EPTTL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
storm8ring3r
Germany227 Posts
| ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:36 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: How do you know this? And for the second question: I am saying that I seriously doubt that the Earth hasn't gone through periods of warming before. All this information is readily available if you're interested. I'd start at Wikipedia to get a general grasp and then move to the citations they use, which should be major scientific organizations and peer-reviewed journals. If you want to bypass Wiki entirely just go to the IPCC. | ||
|
MasterBlasterCaster
United States568 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:37 hmunkey wrote: Did he have any proof for any of the things he said? Because it sounds like this fellow was basically just rattling off conspiracy theories without any form of evidence and you believed him. Just because something someone says sounds cool doesn't make it true. But since you're already into believing things without proof, I have some amazing news to tell you -- in 12 days Santa Claus is going to bring you some presents! That's funny. Do you have any proof (and remember that you said PROOF) that climate change is anthropogenic? | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:39 storm8ring3r wrote: What is the incentive for a climate scientist to predict that everything is going to be okay They will be heavily funded by political bodies whose interest it is to disprove climate change. Since they would be a minority field, they'd likely have a very good market for it. | ||
|
MasterBlasterCaster
United States568 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:39 hmunkey wrote: All this information is readily available if you're interested. I'd start at Wikipedia to get a general grasp and then move to the citations they use, which should be major scientific organizations and peer-reviewed journals. If you want to bypass Wiki entirely just go to the IPCC. I thought the whole point of this thread was that they were going to answer my questions about it? I think it's complete bullshit. I think it's almost entirely made up. And considering that this is a scientific question, I have the default position. It is up to them to prove me wrong, not the other way around. They will be heavily funded by political bodies whose interest it is to disprove climate change. As opposed to being heavily funded by political bodies whose interest it is to "prove" climate change? | ||
|
IPA
United States3206 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
In a twist of irony, most of the environmentalists turn around and support the giant companies they so much rail against. Take for instance the Volt. The Volt is worse for the environment than a gas guzzling SUV, as are most of the electric centered technologies. Anyways, not sold that humans are causing climate change (which happens always, because the Earth is not static it is dynamic), and even if it were not sold that the effects are ceteris parabus bad. Still wondering what solutions are available if it is shown that 1) Earth is warming 2) The Sun is the cause (wow, I know, this is a stretch :p). What are we to do about the Sun? | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:41 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: That's funny. Do you have any proof (and remember that you said PROOF) that climate change is anthropogenic? Oops, sorry. When I said "proof" I didn't mean an absolute -- I meant evidence. The meaning doesn't really change though, but my post is a lot more clear this way. | ||
|
Aterons_toss
Romania1275 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:24 hmunkey wrote: This is actually a huge problem within the environmental movement. A lot of environmentalists seem to be driven by emotion, not science, since objectively speaking nuclear power is extremely safe and clean. It's important to make the distinction though -- environmentalists are not the same as scientists. This same rule applies for most popular movements. They just share some key views. For example, Al-Qaeda are not the same as mainstream Muslims. The Tea Party is not the same as Conservatism. The Occupy movement is not the same as the Communists. I could go on all day. It really just comes down to the fact that science is rooted in empirical fact and many environmentalists disregard that in the same way global warming deniers do. See that is exactly the problem. It is not the same as in your example. Al_Qaeda and Muslims dont share the view on killing ppl but they share the "main" view on " there is a thing living in the skies that decides what happens after we die. Tea Party and Conservatism share the core principle of " give god to the poor and money to the rich"...etc Environmentalists don't share the core view of " lets think about how we change ACTUALLY affects the Earth that we will most likely live on for another 2k + years" they rather think of " animals are cute and pollution is bad... because its bad" principles. So who is really to help the scientist, more then 50% of the ppl on this earth don't give a fuck due to religions and what not, more then 10% don't give a fuck cuz they don't give a fuck the rest of 30% are ether to stupid to care or just to poor to care/to poor to help ... the fact that science relays on found gained from ppl donating to save pandas from global warming is a temporary working method that won't work forever and isn't efficient enough. Again i am not arguing something should be change, nothing can be change, we just evolved to quickly in some ways ( we have 90% + of the ppl from EU and USA using cars/computer and only less then 1% that understand how they work for example ) due to some smart ppl giving them to the more stupid folk that likes in and is willing to pay a form of currency for it and other things such as climate change,space travel, alternative fuels and what not being ignored because they are simply not important shot-mid term and it is impossible to invest enough in them as soon as they become a problem ( aka if