[split] Climate Change, Climate Shift

[Guest]

I am not against the fact that when Climate Change is truly occurring, our Nation and it's people will be at danger. I am against the proposal that climate change is occurring NOW. It's only Climate Shift that we are witnessing. People like to term it with it's long term implications to perhaps draw more attention from the public.

Btw, the topic of gravity will be a much more debatable. To this day, we do not know exactly what gravity is; other than it being a force acting between objects.

[SocialRhubarb]

∃mazing, I'm not quite sure...

Are you saying that the climate change which is occurring is not as a result of human activity?

[Guest]

I'm genuinely interested, not trying to take a stab at what you said - what exactly do you mean by Greens making future outcomes seem as if they're immediate outcomes?  I think it's entirely possible to tackle the issue of climate change in an economically reasonable way I just don't think any of the parties are proposing such a policy at the present time.

Most definitely it is possible to tackle climate change in an economically reasonable way. However, if added to all the other initiatives that cost money, then it is an entirely different issue. The Greens are making future outcomes seem as immediate outcomes by advocating their efforts to tackle Climate Change (resulting from climate shift). They aim to tackle climate change, when it is really climate shift that they should be tackling (if anything...)

[Guest]

∃mazing, I'm not quite sure...

Are you saying that the climate change which is occurring is not as a result of human activity?

Now...at what time in my life did I say anything near the lines of that?

[SocialRhubarb]

I just have no idea what Climate Shift is, or why it's necessary to differentiate between climate change and climate shift.

[vox nihili]

I am not against the fact that when Climate Change is truly occurring, our Nation and it's people will be at danger. I am against the proposal that climate change is occurring NOW. It's only Climate Shift that we are witnessing. People like to term it with it's long term implications to perhaps draw more attention from the public.

Btw, the topic of gravity will be a much more debatable. To this day, we do not know exactly what gravity is; other than it being a force acting between objects.

Climate shift is a cop out. Yes this is true, the climate will undergo changes and we shouldn't be alarmed about that. What we have seen is an extremely rapid "shift" in the climate, one that is moving way, way too quickly and is the result of human intervention. We have the evidence, we know this. It's incontrovertible. It's just moronic politicians who try to deny it because it's inconvenient.

Gravity as a physical property is undeniable. Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're not doing much for your scientific credentials by calling gravity into question :|

[Guest]

Climate shift is a cop out. Yes this is true, the climate will undergo changes and we shouldn't be alarmed about that. What we have seen is an extremely rapid "shift" in the climate, one that is moving way, way too quickly and is the result of human intervention. We have the evidence, we know this. It's incontrovertible. It's just moronic politicians who try to deny it because it's inconvenient.

Gravity as a physical property is undeniable. Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're not doing much for your scientific credentials by calling gravity into question :|

Firstly, I never called gravity into the question. I believe you did so. Scientific credentials? Wot..?

Secondly, you're going against your point when you say "we shouldn't be alarmed of climate undergoing changes". Agree to the fact that it is "incontrovertible". I say that we need to remember it, but not call upon it now and center a party dedicated to combating climate change. Politicians are avoiding it because it may not be the most convenient topic to discuss in the short time frame in the lead up to the election. They are right in this. This election has been eerie. Just like a car approaching an intersection too quickly. People are rushed in thought. Some deter their views based on single policies of a party that they dislike. Let's face it, the lead-up to the election hasn't been ideal for the public or the politicians. I think that much of the reason for biased opinions on main feature articles  on the newspaper has been largely because of hastiness. We are rushing towards a party that we like, and idealizing ourselves by supporting all of their initiatives entirely. In reality, no politician support each other but they do share certain common thoughts, that they might not readily admit in their campaign. This is one of the reasons why once a party comes into power they are subject to change their policies or initiatives that they might have promised prior to election.

[simpak]

The Greens are making future outcomes seem as immediate outcomes by advocating their efforts to tackle Climate Change (resulting from climate shift). They aim to tackle climate change, when it is really climate shift that they should be tackling (if anything...)

There's not really any major difference in tackling those things, even if we are using your definitions.  You can dampen the threat of climate change by tackling 'climate shift', therefore you are simultaneously tackling climate change.  I don't see that it makes a large difference.

[Guest]

There's not really any major difference in tackling those things, even if we are using your definitions.  You can dampen the threat of climate change by tackling 'climate shift', therefore you are simultaneously tackling climate change.  I don't see that it makes a large difference.

So now you're saying that there's no point ("no large difference") in the Greens plan against climate change? That was my argument from the beginning.
If anything, they should tackle climate shift because that is what leads up to climate change. I am not in favour of them doing so at the moment either. If you refer to the first statements I made on this post, you will recall.

[SocialRhubarb]

How would you tackle climate shift without tackling climate change?

Or how would you address climate change without addressing climate change?

Is it necessarily important that we focus specifically on tackling climate shift, not climate change?

Aren't most policies that aim to address climate change going to address climate shift as well?

Since I don't even quite know the difference between the two, so I'm not quite sure on exactly what the implications of these are.

[Guest]

How would you tackle climate shift without tackling climate change?

Or how would you address climate change without addressing climate change?

Is it necessarily important that we focus specifically on tackling climate shift, not climate change?

Aren't most policies that aim to address climate change going to address climate shift as well?

Since I don't even quite know the difference between the two, so I'm not quite sure on exactly what the implications of these are.

Read the differences between both. I described this numerous times in this post.

