independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 23rd Apr 2018 6:02am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Trump's PC Police Purging The Term 'Climate Change'
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 08/28/17 11:14am

SanMartin

avatar

TweetyV6 said:


I sincerely challenge you to dive into the 'overwhelming majority' claim.
Where does it come from and especially how was the '97% consensus' constructed.

If you have any feeling for the scientific principle, you'll see that the figure is close to worthless.
In my opinion it's close to criminal to use that figure.
But it makes a nice 'discussion silencer': 97% of the scientists say that you're wrong. Now STFU.


Then I challenge you to look into the raw data for the surface data regarding 'global' temperature (what exactly is that?)
Ask yourself the following questions: How are these data collected? Since when? Where? What is the accuracy of each individual data-set? What has happened with the stations? How often have the data sets been homogenised and if, why? Are here gaps in tha data-sets? How have these been accounted for?

If you have done that, then ask yourself: Is tha data set as presented by the climate alarmists realy fit to predict temperature trends of +0,248 degrees Celcius per decade? Or is the margin of error larger then the predicted trend and, if I'm honest, cannot make such predictions based on that particular data set?

You can start here: http://www.surfacestations.org/
And if you'd like to spend some money & time, read this: https://www.nap.edu/catal...ng-systems


I didn't know there was a specific claim of 97%. I looked it up, and for anyone reading this who's interested, the following article is a short and concise summary of the issue: https://www.scientificame...l-warming/


According to that article at least, the methodology and exact figure of 97% are what are questioned by critics within the scientific community, not the general idea that most scientists accept the existence of manmade climate change.


I haven't studied geography or any of the natural sciences since secondary school, so whilst I do appreciate the fact that you're trying to have a reasoned debate, I'm afraid I simply lack the technical knowledge to be able to carry out any of the kinds of investigation into data sets and what-have-you that you suggest.


That's the problem for me and for most people. Since we don't have the expertise to evaluate the raw data ourselves, the rational option is simply to go with what the majority of climate scientists think.

[Edited 8/28/17 11:18am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 08/28/17 11:05pm

TweetyV6

avatar

SanMartin said:

TweetyV6 said:


I sincerely challenge you to dive into the 'overwhelming majority' claim.
Where does it come from and especially how was the '97% consensus' constructed.

If you have any feeling for the scientific principle, you'll see that the figure is close to worthless.
In my opinion it's close to criminal to use that figure.
But it makes a nice 'discussion silencer': 97% of the scientists say that you're wrong. Now STFU.


Then I challenge you to look into the raw data for the surface data regarding 'global' temperature (what exactly is that?)
Ask yourself the following questions: How are these data collected? Since when? Where? What is the accuracy of each individual data-set? What has happened with the stations? How often have the data sets been homogenised and if, why? Are here gaps in tha data-sets? How have these been accounted for?

If you have done that, then ask yourself: Is tha data set as presented by the climate alarmists realy fit to predict temperature trends of +0,248 degrees Celcius per decade? Or is the margin of error larger then the predicted trend and, if I'm honest, cannot make such predictions based on that particular data set?

You can start here: http://www.surfacestations.org/
And if you'd like to spend some money & time, read this: https://www.nap.edu/catal...ng-systems


I didn't know there was a specific claim of 97%. I looked it up, and for anyone reading this who's interested, the following article is a short and concise summary of the issue: https://www.scientificame...l-warming/


According to that article at least, the methodology and exact figure of 97% are what are questioned by critics within the scientific community, not the general idea that most scientists accept the existence of manmade climate change.


I haven't studied geography or any of the natural sciences since secondary school, so whilst I do appreciate the fact that you're trying to have a reasoned debate, I'm afraid I simply lack the technical knowledge to be able to carry out any of the kinds of investigation into data sets and what-have-you that you suggest.


That's the problem for me and for most people. Since we don't have the expertise to evaluate the raw data ourselves, the rational option is simply to go with what the majority of climate scientists think.

[Edited 8/28/17 11:18am]


Thank you for your unbiased reply. I also appreciate to have a reasoned debate. Doesn't happen here too often.

From my profession (I'm the head of the quality department of a multinational company in the aerospace business; we supply airplane parts) I do have to judge data very critical as my judgement of data can involve the saftey of peoples lives. I have to make sure that I can rely on data. I need to be convinced by engineers that the data they present are robust.
Having said that, I'm no statitician, we do have people and software in the house whom are far more better qualified then I am in statistical research. But I do have a degree in Chemical Technology which mainly is a combination of the science of chemical and physical processes.

Here's what's wrong with the surface temperature data.

Record length
You often hear that 'it's a record warm year' or the hottest year on record. Then often it's mentioned that temperatures are measured from the 1850's on.

Fact is that there are currently about 2000 weather stations 'world wide'.
None of those has a record lenght >130 years and only about 300 stations have a record length between 120-130 years. These are ALL located in the eastern US and west-Europe.

Number of stations & coverage
Currently, there are about 2000 weather stations. At 1975-1980 it were about 6000.
Of the 2000 stations we have now, 40% is located in the US.
Currently 20 percent of the Northern Hemisphere and 25 percent of Southern Hemisphere has no coverage. So from 45% of the earths landmass we don't have any current data at all.

Sampling Frequency
Before 1980, there were no rules on how often and at which time the temperature of the stations should be recorded. After 1980 it was agreed that there should be a hourly sampling frequency of which the average temperature for that day would be determined.
Other issue is the gaps in temperature readings (e.g. during WW1 and WW2) if at all, these have been filled afterwards, often by interpolation or simply guessing

Accuracy of the equipment
In 2002, the USHCN (US Historical Climatology Network) and NOAA have surveyed about 82% of the US weatherstations reporting temperature data for their accuracy. (1007 of 1221 stations)
There are 5 classes of station layout and data accuracy:
Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.

Outcome of the survey:
Only 7.9% of the USHCN stations have an accuracy of =<1 deg. C (CRN1 and CRN2)
64.4% have an accuracy between 2 and 5 deg. C

I leave it to your imagination if this figure would be higher or lower for other non-western countries.


Changes to existing datasets
Regulary, the existing dataset per station is homogenised because of a change to the equipment or its direct environment. Recent observations indicate that in the last couple of years these homogenisations have increased in frequency and that the dataset after homogenisation shows more warming then before.
An example is the homogensation of the off...ature data in 2016 where the temperatures between 1900 and 1952 suddenly were significantly lower (almost 2 deg. C!!) then before the homogenisation hence the trend showed a more significant warming.


