|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 06 2016 13:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 13:19 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 12:57 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2016 12:55 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 12:33 kwizach wrote:On September 06 2016 12:24 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 11:59 kwizach wrote:On September 06 2016 11:00 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 10:42 Dan HH wrote:On September 06 2016 10:08 kwizach wrote:[quote] SourceOut of curiosity, is there anyone in this thread who either doesn't believe in global warming/climate change, or believes that humans are not (or barely) responsible? I'd assume so, we even have some 9/11 truthers around here I'd be sincerely surprised to find truthers. Now myself, I disagree with the aspects of climate alarmism (couldn't resist) which predict catastrophic irreversible harm if huge international projects limiting carbon dioxide emissions are not taken in the next 20 years or whatever. Do you believe that global warming/climate change is happening? And if so, do you believe that humans are responsible? Climates always change, mostly without primary cause human involvement. I'd be a noob to say climate is static. So just to be clear, you do not think that the climate is changing (in any meaningful way) differently than it already was changing prior to the industrial revolution? And you therefore do not believe that mankind has a substantial impact on the way the climate is changing? I very much think how climates change now are quite different than other prior pre-industrial revolution periods like the ice age, the little ice age, and the medieval warm period. Mankind had as much involvement then as now. Does it bother you to have come to a different conclusion than the vast majority of people qualified to have an opinion on the subject, a group which you are not a part of. I really haven't heard many scientists say we're heading into an ice age, to be honest. But you just said that you believe that mankind has no (well, same as it did in pre-industrial times) involvement in the change of climate now. That's not about ice ages, that's saying that mankind hasn't had an impact on the climate, a conclusion that is in conflict with that of the climate scientists. Are you changing your argument from no manmade climate change to no ice ages?
Exhibit A: Discussion with someone who really don't want to seem stupid, but also just can't get hims/herself to run contrary to the stupid opinion of "his/her side".
|
On September 06 2016 13:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 13:19 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 12:57 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2016 12:55 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 12:33 kwizach wrote:On September 06 2016 12:24 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 11:59 kwizach wrote:On September 06 2016 11:00 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 10:42 Dan HH wrote:On September 06 2016 10:08 kwizach wrote:[quote] SourceOut of curiosity, is there anyone in this thread who either doesn't believe in global warming/climate change, or believes that humans are not (or barely) responsible? I'd assume so, we even have some 9/11 truthers around here I'd be sincerely surprised to find truthers. Now myself, I disagree with the aspects of climate alarmism (couldn't resist) which predict catastrophic irreversible harm if huge international projects limiting carbon dioxide emissions are not taken in the next 20 years or whatever. Do you believe that global warming/climate change is happening? And if so, do you believe that humans are responsible? Climates always change, mostly without primary cause human involvement. I'd be a noob to say climate is static. So just to be clear, you do not think that the climate is changing (in any meaningful way) differently than it already was changing prior to the industrial revolution? And you therefore do not believe that mankind has a substantial impact on the way the climate is changing? I very much think how climates change now are quite different than other prior pre-industrial revolution periods like the ice age, the little ice age, and the medieval warm period. Mankind had as much involvement then as now. Does it bother you to have come to a different conclusion than the vast majority of people qualified to have an opinion on the subject, a group which you are not a part of. I really haven't heard many scientists say we're heading into an ice age, to be honest. But you just said that you believe that mankind has no (well, same as it did in pre-industrial times) involvement in the change of climate now. That's not about ice ages, that's saying that mankind hasn't had an impact on the climate, a conclusion that is in conflict with that of the climate scientists. Are you changing your argument from no manmade climate change to no ice ages?