we start investing a few billions each year into global warming research in 15 years when its 3 degrees hotter and its starts being a problem it becomes 6 degrees hotter in 15 more years and after that methanol starts being eliminated from the ocean and we get a few more degrees added... and by the time it is a serious enough problem for "all" the money to be put into it we are long dead ) This is non blame, it is just the sad truth that some are born smart and some are not and we are attracted to follow the clever one that know how to talk rather then the intelligent one that know what he is talking about ( not sure if clever is the right term, but you get the idea i hope ).Part of me hopes that something can be done about this, the other knows nothing can be done about this. But i should stop rating now, is getting silly how long the pizza stayed in the oven -_- | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
| ||
|
Rhine
187 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:42 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I thought the whole point of this thread was that they were going to answer my questions about it? I think it's complete bullshit. I think it's almost entirely made up. And considering that this is a scientific question, I have the default position. It is up to them to prove me wrong, not the other way around. As opposed to being heavily funded by political bodies whose interest it is to "prove" climate change? How much work have you done to see what the science actually is? Stop reading second hand sources and youtube videos. Will you be satisfied if you see the current work in the field or will you dismiss it all because they are "heavily funded by political bodies" ? I'd hope it's the former. | ||
|
MasterBlasterCaster
United States568 Posts
I will also be MUCH more satisfied that day arrogant people stop assuming things about people they don't fucking know. For your information, I look for climate change supporters when I look for information on the subject; and most of the time I am flabbergasted by the utter hypocrisy and flat out lies that they peddle. So I guess you could say it happens like this: People come up with ridiculous theory that can't be proven correct or incorrect (like any good conspiracy theory) They point to the "evidence" behind it, while ignoring the counter-evidence. They assert that "every scientist agrees". (As if science was democratic) They assert that they don't NEED proof or that it doesn't NEED testing. They make models and then act as though that is evidence for anything. Then they act like a prick when you happen to question them on it. Then I stop giving a fuck. | ||
|
Carapas
Canada242 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:37 hmunkey wrote: Did he have any evidence for any of the things he said? Because it sounds like this fellow was basically just rattling off conspiracy theories without any form of evidence and you believed him. Just because something someone says sounds cool doesn't make it true. But since you're already into believing things without evidence, I have some amazing news to tell you -- in 12 days Santa Claus is going to bring you some presents! Edit: Changed proof to evidence because the word proof implies an absolute. Well, he presented two research one made by some guys from the MIT and another from some governemental scientist and the results were severely opposed, and when you look at the motivations between a group of students who have nothing to gain and a group of scientists who are hired by the governement. You can see who has the most to gain from an alarmist research, the one who are hired from the governement because if they have alarmist results they will get more money to do research and stuff. About the CO2, I remember that the main point was that oversatured CO2 in the atmosphere does nothing because it's effect are given by a log function. Thus, CO2 is essential to keep the earth hot but if you add a shit ton of CO2 in the atmosphere it will almost have no effect on the climat. Plus, it is well known that H2O is the most important molecule in the greenhouse effect. Finally, there is some misconception about where the earth gets it heat. Sure the main source is the sun, but if there wasn't any radioactivity under our feets we would not be here. If the earth had a thickness of granite of 20 km all over its surface, over a year the quantity of heat released by these rock would equal a nuclear bomb of 250 000 megatons. And god knows granite is not the most radioactive matter on earth. Also, the comprehension of the extragalactic physics is small, as you may know 74 % of the universe is made of dark energy, but what do we know about it? almost nothing. What doesn't tell us there some unknown phenomenon affect the heat of our planet? | ||
|
3DGlaDOS
Germany607 Posts
I don't know all the facts but the fact that these climate change forecasts are based on climate models that don't actually always work makes me suspicious about this theme. This was also stated in the World Climate Report (If you want to I'll look for a source). People don't fully trust weather forecasts but they are ready to pay a lot of money to "save the climate" (or maybe that's only the case in Germany). But even apart from the scientific facts, wouldn't it be cheaper to just let the climate change happen? Why should it only have negative consequences? Imagine a green Sibira or Korea... Edit: I mean I'm annoyed by this in media/school but I'm glad somebody actually answers questions here :D | ||
|
Notfragile
Greece713 Posts