If you have taken the time to read all this, I leave it to your own judgement wheter or not it's reasonable to talk about global warming of 2-5 degrees Celcius per century (0.02 -0.05 deg. C per year)


___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 08/29/17 2:13am

SanMartin

avatar

TweetyV6 said:


Thank you for your unbiased reply. I also appreciate to have a reasoned debate. Doesn't happen here too often.

From my profession (I'm the head of the quality department of a multinational company in the aerospace business; we supply airplane parts) I do have to judge data very critical as my judgement of data can involve the saftey of peoples lives. I have to make sure that I can rely on data. I need to be convinced by engineers that the data they present are robust.
Having said that, I'm no statitician, we do have people and software in the house whom are far more better qualified then I am in statistical research. But I do have a degree in Chemical Technology which mainly is a combination of the science of chemical and physical processes.

Here's what's wrong with the surface temperature data.

Record length
You often hear that 'it's a record warm year' or the hottest year on record. Then often it's mentioned that temperatures are measured from the 1850's on.

Fact is that there are currently about 2000 weather stations 'world wide'.
None of those has a record lenght >130 years and only about 300 stations have a record length between 120-130 years. These are ALL located in the eastern US and west-Europe.

Number of stations & coverage
Currently, there are about 2000 weather stations. At 1975-1980 it were about 6000.
Of the 2000 stations we have now, 40% is located in the US.
Currently 20 percent of the Northern Hemisphere and 25 percent of Southern Hemisphere has no coverage. So from 45% of the earths landmass we don't have any current data at all.

Sampling Frequency
Before 1980, there were no rules on how often and at which time the temperature of the stations should be recorded. After 1980 it was agreed that there should be a hourly sampling frequency of which the average temperature for that day would be determined.
Other issue is the gaps in temperature readings (e.g. during WW1 and WW2) if at all, these have been filled afterwards, often by interpolation or simply guessing

Accuracy of the equipment
In 2002, the USHCN (US Historical Climatology Network) and NOAA have surveyed about 82% of the US weatherstations reporting temperature data for their accuracy. (1007 of 1221 stations)
There are 5 classes of station layout and data accuracy:
Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.

Outcome of the survey:
Only 7.9% of the USHCN stations have an accuracy of =<1 deg. C (CRN1 and CRN2)
64.4% have an accuracy between 2 and 5 deg. C

I leave it to your imagination if this figure would be higher or lower for other non-western countries.


Changes to existing datasets
Regulary, the existing dataset per station is homogenised because of a change to the equipment or its direct environment. Recent observations indicate that in the last couple of years these homogenisations have increased in frequency and that the dataset after homogenisation shows more warming then before.
An example is the homogensation of the off...ature data in 2016 where the temperatures between 1900 and 1952 suddenly were significantly lower (almost 2 deg. C!!) then before the homogenisation hence the trend showed a more significant warming.


If you have taken the time to read all this, I leave it to your own judgement wheter or not it's reasonable to talk about global warming of 2-5 degrees Celcius per century (0.02 -0.05 deg. C per year)


Sounds like you have an interesting job! In my hometown there's a fairly important aerospace firm called Dowty (just in case you've heard of it; I've been told that Dowty's well-known in the industry).


You clearly have a better grasp on the science behind the debate than I do, and taken on its own, your argument makes a lot of sense. Of course, the problem is that when I googled the surface temperature record and found the following rebuttal to your position, it also made a lot of sense: https://www.skepticalscie...vanced.htm


I don't mean to use that link as a "haha, you're wrong" smackdown, but rather as an example of the dilemma I mentioned before: non-specialists like myself and, I daresay, most of the population aren't in a position to reliably analyse the hard science behind climate change, so we simply have to go with what the experts tell us. Call me a sheep if you like, but short of going back to uni and getting a meteorology degree, there's not much else I can do.

There's probably not much point in continuing to debate this right now. In this single thread, it seems unlikely that either of us will fully convince the other. However, you have got me thinking, so you can take that as a victory smile



  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 08/29/17 2:54am

TweetyV6

avatar

SanMartin said:

TweetyV6 said:


Thank you for your unbiased reply. I also appreciate to have a reasoned debate. Doesn't happen here too often.

From my profession (I'm the head of the quality department of a multinational company in the aerospace business; we supply airplane parts) I do have to judge data very critical as my judgement of data can involve the saftey of peoples lives. I have to make sure that I can rely on data. I need to be convinced by engineers that the data they present are robust.
Having said that, I'm no statitician, we do have people and software in the house whom are far more better qualified then I am in statistical research. But I do have a degree in Chemical Technology which mainly is a combination of the science of chemical and physical processes.

Here's what's wrong with the surface temperature data.

Record length
You often hear that 'it's a record warm year' or the hottest year on record. Then often it's mentioned that temperatures are measured from the 1850's on.

Fact is that there are currently about 2000 weather stations 'world wide'.
None of those has a record lenght >130 years and only about 300 stations have a record length between 120-130 years. These are ALL located in the eastern US and west-Europe.

Number of stations & coverage
Currently, there are about 2000 weather stations. At 1975-1980 it were about 6000.
Of the 2000 stations we have now, 40% is located in the US.
Currently 20 percent of the Northern Hemisphere and 25 percent of Southern Hemisphere has no coverage. So from 45% of the earths landmass we don't have any current data at all.

Sampling Frequency
Before 1980, there were no rules on how often and at which time the temperature of the stations should be recorded. After 1980 it was agreed that there should be a hourly sampling frequency of which the average temperature for that day would be determined.
Other issue is the gaps in temperature readings (e.g. during WW1 and WW2) if at all, these have been filled afterwards, often by interpolation or simply guessing

Accuracy of the equipment
In 2002, the USHCN (US Historical Climatology Network) and NOAA have surveyed about 82% of the US weatherstations reporting temperature data for their accuracy. (1007 of 1221 stations)
There are 5 classes of station layout and data accuracy:
Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.

Outcome of the survey:
Only 7.9% of the USHCN stations have an accuracy of =<1 deg. C (CRN1 and CRN2)
64.4% have an accuracy between 2 and 5 deg. C

I leave it to your imagination if this figure would be higher or lower for other non-western countries.


Changes to existing datasets
Regulary, the existing dataset per station is homogenised because of a change to the equipment or its direct environment. Recent observations indicate that in the last couple of years these homogenisations have increased in frequency and that the dataset after homogenisation shows more warming then before.
An example is the homogensation of the off...ature data in 2016 where the temperatures between 1900 and 1952 suddenly were significantly lower (almost 2 deg. C!!) then before the homogenisation hence the trend showed a more significant warming.