Sorry, I didn't know what part you were referring to. Kwizach asked two questions, did you see? Pre-industrial timeframe and mankind today. If you are similarly interested in opinions from non-climatologists as Kwizach was, maybe you can ask your own questions in specific context.
|
United States43991 Posts
On September 06 2016 14:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 13:24 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2016 13:19 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 12:57 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2016 12:55 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 12:33 kwizach wrote:On September 06 2016 12:24 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 11:59 kwizach wrote:On September 06 2016 11:00 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 10:42 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
I'd assume so, we even have some 9/11 truthers around here I'd be sincerely surprised to find truthers. Now myself, I disagree with the aspects of climate alarmism (couldn't resist) which predict catastrophic irreversible harm if huge international projects limiting carbon dioxide emissions are not taken in the next 20 years or whatever. Do you believe that global warming/climate change is happening? And if so, do you believe that humans are responsible? Climates always change, mostly without primary cause human involvement. I'd be a noob to say climate is static. So just to be clear, you do not think that the climate is changing (in any meaningful way) differently than it already was changing prior to the industrial revolution? And you therefore do not believe that mankind has a substantial impact on the way the climate is changing? I very much think how climates change now are quite different than other prior pre-industrial revolution periods like the ice age, the little ice age, and the medieval warm period. Mankind had as much involvement then as now. Does it bother you to have come to a different conclusion than the vast majority of people qualified to have an opinion on the subject, a group which you are not a part of. I really haven't heard many scientists say we're heading into an ice age, to be honest. But you just said that you believe that mankind has no (well, same as it did in pre-industrial times) involvement in the change of climate now. That's not about ice ages, that's saying that mankind hasn't had an impact on the climate, a conclusion that is in conflict with that of the climate scientists. Are you changing your argument from no manmade climate change to no ice ages? Sorry, I didn't know what part you were referring to. Kwizach asked two questions, did you see? Pre-industrial timeframe and mankind today. If you are similarly interested in opinions from non-climatologists as Kwizach was, maybe you can ask your own questions in specific context.
I was referring specifically to the quote I quoted.
I very much think how climates change now are quite different than other prior pre-industrial revolution periods like the ice age, the little ice age, and the medieval warm period. Mankind had as much involvement then as now.
That quote appears to be at odds with the experts who have reached a consensus (not without dissenters but with overwhelming popular agreement) that the current changes in climate are a product of human influences on the environment in a way that previous ones were not.
So to restate my question, does it bother you that your opinion, in this case defined to be that mankind is not influencing the climate now any more than they were in the last ice age, is contrary to that of the experts?
|
On September 06 2016 15:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 14:59 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 13:24 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2016 13:19 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 12:57 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2016 12:55 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 12:33 kwizach wrote:On September 06 2016 12:24 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 11:59 kwizach wrote:On September 06 2016 11:00 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I'd be sincerely surprised to find truthers. Now myself, I disagree with the aspects of climate alarmism (couldn't resist) which predict catastrophic irreversible harm if huge international projects limiting carbon dioxide emissions are not taken in the next 20 years or whatever. Do you believe that global warming/climate change is happening? And if so, do you believe that humans are responsible? Climates always change, mostly without primary cause human involvement. I'd be a noob to say climate is static. So just to be clear, you do not think that the climate is changing (in any meaningful way) differently than it already was changing prior to the industrial revolution? And you therefore do not believe that mankind has a substantial impact on the way the climate is changing? I very much think how climates change now are quite different than other prior pre-industrial revolution periods like the ice age, the little ice age, and the medieval warm period. Mankind had as much involvement then as now. Does it bother you to have come to a different conclusion than the vast majority of people qualified to have an opinion on the subject, a group which you are not a part of. I really haven't heard many scientists say we're heading into an ice age, to be honest. But you just said that you believe that mankind has no (well, same as it did in pre-industrial times) involvement in the change of climate now. That's not about ice ages, that's saying that mankind hasn't had an impact on the climate, a conclusion that is in conflict with that of the climate scientists. Are you changing your argument from no manmade climate change to no ice ages? Sorry, I didn't know what part you were referring to. Kwizach asked two questions, did you see? Pre-industrial timeframe and mankind today. If you are similarly interested in opinions from non-climatologists as Kwizach was, maybe you can ask your own questions in specific context. I was referring specifically to the quote I quoted. Show nested quote +I very much think how climates change now are quite different than other prior pre-industrial revolution periods like the ice age, the little ice age, and the medieval warm period. Mankind had as much involvement then as now. That quote appears to be at odds with the experts who have reached a consensus (not without dissenters but with overwhelming popular agreement) that the current changes in climate are a product of human influences on the environment in a way that previous ones were not. So to restate my question, does it bother you that your opinion, in this case defined to be that mankind is not influencing the climate now any more than they were in the last ice age, is contrary to that of the experts?
