|
On August 08 2013 06:25 Freak705 wrote:
Science isn't strictly democratic - but any capable scientist will review the work done in their field, critically evaluate it, and put it in place with the rest of the knowledge comprising what is known of the field. When 99% of scientists in a field have rationally evaluated the peer-reviewed evidence for and against a particular theory, and come to the same conclusion, that generally speaks in favour of the validity of that theory's predictive abilities.
Granted, however, the number is not near 99% for global warming. Even the oft-sourced 97% number used faulty methodology.
|
On August 08 2013 06:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 05:53 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote:
It matters what the scientific consensus is amongst those within the field of study. Wrong. What matters is the actual fact of evidence, not some cherry-picked or real consensus. Science is not a democratic process.
And what would you define as facts in this field? We are dealing with something where there will never be evidence of an upcoming disaster before it is already there! Climate is relative and change is happening slowly, dont trust the 97 %, they are conspirators, fake experts and cherry picking their way to fame!
|
On August 08 2013 06:28 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 06:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 08 2013 05:53 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote:
It matters what the scientific consensus is amongst those within the field of study. Wrong. What matters is the actual fact of evidence, not some cherry-picked or real consensus. Science is not a democratic process. And what would you define as facts in this field? We are dealing with something where there will never be evidence of an upcoming disaster before it is already there! Climate is relative and change is happening slowly, dont trust the 97 %, they are conspirators, fake experts and cherry picking their way to fame!
The fact that you 1) admit that there is no evidence of a "coming disaster" and that there will be none, and 2) cite the already debunked 97% claim, is telling.
|
On August 08 2013 06:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 06:10 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote:On August 08 2013 06:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 08 2013 05:53 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote:
It matters what the scientific consensus is amongst those within the field of study. Wrong. What matters is the actual fact of evidence, not some cherry-picked or real consensus. Science is not a democratic process. No, you are wrong about how science works. I'd list my credentials but I would sound like a douchebag, so lets just say I'm a scientist. Go ahead and list your credentials. So science is a democratic process?
Science works by consensus, not vote, so I wouldn't call it democratic. Any one scientific finding in isolation is not meaningful until the results are replicated, preferably using different techniques in isolation. Powerful conclusions can only be drawn in science when researchers arrive at the same conclusions independently (starting from different observations, using different ways to measure things, and then even analyzing the data in different ways). Eventually, you reach a point where the entire field has accepted a new finding (but this is not to say it might be disproven later), and this a consensus.
You invoke "facts" as something anyone can interpret on their own. The issue is that it is very difficult to understand the full implications of any one "observation" unless you are well-versed in how the measurement was made, how the statistics were done, and what other outstanding variables might you be failing to recognize, etc.
I only said I was a scientist to try to avoid going into the above explanation. But there it is.
|
On August 08 2013 06:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 06:10 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote:On August 08 2013 06:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 08 2013 05:53 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote:
It matters what the scientific consensus is amongst those within the field of study. Wrong. What matters is the actual fact of evidence, not some cherry-picked or real consensus. Science is not a democratic process. No, you are wrong about how science works. I'd list my credentials but I would sound like a douchebag, so lets just say I'm a scientist. Go ahead and list your credentials. So science is a democratic process?
It is peer reviewed.
|
On August 08 2013 06:04 Napoleon53 wrote:
Ecosystems surely collapse all the time. But it is not really an argument. You could use the same logic about nuclear waste. Why would mass nuclear bombing be a problem, when nature evolve anyway?
My point is that global warming could potentially lead to unseen disasters. I'm not talking about a 2% decrease in the mosquito population ^^.
Of course it's an argument. I'm stating that trying to stop environmental change is absolutely futile, and to stop what-if'ing about the climate. Nuclear explosions don't go on every day, and the few reactions that do exist every day are not threatening to the human race. Nuclear warfare is.
I'm not very extreme about "keeping the climate stable". Everybody knows that climate change all the time, and a natural ice age is probably going to be a problem within the next thousands of years. I just do not see any reason to provoke the ecosystems badly by multiplying the CO2-lvls, when it is not really needed, and easily can be avoided in some extent.