On December 14 2011 05:11 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I will be satisfied when it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are causing climate change. Not when we find indications that when taken a certain way can possibly maybe just might happen to point to what could be human caused climate change; but when taken another way, don't support that conclusion at all. I will also be MUCH more satisfied that day arrogant people stop assuming things about people they don't fucking know. For your information, I look for climate change supporters when I look for information on the subject; and most of the time I am flabbergasted by the utter hypocrisy and flat out lies that they peddle. So I guess you could say it happens like this: People come up with ridiculous theory that can't be proven correct or incorrect (like any good conspiracy theory) They point to the "evidence" behind it, while ignoring the counter-evidence. They assert that "every scientist agrees". (As if science was democratic) They assert that they don't NEED proof or that it doesn't NEED testing. They make models and then act as though that is evidence for anything. Then they act like a prick when you happen to question them on it. Then I stop giving a fuck. The OP is really polite and helpful. And answering to a lot of posts. I do not think that he belongs in that sequence of events you described. And dude, are you a scientist? Write down your qualifications, before you can question the output of the majority of planet's scientific community. What can support your "i don't support the conclusion at all"? If you could provide us with your level of expertise on the matter it would prove really helpful for OP to answer directly to your level. Also, thanks for the wonderful effort. I really want to know where OP finds time and will to continue arguing with people who bluntly deny what evidence you put in front of them. | ||
|
Iodem
United States1173 Posts
My primary skepticism on climate change is because world governments(though I'm primarily focused on the US government) don't seem to take climate change seriously, while touting that they do. If world governments seriously wanted to do something about climate change, they'd force a switch to nuclear(which is the most viable clean energy source we have right now) while continuing to fund wind/solar/biomass/geothermal/etc. research and development. Solar and Wind just isn't viable yet, so there's no point to make the switch right now and waste billions of dollars on subsidies for using nonviable energy sources. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:58 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has taken a sharp turn toward the ignorant since the OP left. Hopefully he'll return before it becomes a complete waste of time like so many other discussions on this topic. Actually, it will be a waste of time either way. In fact, even if we were able to convince every single person that ever visits this thread that man-made global warming is real, it would still be a waste of time because there truly isn't a legitimate solution to the problem yet. So long as population increases, so long as more nations industrialize, so long as we don't have a severe global economic depression, CO2 emissions worldwide will simply continue to increase. The real denial is believing government can do anything to stop it. | ||
|
MasterBlasterCaster
United States568 Posts
On December 14 2011 05:25 Notfragile wrote: The OP is really polite and helpful. And answering to a lot of posts. I do not think that he belongs in that sequence of events you described. And dude, are you a scientist? Write down your qualifications, before you can question the output of the majority of planet's scientific community. What can support your "i don't support the conclusion at all"? If you could provide us with your level of expertise on the matter it would prove really helpful for OP to answer directly to your level. Also, thanks for the wonderful effort. I really want to know where OP finds time and will to continue arguing with people who bluntly deny what evidence you put in front of them. I wasn't talking about the OP. I was talking about the guy before me who assumed he knew anything about me. Everyone is a scientist. And guess what: science is not based on consensus. It doesn't matter who says it or doesn't. If it is not proven than it is nothing I need to worry about. My expertise is entirely irrelevant. It is either true or it isn't. If you had proof, you would give it. You don't have proof, so you are incapable of giving it, so I am incapable of caring. I haven't had one tiny shred of evidence put in front of me. So far I've had the unsourced words of someone, and a "go to Wikipedia". Exactly why should I care about that? | ||
|
TotalNightmare
Germany139 Posts
Another argument that might be this one: History proves that there has been global warming multiple times on this planet and species always adapted, so why worry? | ||
|
forgottendreams
United States1771 Posts
On December 14 2011 05:28 liberal wrote: Actually, it will be a waste of time either way. In fact, even if we were able to convince every single person that ever visits this thread that man-made global warming is real, it would still be a waste of time because there truly isn't a legitimate solution to the problem yet. So long as population increases, so long as more nations industrialize, so long as we don't have a severe global economic depression, CO2 emissions worldwide will simply continue to increase. The real denial is believing government can do anything to stop it. Countries don't just permanently industrialize, eventually a country enters a post-industrial period marked by a demographic transition of declining birthrates and shift of economy specialization. While this holds true for almost all of Europe and the U.S. soon, nobody is quite sure if the demographic transition continually holds although there is no evidence to contradict this yet (maybe lone exception being Ireland, although one small country is not enough to discredit it). You could be wrong in alot of ways; firstly it's likely all countries will eventually industrialize, secondly that governments will do something about C02; the EU is already in extensive long-term negotiations about drastic emissions overhaul by 2050. Apparently the rumor is the big cats in D.C. are in similar long term negotiations too (I think both the EU and the U.S. are purposely waiting for an unstable oil market period 20~ years after peak oil). Lastly it's very possible the entire global population will eventually meet declining birthrates. | ||
| ||