If we look at perhaps a global average rise in temperatures, I do note polls show most scientists lay the blame on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. It bothers me that a social movement and political movement have championed observed data in the last two decades to apply undue political and monetary influence in the field of research, from the IPCC to domestic lobbying. I'm also concerned that scientists could still be right on the connection and the field is hampered by hamfisted attempts to cajole dissent in "denier" and alarmist point-of-no-return prophesy. The proposal of runaway planet-scale warming is a worrying proposition and the research should continue, even as I hope research stays in science and not movement advocacy. From the days of debunked hockey stick graphs to CRU the hiatus and today, I've observed too much of a desire to cover up the shortcomings to push the message. In total, with such pressure on experts and the surrounding culture, I am not overly concerned. Maybe the field can self-correct and stay on the science not the message ... but probably not until cataclysm has been averted for another two decades and more scientists can speak out with unpopular, not consensus-driven views. One can hope.
|
United States43991 Posts
If I'm understanding you correctly you think that there is so much of a scientific consensus that man made climate change is an immediate and threatening issue that you're worried that the consensus has too much momentum to be slowed by the dissent of contrary evidence. That the overwhelming agreement steamrolls potential disagreement.
And, if I may paraphrase you here, you think that the scientists are compromising themselves by politicizing their findings. You'd be fine with "all this carbon dioxide is causing warming that will have the following devastating impacts" but if they tack on "and we should probably do something about that" then they're moving from their area of expertise, pure science, into policy and politics which corrupt their findings.
If I understand your stance correctly I find it wholly indefensible. But thank you for indulging me with your answers at least.
|
Since the industrial revolution, we've apparently even made it so that it rains more on the weekends... if you want to look for obvious ways in which human activity can influence the weather on a weekly basis.
There were about 10% of astrophysicists who didn't want to demote Pluto from being a planet, there's always going to be dissent. It's true that sometimes the dissent is right, but like the case in the "we found neutrinos going faster than light" in Italy, it usually turns out to be wrong.
Do you not remember how lead in emissions caused such extreme harm to the population? There was resistance to that idea as well, and I'm sure there's dissenters to this very day. That doesn't mean it's not real. This is simply another factor of the high rate of emissions having a profound impact on our environment.
There were like... 2 billion people around in the 1900s. There's about 6 billion now. You don't need to be worried for yourself, or maybe not even your children, but this is about what happens 100 years down the line...
|
United States43991 Posts
Science fucking loves dissent anyway. Dissent is how science happens, most people think X, some guy proposes Y, another proposes Z, it turns out Y was a dumb idea but Z actually fits the evidence better than X. And there's no shortage of money to be made by providing strong evidence that the free and unrestrained exercise of capitalism is actually fine and won't have any negative impacts. If money impacts the conclusion then although someone always profits, no matter the side, the money is heavily weighted on the "fuck the environment, get rich" side. Nobody is excited by climate change, it's just one of those shitty things you have to deal with like how we had to stop using CFCs because penguins were getting a tan or how we had to add filters to power plants because the rain downwind was eroding buildings.