Can you show exactly how multiplying CO2 levels affects the environment "badly"? If an ice age is happening soon, isn't a warmer climate to offset the ice ages better? I don't really know all the intricacies involved, and I'm pretty sure scientists don't have accurate models either. Or rather, some claim they have one accurate model another claims they have the better one, etc.
And yeah, of course fossil fuels are going to run out, I'm not saying they won't, I won't really care if or when they do. We already have the foundations of the tech to exist without oil, but they're simply not being developed because oil is cheaper and more efficient. When that changes, we'll get more tech.
I like to avoid unneccesary disasters. We got all the information. We could invest in improving the technology right now. But you prefer to wait after a crisis.... Why not just fricking do that technology leap now, instead of gambling with the human race. oh I forgot.. you like 8V car.
Inertia. Without a driving force, there is less effort involved. You can try all you like to get non-fossil fuel technologies developed but without a shortage breathing down your neck, there's really no incentive to push for it. It's not particularly gambling - we're not fully dependent upon oil.
|
On August 08 2013 06:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 06:28 radiatoren wrote:On August 08 2013 06:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 08 2013 05:53 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote:
It matters what the scientific consensus is amongst those within the field of study. Wrong. What matters is the actual fact of evidence, not some cherry-picked or real consensus. Science is not a democratic process. And what would you define as facts in this field? We are dealing with something where there will never be evidence of an upcoming disaster before it is already there! Climate is relative and change is happening slowly, dont trust the 97 %, they are conspirators, fake experts and cherry picking their way to fame! The fact that you 1) admit that there is no evidence of a "coming disaster" and that there will be none, and 2) cite the already debunked 97% claim, is telling.
1) I admit that in your universe evidence cannot exist on this issue. I believe in looking at the strongest indications and those are becoming more and more settled.
2) Telling of someone not following this specific discussion, sure!
|
The fact that there was a time when temperatures and/or CO2 levels were higher, with a relative abundance of life, does not mean we will be able as organisms to live through similar conditions. This thread is just a trainwreck, but I have to say my peace lol. The fact is that we are causing rapid climate change, that's something we know.
It's kind of funny that people cite extant prehistoric conditions with ecosystemic abundance as reasons we should not be worried, as they're basically claiming that the prior existence of prehistoric conditions unsuitable for human life are indication that similar replicated conditions in modernity would ultimately be harmless--the catch, of course, being that they don't realize that those environments would not be hospitable to the human population, at its current level.
Somewhat related to that, assertions that the Earth will be able to adapt to climate change and move on are probably true. It's just probably going to move on without us (and whatever species we take with us to extinction, which is a separate ethical matter). If climate change doesn't wipe us out, as a species we will still be massively reduced in numbers. I'd have to go samizmad's way and say that in this regard, our lack of completely knowledge with regard to the infinitely complex mechanisms of the environment means a large uncertainty in certain details, but the general gist of the narrative is pretty clear I should think, and it doesn't mean we should be continually striving to understand more.
|
On August 08 2013 06:48 Aerisky wrote:
The fact is that we are causing rapid climate change, that's something we know.
how do we know that?
|
I am concerned solely with the ramifications of observed shifts in the biosphere, which remain to an extent nebulous, and am not interested in disputing the reality of said changes [or lack thereof], or their connection to humanity. However, Wikipedia has an excellent collection/list of indicators which you may read, and choose yourself to accept or dismiss on either front (meaning existence as well as anthropogenesis).
|
Well i hope humanity can tech out of what´s coming(when and if something is coming) but i doubt it. I doubt because the tech we need don´t bring money. Now. Therefore, if at all, the technologies will only be there in the last moments of human man kind.
love free economics and the white man ♥
|
On August 08 2013 06:52 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 06:48 Aerisky wrote:
The fact is that we are causing rapid climate change, that's something we know.
how do we know that?
We know because there is a vast amount of evidence leading to a strong scientific consensus. It is the same reason we "know" anything scientific. "Know" doesn't try to assert 100% certainty but close to it. No one is gonna waste time laying the evidence out for you.
|
On August 08 2013 06:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 06:25 Freak705 wrote:
Science isn't strictly democratic - but any capable scientist will review the work done in their field, critically evaluate it, and put it in place with the rest of the knowledge comprising what is known of the field. When 99% of scientists in a field have rationally evaluated the peer-reviewed evidence for and against a particular theory, and come to the same conclusion, that generally speaks in favour of the validity of that theory's predictive abilities. Granted, however, the number is not near 99% for global warming. Even the oft-sourced 97% number used faulty methodology.