Your questions should be:
1) How would you address climate change without addressing climate change?
2) Is it necessarily important that we focus specifically on tackling climate change, not climate shift?
3) Aren't most policies that aim to address climate change going to address climate shift as well?
Answer:
1)  Climate change cannot be addressed by itself without acknowledging climate shift. Although we should not need to combat climate shift directly, we should at least acknowledge it so that we can predict outcomes of climate change. This will also (hopefully) add to policies not being rushed.
2) It is important that we focus on tackling climate change, but there is no need to be hasty about it at this time and fork a fair share of money into initiatives to 'defend out nation' from the dangers of the changing climate .
3) Hasn't been done yet.
 

[simpak]

So now you're saying that there's no point ("no large difference") in the Greens plan against climate change? That was my argument from the beginning.
If anything, they should tackle climate shift because that is what leads up to climate change. I am not in favour of them doing so at the moment either. If you refer to the first statements I made on this post, you will recall.

...there's obviously a point against fighting climate change.  I just don't see that you can choose to address climate shift OR climate change, if one leads to another then you are automatically going to impact on both if you try to focus on one.

[vox nihili]

Firstly, I never called gravity into the question. I believe you did so. Scientific credentials? Wot..?

Secondly, you're going against your point when you say "we shouldn't be alarmed of climate undergoing changes". Agree to the fact that it is "incontrovertible". I say that we need to remember it, but not call upon it now and center a party dedicated to combating climate change. Politicians are avoiding it because it may not be the most convenient topic to discuss in the short time frame in the lead up to the election. They are right in this. This election has been eerie. Just like a car approaching an intersection too quickly. People are rushed in thought. Some deter their views based on single policies of a party that they dislike. Let's face it, the lead-up to the election hasn't been ideal for the public or the politicians. I think that much of the reason for biased opinions on main feature articles  on the newspaper has been largely because of hastiness. We are rushing towards a party that we like, and idealizing ourselves by supporting all of their initiatives entirely. In reality, no politician support each other but they do share certain common thoughts, that they might not readily admit in their campaign. This is one of the reasons why once a party comes into power they are subject to change their policies or initiatives that they might have promised prior to election.

I compared gravity to climate change as a very real and inarguable thing, your response was to say that the topic of gravity is debatable...

I've also not contradicted myself. There is such a thing as natural climate change and that should be expected, and we shouldn't be alarmed if it occurs. That said, this climate change is unnatural. It represents an acceleration of the trend, something that would have taken thousands of years.

[Mao]

Can we have some actual science in here please.

1. Human have only been measuring temperature for the past 100 years or so (e.g. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Climate-updates&tracker=trend-maps). Compare this to the scale at which climate change happens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Ice_core_data), which is over tens of thousands of years. Whilst there is a consensus that there is a climate change currently, that is only because we have limited data and we are performing a rather pessimistic extrapolation. The fact is the risk of a drastic climate change is too great, but we must keep in mind that this is only an extrapolation, not a scientific certainty.

2. We are not sure what is causing the "accelerated global warming", or that even if it is a systematic change (again, because it is an extrapolation based on not much data). The consensus thus far points at CO2 emissions from our energy usage being the culprit. However, recent evidence points at other causes, such as CFCs and methane (e.g. http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html). The fact is, though there is a scientific consensus on there being global warming, there is no consensus on the cause, mechanism or what is a good climate model. The science of climate change is perhaps one of the more murky sciences out there, and this is before we even consider the political motivations.

3. The notion of gravity and climate change are very different. Gravity is a force that is easily measurable to high accuracy, and which happens on a fast enough timescale that we can make many measurements to rid ourselves of statistical imprecisions, and which we have a large sample of on-earth and celestial bodies to obtain data from, and which we can perform a whole range of experiments to test our scientific theories. Climate change, due to the timescale it takes place over and the few systems that we can obtain data from (i.e. Earth, and numerous computer models of questionable realism), cannot be studied in detail like gravity, and existing theories do not rest on much weight of evidence. The similarity between climate change and gravity might be that they both have scientific consensus, but scientific consensus is not rigid nor necessarily correct (look at the state of physics for the past 100 years).

4. All of these aside, from an economical standpoint, we must acknowledge that if a drastic climate change was to occur, it would have HUGE impact on our society. This is a conclusion purely from considering the risks and consequences. It then comes down to asking ourselves that, if such a disaster was to occur, how we ought to prepare for it? We have already gone through similar processes with other disasters, such as the Near-Earth Objects programmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid-impact_avoidance). We have yet to devise a similar strategy for managing the risks of climate change, possibly because the scale of such a disaster is too large for us to manage with our current technology. Nevertheless, it is essential that we come up with methods and strategies to manage this risk. Whether or not someone accepts or denies the extrapolation of current climate change data, he/she would be silly to not recognise the importance of managing this risk.

TL;DR, the science of climate change is not very solid. Do not treat it on the same scale as the hard sciences such as the laws of gravity. Our motivation should be based on an assessment of risks, not the numerous predictions of dubious climate models that are construed as "scientific facts".

[psyxwar]

I am against the proposal that climate change is occurring NOW. It's only Climate Shift that we are witnessing.

...and the basis for this point of view is?

Define what the differences are first of all; I can't find any real definition of the term from a quick google search, and using jargon isn't really helping to articulate your point.

You say that you are not against the idea that when climate change is occurring, we will be in danger but go on to say basically that because it isn't happening now it isn't an important issue? I'm sorry, but if we approached everything with this sort of attitude we'd be fucked, through and through. It is a much better strategy to address potentially catastrophic issues before they become beyond repair, rather than going "we'll address it when it becomes big enough to fuck us over"