|
On September 06 2016 16:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 15:08 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2016 14:59 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 13:24 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2016 13:19 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 12:57 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2016 12:55 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 12:33 kwizach wrote:On September 06 2016 12:24 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2016 11:59 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Do you believe that global warming/climate change is happening? And if so, do you believe that humans are responsible? Climates always change, mostly without primary cause human involvement. I'd be a noob to say climate is static. So just to be clear, you do not think that the climate is changing (in any meaningful way) differently than it already was changing prior to the industrial revolution? And you therefore do not believe that mankind has a substantial impact on the way the climate is changing? I very much think how climates change now are quite different than other prior pre-industrial revolution periods like the ice age, the little ice age, and the medieval warm period. Mankind had as much involvement then as now. Does it bother you to have come to a different conclusion than the vast majority of people qualified to have an opinion on the subject, a group which you are not a part of. I really haven't heard many scientists say we're heading into an ice age, to be honest. But you just said that you believe that mankind has no (well, same as it did in pre-industrial times) involvement in the change of climate now. That's not about ice ages, that's saying that mankind hasn't had an impact on the climate, a conclusion that is in conflict with that of the climate scientists. Are you changing your argument from no manmade climate change to no ice ages? Sorry, I didn't know what part you were referring to. Kwizach asked two questions, did you see? Pre-industrial timeframe and mankind today. If you are similarly interested in opinions from non-climatologists as Kwizach was, maybe you can ask your own questions in specific context. I was referring specifically to the quote I quoted. I very much think how climates change now are quite different than other prior pre-industrial revolution periods like the ice age, the little ice age, and the medieval warm period. Mankind had as much involvement then as now. That quote appears to be at odds with the experts who have reached a consensus (not without dissenters but with overwhelming popular agreement) that the current changes in climate are a product of human influences on the environment in a way that previous ones were not. So to restate my question, does it bother you that your opinion, in this case defined to be that mankind is not influencing the climate now any more than they were in the last ice age, is contrary to that of the experts? If we look at perhaps a global average rise in temperatures, I do note polls show most scientists lay the blame on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. It bothers me that a social movement and political movement have championed observed data in the last two decades to apply undue political and monetary influence in the field of research, from the IPCC to domestic lobbying.
The observed data is from a lot longer timespan than 2 decades, although obviously the data has become a lot richer since we started actively pursuing more and better observations of this phenomenon. Nevertheless, glad to hear you acknowledge that experts overwhelmingly agree on the phenomenon and its cause. As for political and monetary influence, I wouldn't call seeing a threat and acting to attempt to prevent it "undue". If you were the astronomer who first saw a giant asteroid heading straight at earth, wouldn't you a, first ring the alarm bell, and b, then advocate doing something about it?
I'm also concerned that scientists could still be right on the connection and the field is hampered by hamfisted attempts to cajole dissent in "denier" and alarmist point-of-no-return prophesy. The proposal of runaway planet-scale warming is a worrying proposition and the research should continue, even as I hope research stays in science and not movement advocacy.
You think we should observe and debate about the world-as-we-know-it ending, rather than acting. Yeah, that sounds like a great policy.
From the days of debunked hockey stick graphs to CRU the hiatus and today, I've observed too much of a desire to cover up the shortcomings to push the message.
Stop believing everything you read in the daily mail. The hockey stick graph is far from debunked. It is still considered one of the seminal works in modern climate science. Pretty much every metastudy and follow-up with independent data agrees that the original work by Mann et al. was correct, despite the earlier discussions about potential cherrypicking of data and problematic statistics. Turns out that the data was good, and other statistical methods corroborate the graph. Anyway, read a summary of the latest work on Wikipedia and follow through to the actual science if you feel so inclined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph#2010_onwards
In total, with such pressure on experts and the surrounding culture, I am not overly concerned. Maybe the field can self-correct and stay on the science not the message ... but probably not until cataclysm has been averted for another two decades and more scientists can speak out with unpopular, not consensus-driven views. One can hope.
So once Miami has been flooded, the glaciers in the Andes have completely disappeared and the mass extinction of, initially, marine life is well under way... THEN we should act.
|
On September 06 2016 13:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 13:29 PassiveAce wrote:
Are there any other nations at all that actively debate climate science in the political realm? UK doesn't, we're in the "it's real, what's the least we can do to make the hippies shut up about it" camp in England and the Scots are all about going 100% clean energy because they're a bunch of dirty liberals.