If you have taken the time to read all this, I leave it to your own judgement wheter or not it's reasonable to talk about global warming of 2-5 degrees Celcius per century (0.02 -0.05 deg. C per year)


Sounds like you have an interesting job! In my hometown there's a fairly important aerospace firm called Dowty (just in case you've heard of it; I've been told that Dowty's well-known in the industry).


You clearly have a better grasp on the science behind the debate than I do, and taken on its own, your argument makes a lot of sense. Of course, the problem is that when I googled the surface temperature record and found the following rebuttal to your position, it also made a lot of sense: https://www.skepticalscie...vanced.htm


I don't mean to use that link as a "haha, you're wrong" smackdown, but rather as an example of the dilemma I mentioned before: non-specialists like myself and, I daresay, most of the population aren't in a position to reliably analyse the hard science behind climate change, so we simply have to go with what the experts tell us. Call me a sheep if you like, but short of going back to uni and getting a meteorology degree, there's not much else I can do.

There's probably not much point in continuing to debate this right now. In this single thread, it seems unlikely that either of us will fully convince the other. However, you have got me thinking, so you can take that as a victory smile


I know Dowty. They make propellers and are a competitor to my previous employer, Hamilton Sundstrand.

It's not about victories, I only try to make people understand that there's more context to the temperature data then most people are aware of.

As for your link to the skeptical science page; I don't deny what they're telling there is incorrect.
But they only adress the issue of homogenisation. There are accepted methods to do the homogenisation, no discussion about that either. The discussion is wther or not these homogenisations are necessary and, if the right asumptions are made.
"coincidentally" the majority of the homogenisations 'produce' a more significant warming. wink

But what isn't disputed on the website are the simple facts of record length, coverage, sampling frequency and accuracy of the weather stations.
Those are simple facts which cannot be disputed. But one can choose to ignore them eek

And it has nothing to do with scientific understanding but more with common sense.
How can somebody talk about global temperature when 45% of the earth landmass is not 'measured' mostly cold aerea's like Siberia, nort- and south pole. There are only a handfull (if at all) weather stations.

And a bit of sketpticism.
When a politician (Gore) and a political advice organ (IPCC) start to fear monger, my alarm bells go off. Big time.
But that is a whole other discussion.

[Edited 8/29/17 2:56am]

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 08/29/17 7:35am

SanMartin

avatar

TweetyV6 said:


I know Dowty. They make propellers and are a competitor to my previous employer, Hamilton Sundstrand.

It's not about victories, I only try to make people understand that there's more context to the temperature data then most people are aware of.

As for your link to the skeptical science page; I don't deny what they're telling there is incorrect.
But they only adress the issue of homogenisation. There are accepted methods to do the homogenisation, no discussion about that either. The discussion is wther or not these homogenisations are necessary and, if the right asumptions are made.
"coincidentally" the majority of the homogenisations 'produce' a more significant warming. wink

But what isn't disputed on the website are the simple facts of record length, coverage, sampling frequency and accuracy of the weather stations.
Those are simple facts which cannot be disputed. But one can choose to ignore them eek

And it has nothing to do with scientific understanding but more with common sense.
How can somebody talk about global temperature when 45% of the earth landmass is not 'measured' mostly cold aerea's like Siberia, nort- and south pole. There are only a handfull (if at all) weather stations.

And a bit of sketpticism.
When a politician (Gore) and a political advice organ (IPCC) start to fear monger, my alarm bells go off. Big time.
But that is a whole other discussion.

[Edited 8/29/17 2:56am]

I hope you're right. After all, it's not like I enjoy the idea of climate change being accelerated by man. It still seems safer and more logical for the public to follow the broadly accepted scientific consensus, but there's no denying that your arguments are well-reasoned, and you've proven without a doubt that questioning anthropogenic warming does not automatically make someone "anti-science". Hopefully other people have been reading these posts and getting something out of it too. And finally, have a nice day!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 08/29/17 7:54am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Neil DeGrass Tyson schools deniers:

http://www.huffingtonpost...mg00000009

The eclipse was a plot.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 08/29/17 7:55am

TweetyV6

avatar

SanMartin said:

I hope you're right. After all, it's not like I enjoy the idea of climate change being accelerated by man. It still seems safer and more logical for the public to follow the broadly accepted scientific consensus, but there's no denying that your arguments are well-reasoned, and you've proven without a doubt that questioning anthropogenic warming does not automatically make someone "anti-science". Hopefully other people have been reading these posts and getting something out of it too. And finally, have a nice day!

Thnx for the open debat. As I said, quite rare around here wink
Enjoy the rest of your day!

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 08/29/17 8:22am

TweetyV6

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Neil DeGrass Tyson schools deniers:

http://www.huffingtonpost...mg00000009

The eclipse was a plot.


OMG. eek

The eclipse is orbital mechanics, simple basic mathematics. Moon orbiting the earth, earth & moon orbiting the sun, when do the 3 object line up so that the shadow of the moon covers a part of the earth?

Climate is a complex enthalpy with a ton of factors and uncertainties which can influence the system. It's so complex, even the most powerful computers cannot calculate it accurately.

And what's up with the word denier? Who denies what?

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 08/29/17 9:59am

RodeoSchro

avatar

All I know for sure is that storms today are doing things storms never used to do, and all of those things are bad. Something has changed and we need to deal with that.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 08/29/17 10:07am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Climate change is science too, his point science denier you.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 08/29/17 10:50am

NorthC

TweetyV6 said:



2freaky4church1 said:


Neil DeGrass Tyson schools deniers:



http://www.huffingtonpost...hpmg000009



The eclipse was a plot.




OMG. eek

The eclipse is orbital mechanics, simple basic mathematics. Moon orbiting the earth, earth & moon orbiting the sun, when do the 3 object line up so that the shadow of the moon covers a part of the earth?

Climate is a complex enthalpy with a ton of factors and uncertainties which can influence the system. It's so complex, even the most powerful computers cannot calculate it accurately.

And what's up with the word denier? Who denies what?


Do you think human activities are a (major) cause of these climate changes of not? Or that they, at the very least, play a part in this? If so, wouldn't it make sense to reduce pollution as much as possible? (If only because our addiction to oil is only making the Saudi Arabian sheiks rich so they can spread their radical version of Islam...)
Another example: Kenya just banned the use of plastic bags and as someone who has been there and seen the heaps of garbage on the streets there, I can only applaud that decision. Stop pollution! Reduce the use of fossil fuels! It's only causing problems! (Earthquakes in the northern Dutch province of Groningen for example.)
"If you have men who will only come if they know there is a good road, I don't want them. I want men who will come if there is no road at all."
David Livingstone
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 08/29/17 9:32pm

TweetyV6

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

All I know for sure is that storms today are doing things storms never used to do, and all of those things are bad. Something has changed and we need to deal with that.


