1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Wide Impact of Climate Change Already Seen in U.S., Study Says

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by YankeeFan, May 6, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/could?s=t
     
  2. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Sure, but if it "could" happen in 30 years, you'd think that even if he/they were off by a bit, we'd be getting closer by now, right?

    The same people that laugh at the government's dire warnings about marijuana, are terrified by the global warming/climate change/climate disruption predictions.

    Have any of them come true?
     
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    No.
     
  4. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    So, it's a crapshoot?
     
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    No.
     
  6. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    "Could" = Everything from a .000000000001 percent chance to a 99.999999999999999 percent chance.

    We could get hit by an asteroid today.

    The Astros could win the World Series this year.

    Kevin Durant could score at least one point in the Thunder's next game.
     
  7. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    OK. So, which of the "coulds" and "mays" in the new report are the .000000000001 percent chance and which are the 99.999999999999999 percent chance?

    Because, that's the same language we continue to get. And, we're supposed to alter our entire way of life as a result. If the "may" is the same as the Astros winning the World Series this year, then I'm not interested.
     
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I thought we were talking about Moynihan?
     
  9. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Wasn't Moynihan relying on SCIENCE?

    Is the science better today? I still see "may" in the predictions in the new report. How do I judge "may"?
     
  10. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    I'm not sure what there is to argue. CO2 levels are rising to levels never seen in human habitation. This will have environmental effects that are likely to be unpleasant. Will they all be along the lines of what various scientists and others predict? Maybe. Maybe not. But the problem is there.

    You know might finally get people's attention? Capitalism, which (outside of energy companies with a vested interest) believes climate change is real.

    http://gawker.com/the-oil-cash-crunch-could-decide-the-fate-of-the-planet-1573457435
     
  11. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    You should read Nate Silver's book about predicting.
     
  12. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    China, at present, has very low per-capita CO2 emissions, but on an absolute basis it emits far more than any other country (more than 25% of the world's total). Its people are, relatively speaking, terribly poor (per-capita income about 1/8th that of the US).

    Suppose we in the West completely weaned ourselves from fossil fuels (petroleum, coal, etc.) to forestall global warming. 1) Is it reasonable to think that the Chinese people would willingly remain relatively impoverished with all that cheap energy sitting in the ground? 2) If you don't think it reasonable, would you support military action to ensure that the Chinese don't avail themselves of that energy?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page