Didn't Cameron approve fracking? Same with Obama, USA now the #1 oil producer on earth.Obama grandstanding about shutting down a few coal plants when the US oil output has doubled during his tenure.Pretty laughable no? Obamas economic recovery built to a huge extent on fracking and the massive jump in loans given to energy companies to engage in such practice.EPA corrupt to the core, no wonder so many dems are abandoning status quo Clinton who is just a continuation of this garbage.
|
lol, the energy industry is anything but stable after companies like Peabody filed for bankruptcy. It's always fun when we get to play "how wrong can Nettles be" 
|
On September 06 2016 21:42 farvacola wrote:lol, the energy industry is anything but stable after companies like Peabody filed for bankruptcy. It's always fun when we get to play "how wrong can Nettles be"
Where did i say energy companies were "stable" lol?
What i said was energy companies took on large loans from banks, this hardly implies stability?
Really cannot see how you took that from my post.
|
Given that I grew up 45 minutes away from Detroit, it must be my culture.
|
On September 06 2016 21:48 farvacola wrote:
Given that I grew up 45 minutes away from Detroit, it must be my culture.
Or the lead in the water.
Put a few bets on the election
Trump to win : $100 @ 3.00
Iowa Trump : $30 @ 2.35
Penns. Trump : $30 @ 4.70
Still kicking myself for not putting some money on brexit a few months back.Was paying $7 per $1.
|
When financial disaster finally hits and society reverts back to the stone age, your bets will be futile.
|
honestly I'd probably put money on Trump winning for those odds as well. Don't think he's more likely to win than Clinton at all but 3.00 sounds fairly nice? PA sounds too rough for me though
|
The weird part about the Brexit is that its betting odds were running contrary to polling, which showed it to be close. But still, if you have money to burn why not?
The fact that NC is in play still boggles my mind. What an election.
|
On September 06 2016 21:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 13:33 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2016 13:29 PassiveAce wrote:
Are there any other nations at all that actively debate climate science in the political realm? UK doesn't, we're in the "it's real, what's the least we can do to make the hippies shut up about it" camp in England and the Scots are all about going 100% clean energy because they're a bunch of dirty liberals. Didn't Cameron approve fracking? Same with Obama, USA now the #1 oil producer on earth.Obama grandstanding about shutting down a few coal plants when the US oil output has doubled during his tenure.Pretty laughable no? Obamas economic recovery built to a huge extent on fracking and the massive jump in loans given to energy companies to engage in such practice.EPA corrupt to the core, no wonder so many dems are abandoning status quo Clinton who is just a continuation of this garbage.
Given the price of oil has pretty much collapsed (though those in the industry would call it medium-term cyclical softness or some other BS like that) I don't think the US's rise to become one of the big oil producers played a big role. Plus, it's not like we doubled production or anything. We were only ever a couple percent behind the Saudis and Russians.
The mining sector contributed somewhat to the recovery, but there was a lot of growth in the service sectors, mostly around education and healthcare. I'm not sure where energy debt comes from. People bet wrongly on continuing growth in the energy sector, though some of them bet on the wrong horses (as mentioned, Peabody) in the race.
|
On September 06 2016 22:27 Toadesstern wrote:
honestly I'd probably put money on Trump winning for those odds as well. Don't think he's more likely to win than Clinton at all but 3.00 sounds fairly nice? PA sounds too rough for me though
Buy Trump shares as a hedge. 
On September 06 2016 22:35 Plansix wrote:
The weird part about the Brexit is that its betting odds were running contrary to polling, which showed it to be close. But still, if you have money to burn why not?
The fact that NC is in play still boggles my mind. What an election.
Brexit was a mind bogglingly stupid move on the part of the ruling coalition. It's the equivalent of just having won a war the election), your soldiers are tired and the members of your alliance are all irritated and squabbly and want their rewards and you decide to go to war again (y'know, just because). And you lose because your side is a mess.
|
Fox is settling with Carlson for 20 million
|
Seems about right. 20 million seems like a good amount for a company like Fox to pay, considering that will be one of many claims filed against them. That has to be one slam dunk case for it to be settled this fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