That's plain and utter BS.
Statistics prove that there's no increase in severe weather events as Harvey.

Ofcourse the impact will be bigger now as it was a century ago. Population got more dense and there are more and more expensive 'goods' that get damaged. So looking at it from, let's say insurance company view, the impact is bigger.

Also coverage of the event is more intense; there are more TV stations and everyone has a smartphone with a camera and can upload the pictures to youtube etc.
That also intensifies the impression that the storm is more intens than 'normal'.

The real issue is the lack of a decent infrastructure that can apprpriately deal with intense rainfall.
And why do people in those area's keep on building wooden houses?

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 08/29/17 9:43pm

TweetyV6

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Climate change is science too, his point science denier you.


Not denier. Skeptic. And skepticism plays an important role in the scientific process.

Without skepticism no scientific facts. You nitwit.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 08/29/17 10:06pm

TweetyV6

avatar

NorthC said:

Do you think human activities are a (major) cause of these climate changes of not?

No. Human activities have no significant impact on climate (CLIMATE, not environment!)
There are 2 big players: The sun (source of energy) and water[vapour] (the most significant GHG; 85-90% of the green house effect is due to water; vapour, clouds and ice crystals).

Or that they, at the very least, play a part in this?
Yes, but very insignificant. The CO2 produced by human activities is only a very small part of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. And CO2 only contributes only for about 3% to the green house effect.

If so, wouldn't it make sense to reduce pollution as much as possible?
Sure. But please define pollution.

(If only because our addiction to oil is only making the Saudi Arabian sheiks rich so they can spread their radical version of Islam...)
I think our 'addiction to oil' is even bigger then you can imagine. Oil is only partially used as fuel. People always tend to forget what else is produced from oil-derivates; drugs, plastics, clothing. If we would stop using products made from oil, we'd be thrown back into the middle ages. And fortunately, there's still plenty of oil left. At leats for the next 250 years.
Regarding the sheiks; their share of exploited oil becomes smaller and smaller. So hopefully, the day is nearby where we can give them the middle finger and shove it up their asses.

Another example: Kenya just banned the use of plastic bags and as someone who has been there and seen the heaps of garbage on the streets there, I can only applaud that decision. Stop pollution!
I fully agree. That is real pollution of the environment


Reduce the use of fossil fuels!
Agree. But only when there's a good alternative. Which solar and wind power aren't. By far.

It's only causing problems! (Earthquakes in the northern Dutch province of Groningen for example.)
Don't tell anybody living in California or Italy that you call these earth trembles an earthquake.
Nobody got harmed, only some cracks in a few houses.
The NAM should fill the cavities with a substitute gas. Like CO2. wink

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 08/30/17 8:55am

maplenpg

TweetyV6 said:

NorthC said:

Do you think human activities are a (major) cause of these climate changes of not?

No. Human activities have no significant impact on climate (CLIMATE, not environment!)
There are 2 big players: The sun (source of energy) and water[vapour] (the most significant GHG; 85-90% of the green house effect is due to water; vapour, clouds and ice crystals).

Or that they, at the very least, play a part in this?
Yes, but very insignificant. The CO2 produced by human activities is only a very small part of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. And CO2 only contributes only for about 3% to the green house effect.

If so, wouldn't it make sense to reduce pollution as much as possible?
Sure. But please define pollution.

(If only because our addiction to oil is only making the Saudi Arabian sheiks rich so they can spread their radical version of Islam...)
I think our 'addiction to oil' is even bigger then you can imagine. Oil is only partially used as fuel. People always tend to forget what else is produced from oil-derivates; drugs, plastics, clothing. If we would stop using products made from oil, we'd be thrown back into the middle ages. And fortunately, there's still plenty of oil left. At leats for the next 250 years.
Regarding the sheiks; their share of exploited oil becomes smaller and smaller. So hopefully, the day is nearby where we can give them the middle finger and shove it up their asses.

Another example: Kenya just banned the use of plastic bags and as someone who has been there and seen the heaps of garbage on the streets there, I can only applaud that decision. Stop pollution!
I fully agree. That is real pollution of the environment


Reduce the use of fossil fuels!
Agree. But only when there's a good alternative. Which solar and wind power aren't. By far.

It's only causing problems! (Earthquakes in the northern Dutch province of Groningen for example.)
Don't tell anybody living in California or Italy that you call these earth trembles an earthquake.
Nobody got harmed, only some cracks in a few houses.
The NAM should fill the cavities with a substitute gas. Like CO2. wink

You raise some interesting points Tweety. I'd like to ask you a question: Climate change believers believe that we need to take action now in order to prevent an irreversible situation where planet Earth is destroyed through ignorance of all the facts that show the world is getting warmer (believers will believe the facts, whereas skeptics might not). You state in your first response that you don't believe human activity affects climate whilst making it clear you mean climate not environment. I am therefore making the assumption that you believe that human activity is affecting the environment? If this is the case then do you believe that the environment could be abused by humans to a point where it is irreversibly damaged? Do you believe that the destruction of the rainforest (for example) could lead to major environmental issues? Do you believe that our insatiable appetite for consumption could ultimately destroy us?

I also personally think 250 years is a very short time until oil reserves become short. Maybe 10 generations? Surely we should be starting to out some plans in place for that time? Progress is painfully slow and we will trial many methods before we find something effective, but surely starting that process is progress in itself? As you rightly state many things are produced from oil derivitives - do you think we have a duty to be more responsible with regard how we spend our money, thereby pressuring companies that produce goods in ways that destroy the environment?


I'll give you an example: The other day I bought a new brand of biscuits by Cadburys. Inside were five biscuits. Each biscuit was wrapped in foil. Each foil wrapped biscuit was the placed on a plastic tray. The plastic tray containing the foil-wrapped biscuits was wrapped in plastic wrap. The plastic wrapped plastic tray containing the five foil-wrapped biscuits was the placed in a cardboard box. For five fucking biscuits! Hell, some butter, flour and sugar could have made a whole stack of biscuits! My lesson learned, back to home baking for me but I believe we should be thinking more carefully about the produce we buy, how it is wrapped, whether we need it etc... Regardless of whether the world is heating up or not, producing wasteful wrapping that will not biodegrade quickly cannot be good for our planet. Do you think that, as NorthC says, we have a duty to be mindful and responsible of the damage we are doing to our planet?