This quibbling about the exact number is irrelevant. There are close to a dozen polls or surveys done to analyze what the opinions of scientists are concerning man-made climate change. You can read them yourself on Wikipedia here: Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.
Suffice to say it is >90% at the minimum. That is, the vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is real, anthropogenic, and they are generally consistent with the conclusions made by the IPCC.
I think its important to remind people how the increase in carbon dioxide will affect us, as there are many people here who think that models are unreliable and that maybe we'll get increased vegetation and farmland in the northern areas, and that the future may be some kind of perpetual tropical paradise. I thought it would be good to show people what one of the *modest* models predict in a study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research indirectly linked through this think progress article, called "Drought under global warming: a review". The findings can be summarized by the following image and a quote from the IPCC Extreme Weather Report:
![[image loading]](http://www.countercurrents.org/OceanLabels_0.jpg)
The Palmer Drought Severity Index on a “moderate” warming path (via NCAR, click to enlarge). “A reading of -4 or below is considered extreme drought.” During the 1930s Dust Bowl, the PDSI spiked briefly to -6 but rarely exceeded -3. We probably can’t stop this, but we can avert far, far worse post-2050 (see below).
...
The UK Met Office came to a similar view four years ago in their analysis, projecting severe drought over 40% of the Earth’s habited landmass by century’s end (see “The Century of Drought“).
In 2007, Science (subs. req’d) published research that “predicted a permanent drought by 2050 throughout the Southwest” — levels of aridity comparable to the 1930s Dust Bowl would stretch from Kansas to California. And they were also only looking at a 720 ppm case.
Now maybe technology will become incredibly advanced about 50 years from now, and maybe geoengineering will save us without wrecking the planet due to unforeseen consequences. But I don't think anyone would argue that we should become wholly dependent on a technological breakthrough.
|
Theres only two ways you arrest global climate change provided it exists:
1) Massive economic controls that inhibit liberty and economic growth, depreciating the quality of all of our existence. Not wanted and not likely to occur, because it requires a global concerted effort.
2) The market finds alternatives on its own and replaces the technology gradually.
So this thread, really, seems strange to me, because if your not arguing 1 [and if you are, your crazy], what is there to discuss? Simply express our hope that 2 occurs quickly?
Either way, Canada is going to benefit from any global warming so I'm not particularly invested in any solution regardless.
|
For those of you who are are anti science in this thread there is a good lecture by Noam Chomsky on corporate influence on teaching climate change denial
+ Show Spoiler +
facts are here, corporations trying to commit greatest genocide in history to maximize profits.
|
On August 08 2013 09:05 Dazed_Spy wrote:
Theres only two ways you arrest global climate change provided it exists:
1) Massive economic controls that inhibit liberty and economic growth, depreciating the quality of all of our existence. Not wanted and not likely to occur, because it requires a global concerted effort.
2) The market finds alternatives on its own and replaces the technology gradually.
So this thread, really, seems strange to me, because if your not arguing 1 [and if you are, your crazy], what is there to discuss? Simply express our hope that 2 occurs quickly?
Either way, Canada is going to benefit from any global warming so I'm not particularly invested in any solution regardless.
There is also the third option: climate geoengineering. It will likely be orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to reduce fossil fuel use, but may have other drawbacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering
|
To those denying climate science, let me explain it to you very simply:
1. CO2 is the only potent greenhouse gas in for its spectral range (water, methane etc are greenhouse gases responsible for different spectral ranges).
2. If you calculate the amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere by summing all up to date coal, oil and gas consumption, it will be similar the the amount of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere (the calculation is made here, you can double-check all numbers: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/recipe-for-climate-change/). Therefore CO2 levels have nearly doubled during the last few decades. All other things related to CO2 changed to smaller extent.
1+2 means that we cause climate change primarily by burning fossil fuels.
Having said that, I believe that climate geoengineering (potentially very inexpensive way to control climate) has to be explored more, and that its drawbacks have to be better evaluated.
