Climate Concerns

The "CLIMATE CONCERNS" group is dedicated to discussion regarding the topic of the ever present and serious issue of changes to our climate due to the introduction into the atmosphere of human induced effects which prove harmful to the environment and which eventually may prove destructive to our planet. 

Members: 50
Latest Activity: Oct 13

Reference/Research Sites

Discussion Forum

Framing Climate Destabilization

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Oct 4. 16 Replies

The words we use and the images they evoke shape public comprehension of Catastrophic Climate Destabilization's immanence. Here are a few terms from the past few days. It's a tiny…Continue

Tags: communicating climate science, Climate Destabilization, framing

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Climate Concerns to add comments!

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on June 21, 2016 at 7:47pm

Humanity has gone through three extinction events prior to the industrial era. 

Over the course of the entire history of the earth extinction events are so common their names get very similar.  99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, many due to climate change. 

It's stupid and anti human to believe that "our" climate change is any different. We should be studying how to adapt. Using our resources to stop change, irregardless of the source or type, is a lost fight. And a pointless expense of finite resources.

Change is the thing that has made human life possible on earth and is the guarantor of our continued dominance as a species.  

Humanity isn't dependent on environment to survive. It is dependent on thought. 

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on June 21, 2016 at 7:35pm

That is just a double down on the same stuff I mentioned before. Again, those are papers, not scientists. And a misattribution of anthropogenically neutral papers as being pro-anthropogenic.

Comment by Donald L. Engel on June 21, 2016 at 7:22pm

Ruth, how do you propose that we stop a natural climate change cycle that has been going on for at least 420,000 years?

Comment by Grinning Cat on June 21, 2016 at 7:12pm

The "97% of climate scientists" figure is actually wrong.

The truth is virtual unanimity.

Out of 24,210 climate science and global warming articles published in 2013-2014, James Lawrence Powell in his new analysis found that only five rejected anthropogenic global warming. Out of those, only one was cited by another author, and that one, only once.

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on June 21, 2016 at 7:03pm

Re: Call out the climate change deniers

For shame!  Not acknowledging climate change as anthropogenic is not the same as denying existence.   This is a question of attribution not fact. It's cheap rhetoric to poison the well.

Re: "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

There is a hidden cost. It's not 'for nothing' 

Re: "97% of climate scientists agree..."

Consensus isn't a methodology to find truth... 

Yes ~98% of published papers from selected journals agree. Not the same, as one scientist published dozens of papers, et cet. Also it excludes dissenting opinion due to cherry picking which papers to analyse. Also it is a matter of policy to refuse research funding if the study will oppose UN climate policy. 


Comment by Grinning Cat on June 21, 2016 at 3:12pm

Daniel, I don't get tired of reposting this:

At a climate summit, a speaker is addressing points on a board behind him: energy independence, preserve rainforests, sustainability, green jobs, livable cities, renewables, clean water and air, healthy children, etc., etc. A heckler at the back of the audience asks, “What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?”(click to enlarge)

Comment by Daniel Wachenheim on June 21, 2016 at 2:45pm
On Atty Gen Lynch and investigating climate change deniers - While I think the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is strong, and the scientists are reliable, somehow howing after climate change deniers sounds like thought crime. Maybe there was something that I missed. It does not seem like something that should be considered in a society where there is free exchange of ideas.

Say, for the sake of argument, that climate change is due to vast planetary and solar causes, not anthropogenic. Are there benefits to reducing the squandering of fossil fuels, working on reforestation, and preserving ecosystems that climate changes destroy, separate from the reduction of CO2, fluorocarbons, and methane in the air? Even without climate change, is it good to regard the atmosphere and oceans as waste dumps? If we build on renewable energy, wind, solar, and reduce energy consumption, aren't we helping to nurture subsequent generations, regardeless of how much of climate change is anthropogenic? Or is it just, we take ours, and screw the people who follow?
Comment by Joan Denoo on June 21, 2016 at 2:41pm

Fairbanks has relatively low temperatures in winter and relatively high temps in summers. When we took R & R in Fairbanks in 1960, we thought we would die from the heat. It might have been a relative thing because we had spent the past year near Kenai, Alaska at Wildwood Army Station and wore thick coats or light sweaters through the seasons.

"May 2016 marks the eighth month in a row with temperatures above average. "

~ The Alaska Climate Research Center

"Fairbanks, Alaska has some of the most extreme weather in the world. The summers are usually warm, with temperatures often reaching 90°. The winters are very cold and dry, with temperatures sometimes dipping down to -60°."

During WW II, my Dad was sent to Fairbanks just after Pearl Harbor to build airfields for the duration of the war. He reported temperatures as low as -70 ° F. during the winter. I don't remember the summer temps. He wore a parka and mittens made of fur and mukluks made with seal skin. He was not an armed serviceman, but a carpenter contracted by Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co. 

Comment by Joan Denoo on June 21, 2016 at 2:12pm
Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on June 21, 2016 at 2:04pm

Concise, thanks Joan! Too bad one can't "like" a comment.

BTW, yesterday an extreme heat warning was issued in Toronto. I never imagined I'd hear that in my lifetime. Temperatures were expected to be over 93°F. You think we'll live to hear extreme heat warnings in Fairbanks, or even Yellow Knife? No, Yellow Knife is more likely to burn like Fort McMurray.


Members (50)


© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service