Sorry for the long post BTW. I'm just trying to understand your position, not on climate change, but on our responsibility to our planet.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 08/30/17 11:20am

herb4

avatar

midnightmover said:

Climate deniers fall into two camps: liars and useful idiots. Which are you?


What's useful about them?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 08/30/17 10:10pm

TweetyV6

avatar

maplenpg said:

You raise some interesting points Tweety. I'd like to ask you a question: Climate change believers believe that we need to take action now in order to prevent an irreversible situation where planet Earth is destroyed through ignorance of all the facts that show the world is getting warmer (believers will believe the facts, whereas skeptics might not).
Nice to see you use the word 'believers', as I sincerely think that climate science has become a surrogate religion. Fact free and full of beliefs. With an apocalyptic message.

You state in your first response that you don't believe human activity affects climate whilst making it clear you mean climate not environment. I am therefore making the assumption that you believe that human activity is affecting the environment?
Your assumption is spot on.

If this is the case then do you believe that the environment could be abused by humans to a point where it is irreversibly damaged?
I have my doubts about irreversibly. I guess that depends on the scale. On a local scale: absolutely (mining, rainforrest) On a global scale: probably not.

Do you believe that the destruction of the rainforest (for example) could lead to major environmental issues?
It could, it couldn't. I don't know enough about that. But I could imagine yes, but I also have strong faith in the recovery-capability of 'mother nature'

Do you believe that our insatiable appetite for consumption could ultimately destroy us?
No. We're too smart to allow that. I do believe that we're at the pinnacle of 'useless' consumption. Just like the example you give below regarding the packaging overkill. I think (hope) environmental awareness will prevail.

I also personally think 250 years is a very short time until oil reserves become short. Maybe 10 generations? Surely we should be starting to out some plans in place for that time?
For oil as an energy-carrier; yes, absolutely. But I think it wil be very hard, but in the end probably not impossible, to find substitutes for all the other oil-derivitves our daily lives depend on.

Progress is painfully slow and we will trial many methods before we find something effective, but surely starting that process is progress in itself? As you rightly state many things are produced from oil derivitives - do you think we have a duty to be more responsible with regard how we spend our money, thereby pressuring companies that produce goods in ways that destroy the environment?
Fully agree.


I'll give you an example: The other day I bought a new brand of biscuits by Cadburys. Inside were five biscuits. Each biscuit was wrapped in foil. Each foil wrapped biscuit was the placed on a plastic tray. The plastic tray containing the foil-wrapped biscuits was wrapped in plastic wrap. The plastic wrapped plastic tray containing the five foil-wrapped biscuits was the placed in a cardboard box. For five fucking biscuits! Hell, some butter, flour and sugar could have made a whole stack of biscuits! My lesson learned, back to home baking for me but I believe we should be thinking more carefully about the produce we buy, how it is wrapped, whether we need it etc... Regardless of whether the world is heating up or not, producing wasteful wrapping that will not biodegrade quickly cannot be good for our planet. Do you think that, as NorthC says, we have a duty to be mindful and responsible of the damage we are doing to our planet?
Absolutely.

Sorry for the long post BTW. I'm just trying to understand your position, not on climate change, but on our responsibility to our planet.
I don't think that our position differs too much. I do think that we have a certain responsibility towards the planet. I even do regard humans as a kind of parasites of the earth. (One of the reasons why my wife and I have chosen not to reproduce)
But I also think that it will be temporarily. I have a strong belief in the self-healing capability of 'nature'.
(E.g. a leathal illness popping up which will erase or decimise the human population, or bacteria becoming more and more immune for antibiotics having a significant impact on the population)

The earth will survive mankind. But will mankind survive the earth?



___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 08/30/17 10:20pm

ufoclub

avatar

All anyone has to do is become friends with someone actually educated and doing research in the field to get the truth of what there is to understand. Remember there was denial of everything from man being able to fly to the world being round.... oh wait a minute.

Some people are doomed.
Check out a feature film I directed FREE on Amazon Prime: http://a.co/54e7uEG

Check out my first art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid

VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com
MUSIC: http://www.soundcloud.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 08/31/17 12:21am

maplenpg

TweetyV6 said:

maplenpg said:

You raise some interesting points Tweety. I'd like to ask you a question: Climate change believers believe that we need to take action now in order to prevent an irreversible situation where planet Earth is destroyed through ignorance of all the facts that show the world is getting warmer (believers will believe the facts, whereas skeptics might not).
Nice to see you use the word 'believers', as I sincerely think that climate science has become a surrogate religion. Fact free and full of beliefs. With an apocalyptic message.

You state in your first response that you don't believe human activity affects climate whilst making it clear you mean climate not environment. I am therefore making the assumption that you believe that human activity is affecting the environment?
Your assumption is spot on.

If this is the case then do you believe that the environment could be abused by humans to a point where it is irreversibly damaged?
I have my doubts about irreversibly. I guess that depends on the scale. On a local scale: absolutely (mining, rainforrest) On a global scale: probably not.

Do you believe that the destruction of the rainforest (for example) could lead to major environmental issues?
It could, it couldn't. I don't know enough about that. But I could imagine yes, but I also have strong faith in the recovery-capability of 'mother nature'

Do you believe that our insatiable appetite for consumption could ultimately destroy us?
No. We're too smart to allow that. I do believe that we're at the pinnacle of 'useless' consumption. Just like the example you give below regarding the packaging overkill. I think (hope) environmental awareness will prevail.

I also personally think 250 years is a very short time until oil reserves become short. Maybe 10 generations? Surely we should be starting to out some plans in place for that time?
For oil as an energy-carrier; yes, absolutely. But I think it wil be very hard, but in the end probably not impossible, to find substitutes for all the other oil-derivitves our daily lives depend on.

Progress is painfully slow and we will trial many methods before we find something effective, but surely starting that process is progress in itself? As you rightly state many things are produced from oil derivitives - do you think we have a duty to be more responsible with regard how we spend our money, thereby pressuring companies that produce goods in ways that destroy the environment?
Fully agree.


