yes, enough gasoline at a lower than flashpoint temperature would put outa forest fire, but the amount and conditions to do so are not feasible. Instead, we use two highly combustible gases, hydrogen and oxygen, in their combined form of water to put the fire out.

weather in Michigan is weird

Weather and climate are not the same thing.

Cos the other 194 countries are all wrong?

Yes. To wit :

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-german-carmakers-idUSKBN18T1Q0?il=0

Quote : "Germany's powerful car industry said Europe would need to reassess its environmental standards to remain competitive after the United States said it would withdraw from the Paris climate pact."

Why? If it was about the climate, there is nothing stopping literally every other country from moving forward. Yet, here is Germany about to pitch it all overboard about 72 hours after the fact.

Face it, moron : YOU. WERE. LIED. TO. This is a fact so glaringly obvious only you can't understand it.

Umm..predicting the future and seeing what's happening right now are two very different things. When 97% of scientist agree on something maybe you should listen.

Jesus, that lie was debunked about 4 years ago. Where the hell have you been?

True. The actual figure is 97.5% of scientists involved in climate studies are the number of scientists that agree. When all members of the science community are taken into account, chemists, biologists, etc, the numbers that agree are lower.

At the risk of getting into the weeds here, this is from a poll of climatologists that less than 35% of the pollees responded to. I don't think that qualifies as 97.5% of "all" as many try to represent.

A single poll? Perhaps you need to look at more studies on this. Skeptical Science has a good breakdown. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

The consensus turns out that the more knowledgeable in the field, the more likely the respondents are to agree with the findings that climate change is not only real, but that it is being worsened by the actions of men. I'm not more an expert on the subject than you are, so I have to rely on specialists in their fields. I read through, try to decipher what they say, and draw my conclusions from there.

I don't doubt climate change, the climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. My skepticism lies in what actually would alter the outcome if we could actually change it. I am also skeptical in regards to their models and time frames.

Based on the history, about all we can do is to try and put it back. In the hands of nature. Originally, my argument had always been that the climate was constantly changing. Look at the ice ages. As the discussion grew, I realized that there was no stopping it. But we don't have to throw gasoline on the fire. I was born in Youngstown, Ohio when it was the steel capital of the world. I wasn't aware of the pollution as a child, even though I had asthma even then. Moved to arural area when I was 10, and when I visited Youngstown a couple years later, I could breathe the difference. When I lived in Phoenix,I could look out my office window on the 10th floor and see the blanket of pollution covering the county.

This same type of pollution is interfering with the natural process.

I can't speak for Ohio, but I could see the changes in VA especially with the waterfront. Also Phoenix came a long ways in the 19 years I was there.

Last time I was back there, the pollution wasn't anything like it was when I was a kid. I still wouldn't swim in the Mahoning River. That is a story in itself. When I was a kid, the river flowed brown. Today, it looks clean, but EPA standards say keep out. In a society where a person can't ok in a bar, or even tobacco store, I can't see folks wanting to go back to unfettered pollution.

Where the rivers and the bay meet in VA, the water was brownish an a brown foam covered the shore from the phosphates. That's gone and the water is bluish green again. I saw the bay from a plane a few weeks ago and when we passed over the bay bridge tunnel I was amazed at the clarity of the water. In the 19 years I was in Phoenix the it quality was noticably better, the brown cloud over the city got a lot thinner. I won't say we have successfully eliminated pollution as there is still a lot to do, but we have mad some great strides over the last 40 years and none of it had to do with climate control over reaction and we are on the right road to reduction, at least in this country, from our peak.

We are on the right track, but we cannot lose ground. Climate change has been a topic of discussion for generations. Check out the time capsule article in the Old Farmers Almanac for this year. Highly interesting.

Still, the deniers at the top level of industry push the propaganda to get the EPA to relax the rules that have allowed us to make these gains in our environment.

Skeptical Science is the one that was debunked. It was 97% of the 35%. In other words, a small minority. No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it's never going to be true.

chart: http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-hottest-years-on-record
credibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Central
Donald J. Trump is an idiot. Everything he says is a lie. Even his name is a lie. Trumpf. So when he tries to debunk climate change 115 times, you know we are really in trouble. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory. I wondered if the debunker is a right wing site? You know you can look this shit up, right? From NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/ If you don't trust people smart enough to send people to the moon then there is no hope for you.