Also although I am a scientist, I think that Climate Change topic is blown way out of proportion. In my personal list, Climate Change does NOT make it into top 10 most important humanity's problems, although it probably does make it into top 20. There is a number of potentially more severe issues than Climate Change, and they are given very little coverage in mass media.
|
On August 08 2013 09:31 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:05 Dazed_Spy wrote:
Theres only two ways you arrest global climate change provided it exists:
1) Massive economic controls that inhibit liberty and economic growth, depreciating the quality of all of our existence. Not wanted and not likely to occur, because it requires a global concerted effort.
2) The market finds alternatives on its own and replaces the technology gradually.
So this thread, really, seems strange to me, because if your not arguing 1 [and if you are, your crazy], what is there to discuss? Simply express our hope that 2 occurs quickly?
Either way, Canada is going to benefit from any global warming so I'm not particularly invested in any solution regardless. There is also the third option: climate geoengineering. It will likely be orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to reduce fossil fuel use, but may have other drawbacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering Actually, yeah, I've heard of some of this, like the iron fertilization to make 'dead' parts of the sea productive again. Oddly, it resulted in a bunch of environmental law cases [up here in Canada] that have yet to be resolved.
|
On August 08 2013 06:30 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 06:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 08 2013 06:10 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote:On August 08 2013 06:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 08 2013 05:53 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote:
It matters what the scientific consensus is amongst those within the field of study. Wrong. What matters is the actual fact of evidence, not some cherry-picked or real consensus. Science is not a democratic process. No, you are wrong about how science works. I'd list my credentials but I would sound like a douchebag, so lets just say I'm a scientist. Go ahead and list your credentials. So science is a democratic process? Science works by consensus, not vote, so I wouldn't call it democratic. Any one scientific finding in isolation is not meaningful until the results are replicated, preferably using different techniques in isolation. Powerful conclusions can only be drawn in science when researchers arrive at the same conclusions independently (starting from different observations, using different ways to measure things, and then even analyzing the data in different ways). Eventually, you reach a point where the entire field has accepted a new finding (but this is not to say it might be disproven later), and this a consensus.
This last sentence proves my point. Consensus only tells us one thing: that a majority of scientists in the field who are polled agree with the theory. It says nothing whatsoever about why they believe it, if they are correct in believing it, or even if the polling data is not being skewed. Most of all, it only raises the likelihood that something is true, it does not make something that isn't true, true.
You invoke "facts" as something anyone can interpret on their own. The issue is that it is very difficult to understand the full implications of any one "observation" unless you are well-versed in how the measurement was made, how the statistics were done, and what other outstanding variables might you be failing to recognize, etc.
Facts are something people can interpret. Whether on their own or not is irrelevant, I said nothing about it. The issue is that a theory that has a great many flaws, has been shown to be wildly overblown in many instances, is almost unfalsifiable, and further is being pushed with a religious fervor, is being used as a basis for advocating massive industrial overhauls and severe limitations on the economy and on free-choice among the citizens and businesses. There is good reason for the lay-man AND the scientist to be concerned with the theory and it's validity, and to be doubtful of it.
I only said I was a scientist to try to avoid going into the above explanation. But there it is.
I don't understand this but... okay?
|
On August 08 2013 09:39 Alex1Sun wrote:To those denying climate science, let me explain it to you very simply: 1. CO2 is the only potent greenhouse gas in for its spectral range (water, methane etc are greenhouse gases responsible for different spectral ranges). 2. If you calculate the amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere by summing all up to date coal, oil and gas consumption, it will be similar the the amount of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere (the calculation is made here, you can double-check all numbers: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/recipe-for-climate-change/). Therefore CO2 levels have nearly doubled during the last few decades. All other things related to CO2 changed to smaller extent. 1+2 means that we cause climate change primarily by burning fossil fuels. Having said that, I believe that climate geoengineering (potentially very inexpensive way to control climate) has to be explored more, and that its drawbacks have to be better evaluated. Also although I am a scientist, I think that Climate Change topic is blown way out of proportion. In my personal list, Climate Change does NOT make it into top 10 most important humanity's problems, although it probably does make it into top 20. There is a number of potentially more severe issues than Climate Change, and they are given very little coverage in mass media.
I agree with you (as far as I can tell). I have long thought climate engineering is the best way to address global climate change, for many reasons. At the same time, I too find the emphasis on climate change too large. There are a number of bigger problems that we could solve with much more noticeable consequences, possibly with less effort as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