I'll give you an example: The other day I bought a new brand of biscuits by Cadburys. Inside were five biscuits. Each biscuit was wrapped in foil. Each foil wrapped biscuit was the placed on a plastic tray. The plastic tray containing the foil-wrapped biscuits was wrapped in plastic wrap. The plastic wrapped plastic tray containing the five foil-wrapped biscuits was the placed in a cardboard box. For five fucking biscuits! Hell, some butter, flour and sugar could have made a whole stack of biscuits! My lesson learned, back to home baking for me but I believe we should be thinking more carefully about the produce we buy, how it is wrapped, whether we need it etc... Regardless of whether the world is heating up or not, producing wasteful wrapping that will not biodegrade quickly cannot be good for our planet. Do you think that, as NorthC says, we have a duty to be mindful and responsible of the damage we are doing to our planet?
Absolutely.

Sorry for the long post BTW. I'm just trying to understand your position, not on climate change, but on our responsibility to our planet.
I don't think that our position differs too much. I do think that we have a certain responsibility towards the planet. I even do regard humans as a kind of parasites of the earth. (One of the reasons why my wife and I have chosen not to reproduce)
But I also think that it will be temporarily. I have a strong belief in the self-healing capability of 'nature'.
(E.g. a leathal illness popping up which will erase or decimise the human population, or bacteria becoming more and more immune for antibiotics having a significant impact on the population)

The earth will survive mankind. But will mankind survive the earth?



Thank you for yor response. I guess I find your final comments the most interesting- that humans are a kind of parasite to the earth. In many ways I agree - I also agree that at some point humans will be decimated, probably through our own stupidity. I'm undecided on climate change, I personally hate the term but although the rhetoric has changed many times (the ozone layer, greenhouse gases, global warming etc...) the base principle remains the same - that we are causing destruction of our planet through our own human behaviours. Destruction of the environment is where my interest lies because I believe that, regardless of whether global warming (climate change whatever) is real, being conscious of our treatment of our planet is a good starting point for change.

Aside from that I think that humans are a hierarchical species with many nations, countries and religions all wanting the spot of 'Top Dog'. Right at this moment it is easy to see people desperate for this postion. In my opinion, this is as dangerous as antibiotic resistance (an area I do know something about) or mass disease. The world is becoming more mobilized - like it or not, nations are becoming blended. We either accept this fact and try (I don't know if it is even possible) to become less hierarchical and more accepting of our differences, or we stamp on them, insisting that our way is right and their way is wrong - a position that ultimately leads to conflict. Sadly, I think our world is too corrupt and to full of testosterone and a wish to be Top Dog for peace to prevail.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 08/31/17 2:42am

TweetyV6

avatar

maplenpg said:

Thank you for yor response.
No prob. At least we have a decent discussion going with mutual respect. And that's rare nowadays.

I guess I find your final comments the most interesting- that humans are a kind of parasite to the earth. In many ways I agree - I also agree that at some point humans will be decimated, probably through our own stupidity.
Which I also see as a possibility.

I'm undecided on climate change, I personally hate the term but although the rhetoric has changed many times (the ozone layer, greenhouse gases, global warming etc...) the base principle remains the same - that we are causing destruction of our planet through our own human behaviours.
That's what this thread was started about. The naming has changed. A quick recap:
In 2001 the IPCC Third Assesment Report (TAR) was issued. This report was the basis for the terminology 'Global Warming'.
Climate Models (!!) predicted a never before witnessed (true, our temp records go back only 120 yrs) gobal warming. That quickly became an 'unprecedented' warming of the earth (which is not true if you look at paleoclimatic temp data). Then Al Gore introduced the catastrophic aspect to it, extremely dramatised in his 'an inconvenient thruth'-movie. About 4 years ago it became evident that the output of the climate models was wrong; the reality didn't comply with the predictions lol
By then the whole issue was heavily politicised, governments had begun handing out money to projects for CO2 emission reduction and the CO2 emissions trade market (money, money, moooooney) had been agreed on.
The not so fast warming (it is called 'warming hiatus') globe could easily be 'denied' by data. Therfore the terminology was changed to 'Climate Change'. As more and more people do realise that climat change is a natural mechanism and is present at all times, the politicians started to change the terminology again to 'severe weather disruptions'
Something which you currently see in full affect; all the well known Climate alarmists are now linking Harvey (weather) to climate change due to global warming.

I wouldn't say we're causing the destruction of our planet, but were harming it.

But not by emitting CO2. Carbondioxyde is a cornerstone of everything that lives.


Destruction of the environment is where my interest lies because I believe that, regardless of whether global warming (climate change whatever) is real, being conscious of our treatment of our planet is a good starting point for change.
Agree.

Aside from that I think that humans are a hierarchical species with many nations, countries and religions all wanting the spot of 'Top Dog'. Right at this moment it is easy to see people desperate for this postion. In my opinion, this is as dangerous as antibiotic resistance (an area I do know something about) or mass disease. The world is becoming more mobilized - like it or not, nations are becoming blended. We either accept this fact and try (I don't know if it is even possible) to become less hierarchical and more accepting of our differences, or we stamp on them, insisting that our way is right and their way is wrong - a position that ultimately leads to conflict. Sadly, I think our world is too corrupt and to full of testosterone and a wish to be Top Dog for peace to prevail.
I guess it's human nature. And in that nature lies our own destruction.


___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 08/31/17 7:44am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

I'm a skeptic of gravity.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 08/31/17 2:48pm

herb4

avatar

Climate change/global warming is real. Period. Only people who say it isn't are hired "scientists" paid for by the fossil fuel industry and the people causing it.

Someone here ahd the audacity to state that the global temperature is not rising. About that...




Even forgetting all that...

WTF is wrong with shooting for renewable clean energy? Like, seriously? I kind of like air and water for the most part and am pretty cool with fewer oil spills.

Saying stupid shit like "the climate changes all the time...duhhhhh" as if it's evidence of anything emperical is like saying "car accidents happen all the time so 'fuck airbags and anti lock brakes'".

A person almost has to actively choose to be willfully ignorant at this point to oppose doing anything about this shit, let alone denying that it's real and that man is largely causing it.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 08/31/17 3:06pm

ufoclub

avatar

If only a portal to an alternate Earth could be opened where all naysayers to science or progress could remain as is, and all the "liberals", "intellects", "progressives" "educators" "media" and "researchers" could go ahead and go there. Then 100 years later they check out how things were going on each version...

Could be a sci-fi fantasy political novel!
Check out a feature film I directed FREE on Amazon Prime: http://a.co/54e7uEG

Check out my first art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid

VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com
MUSIC: http://www.soundcloud.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 08/31/17 5:15pm

herb4

avatar

ufoclub said:

If only a portal to an alternate Earth could be opened where all naysayers to science or progress could remain as is, and all the "liberals", "intellects", "progressives" "educators" "media" and "researchers" could go ahead and go there. Then 100 years later they check out how things were going on each version... Could be a sci-fi fantasy political novel!


People equate "sometimes science is mistaken" with "how can we trust science?", which is ridiculous on its face. A lot of these same dumb, frightened people will lean on the Bible as it it's been vetted and cherry pick "facts" from it to support whatever dumb justification they need in order to justify thier pre-determined world view and thier seemingly never ending crusade to deny reality.

Science progresses as knowledge is obtained, and often cahnges. Religion mostly seems to start with the answer and work backwards, stubborn in its rigidity and finality. Fuck that dumbness.


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 08/31/17 11:47pm

jimmy3121

RodeoSchro said:

All I know for sure is that storms today are doing things storms never used to do, and all of those things are bad. Something has changed and we need to deal with that.

Everyone has cell phones and cameras now that is what has changed.

Look past your earth & see the happenings on other planets....Alignment....Sun, Moon, Stars...now match up what has happened in the past with the same alignments.....Bingo....Nothing New.

May U Live To See The Dawn?

Why yes you will my good friend Rodeo & so will your childrens children.

Love4OneAnother.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 09/01/17 2:17am

TweetyV6

avatar

herb4 said:

Climate change/global warming is real. Period. Only people who say it isn't are hired "scientists" paid for by the fossil fuel industry and the people causing it.

Someone here ahd the audacity to state that the global temperature is not rising. About that...


23878948203_84176c52ef_o.png


May I say you're a bit ignorant? Maybe, just maybe, you should take the time and read my reply #23 in this thread about data accuacy.

The graph you show here has a scale on the Y-axis from 0-1 degree. That's well within the margin of error of 92% of all land based weather stations in the US.

So for 2015 it actually should read 0,90 deg. Celcius +/- 2,5 deg. Celcius.

Even forgetting all that...

WTF is wrong with shooting for renewable clean energy? Like, seriously? I kind of like air and water for the most part and am pretty cool with fewer oil spills.

Agree. But not solar & wind, because they're highly ineffective and the yield fluctuates too much.
Nuclear energy is the only sane alternative. Thorium Salt and cold fusion.

Saying stupid shit like "the climate changes all the time...duhhhhh" as if it's evidence of anything emperical is like saying "car accidents happen all the time so 'fuck airbags and anti lock brakes'".

Making a comparison like that is stupid.
It only works if you assume that mankind causes climate change. But since climate has been changing forever, even when there weren't any humans roaming the surface of this planet, that assumption is quite ridiculous.

And besides that, Airbags and ABS only reduce the impact of a situation gone wrong, they do nothing to prevent it, to address the root cause(s)

Don't try to be smart when you aren't.

A person almost has to actively choose to be willfully ignorant at this point to oppose doing anything about this shit, let alone denying that it's real and that man is largely causing it.


I choose to be skeptical (again, see reply #23)
I Choose to look at data and the context of data capturing, accuracy, robustness, analysis methods etc.
Then I choose to make my own judgement instead of repeating apocaliptic messages from former politicians.

Those wo do that are ignorant.

Now put on you black AntiFa hoodi, mask your face and go kick a police officer in the teeth.

[Edited 9/1/17 2:18am]

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 09/01/17 3:15am

maplenpg

herb4 said:

Climate change/global warming is real. Period. Only people who say it isn't are hired "scientists" paid for by the fossil fuel industry and the people causing it.

Someone here ahd the audacity to state that the global temperature is not rising. About that...




Even forgetting all that...

WTF is wrong with shooting for renewable clean energy? Like, seriously? I kind of like air and water for the most part and am pretty cool with fewer oil spills.

Saying stupid shit like "the climate changes all the time...duhhhhh" as if it's evidence of anything emperical is like saying "car accidents happen all the time so 'fuck airbags and anti lock brakes'".

A person almost has to actively choose to be willfully ignorant at this point to oppose doing anything about this shit, let alone denying that it's real and that man is largely causing it.

I don't think anyone on here has completely denied that the earth could be getting warmer, merely that some of us are listening to both sides of the argument and using the results to discuss the possibility that the threat might not be as catastrophic as some want us to believe. Also that we need data on a much bigger scale, over a much longer length of time to be really certain.

I also don't think that anyone on here has said that we don't need an alternative to oil, we all seem to agree on that. Also I think we all agree that humans are causing unecessary destruction to our planet. Why would anyone choose a non-renewable energy source over a clean renewable one? That would be dumb, but it is much more complex than that. Wave, wind and sun power cannot, at present, produce enough energy to be a real contender for a source of energy to replace oil - as Tweety says, only nuclear energy can do that right now. However, I have my own worries and doubts over advancement with nuclear energy so I would prefer to see something new in the mix.

I think we have a duty to look after our environment to ensure it is a place that humans can continue to habituate for many millenia to come. In my mind I believe we would be better instigating a drive to reduce our reliance on power, to reduce our consumption of stuff we buy through greed and gluttony, and to go back to basics, ensuring less power is needed and that we carefully consider our purchases, being mindful of where they came from, and the production behind it. Reduction of plastic has to be another good starting point also. Demanding our insatiable appetite for consumerism be met if energy systems cannot cope seems mad to me, better to reign it in a bit. Being skeptical about climate change, for me, does not entail a want to destroy the planet we live on, but a belief that the catastrophic destruction that might eventually wipe out mankind will either be unavoidable (as with dinosaurs) or will be completely avoidable but we willfully ignored the threat (as with nuclear war, or global disease). Maybe you put climate change in the second bracket whereas I would put destruction of the environment, but they essentially have the same goals.

To reply to your other post regarding religion, I am atheist and I know from Tweety's signature and other posts that he/she is too - religious beliefs have played no part in this thread so why bring it up? It has been quite a rational discussion so far but all of a sudden insults are being thrown (both by yourself and by Tweety) - just because someone has a different opinion does not entail that they are ignorant or stupid, just that they have a different belief system, and I include those that believe in religion as well as climate change believers - and I am always open to the possibilty that I might be wrong; maybe you should be open to that possibility too.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 09/02/17 12:30am

midnightmover

There is no serious dispute about the burning of fossil fuels causing global warming. Climate scientists were first warning about it in the 1950s. Frank Capra - the iconic American director who made films like It's A Wonderful Life - made a short film about it toward the end of that decade. You watch the short film today and it's eerie. It is literally predicting everything that has happened. Rising temperatures, rising oceans, melting ice caps, etc.


In the 1960s President Lyndon Johnson was publicly being warned of the problem by his own Science Advisory Committee. Climate scientists have been vindicated on everything. The deniers like to say that all the correct predictions are just coincidence, but to make these claims they have to resort to lie after lie after lie. These lies are effective with people who haven't taken the time to investigate the facts.


We can see it on this thread. There are people here who are actually taking Tweety seriously. I've debated Tweety several times over the years and every single time I've caught him in the most blatant lies and distortions. Another orger (Dancelot) has done the same thing several times. But he's so lacking in shame that he keeps coming back anyway.

To those orgers who say they are listening to "both sides", you might as well be listening to "both sides" of the debate about whether the holocaust happened or not. These are not two sides with equal credibility. It is an artificial controversy. Billions of dollars have been spent by the fossil fuel industry and lobby groups for big business to make the public doubt the science of climate change (even Google was funding climate deniers until 2014). It really is the most inconvenient of inconvenient truths and there are a lot of market fundamentalists who see it as an existential threat to their entire philosophy. This is the ony reason there appears to be a "debate".

I recommend some of you read the book or watch the film "Merchants of Doubt". The film and the book explain how big business has manufactured doubt about many issues where public health was in direct opposition to their profits. Climate change is obviously the biggest one but there are many other examples.

[Edited 9/2/17 0:59am]

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 09/02/17 4:47am

maplenpg

midnightmover said:

There is no serious dispute about the burning of fossil fuels causing global warming. Climate scientists were first warning about it in the 1950s. Frank Capra - the iconic American director who made films like It's A Wonderful Life - made a short film about it toward the end of that decade. You watch the short film today and it's eerie. It is literally predicting everything that has happened. Rising temperatures, rising oceans, melting ice caps, etc.


In the 1960s President Lyndon Johnson was publicly being warned of the problem by his own Science Advisory Committee. Climate scientists have been vindicated on everything. The deniers like to say that all the correct predictions are just coincidence, but to make these claims they have to resort to lie after lie after lie. These lies are effective with people who haven't taken the time to investigate the facts.


We can see it on this thread. There are people here who are actually taking Tweety seriously. I've debated Tweety several times over the years and every single time I've caught him in the most blatant lies and distortions. Another orger (Dancelot) has done the same thing several times. But he's so lacking in shame that he keeps coming back anyway.

To those orgers who say they are listening to "both sides", you might as well be listening to "both sides" of the debate about whether the holocaust happened or not. These are not two sides with equal credibility. It is an artificial controversy. Billions of dollars have been spent by the fossil fuel industry and lobby groups for big business to make the public doubt the science of climate change (even Google was funding climate deniers until 2014). It really is the most inconvenient of inconvenient truths and there are a lot of market fundamentalists who see it as an existential threat to their entire philosophy. This is the ony reason there appears to be a "debate".

I recommend some of you read the book or watch the film "Merchants of Doubt". The film and the book explain how big business has manufactured doubt about many issues where public health was in direct opposition to their profits. Climate change is obviously the biggest one but there are many other examples.

[Edited 9/2/17 0:59am]

I'm assuming by the bolded bit you are referring to myself and SanMartin so I'll speak for myself, I cannot speak for others.

Where I agree with Tweety is that human behaviour is, at least, harming, but more probably destroying the Earth's environment. By human behaviours I mean our incessant demand for comsumer items (many of which we don't need or even throw away unused), our stubborn refusal to decrease our usage of energy (instead of cutting down we demand alternatives be found) and our obsession with creating medicines to keep people alive (when the reality is that increasing our longevity is creating monster problems of its own). I have no doubt that the data produced over the past decades shows the Earth is warming but nature is a bitch and I think our obsession with trying to change the climate (atmosphere, call it whatever) is just too big. We cannot change the weather, we have no ability to do that, yet that is exactly what we are trying to do by talking about changing the climate. We haven't even been able to take small steps to controlling earthquakes or hurricanes, let along massive leaps to save the planet from 'overheating'. In my mind, as single individuals, not massive corporations, we should be taking small steps to try and save the environment around us, cutting back on our energy usage, refusing to buy goods containing palm oil, being mindful of our use of plastics etc... If each of us makes small steps then the climate may, or may not, change - but what will improve is the environment that surrounds us (though it would fuck the economy right up).

I am not completely denying climate change but am mindful that we are just a tiny planet in a huge solar system. Humanity could, and almost certainly will be wiped out eventually, and I doubt that if the Earth is heating at such huge rates as has been thrown around over the past 50 years or so, that any of us can stop it whatever we do - in other words let us focus on things that might wipe out humanity that we actually have more control over. Huge temperatures on Mercury have not destroyed the planet but have removed the possiblility that life could exist there because of its proximity to the sun. Earth would not be destroyed if the climate rose and rose, it is simply that humans would cease to exist. I care for our planet, probably more than most, but in my opinion we need at least a thousand years of data before we can really predict whether the Earth is indeed getting hotter, or whether it simply flucuates and changes over centuries. Given that we don't have that amount of time we have to make best guesses and that is all predictions for the future are - best guesses, based on what we already know. Frankly, I'm just not interested enough in guesswork when I can see, and be an active part of, other issues that could just as easily wipe out humanity, but which I might actually be able to do something about.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 09/02/17 6:00am

midnightmover

maplenpg said:

midnightmover said:

There is no serious dispute about the burning of fossil fuels causing global warming. Climate scientists were first warning about it in the 1950s. Frank Capra - the iconic American director who made films like It's A Wonderful Life - made a short film about it toward the end of that decade. You watch the short film today and it's eerie. It is literally predicting everything that has happened. Rising temperatures, rising oceans, melting ice caps, etc.


In the 1960s President Lyndon Johnson was publicly being warned of the problem by his own Science Advisory Committee. Climate scientists have been vindicated on everything. The deniers like to say that all the correct predictions are just coincidence, but to make these claims they have to resort to lie after lie after lie. These lies are effective with people who haven't taken the time to investigate the facts.


We can see it on this thread. There are people here who are actually taking Tweety seriously. I've debated Tweety several times over the years and every single time I've caught him in the most blatant lies and distortions. Another orger (Dancelot) has done the same thing several times. But he's so lacking in shame that he keeps coming back anyway.

To those orgers who say they are listening to "both sides", you might as well be listening to "both sides" of the debate about whether the holocaust happened or not. These are not two sides with equal credibility. It is an artificial controversy. Billions of dollars have been spent by the fossil fuel industry and lobby groups for big business to make the public doubt the science of climate change (even Google was funding climate deniers until 2014). It really is the most inconvenient of inconvenient truths and there are a lot of market fundamentalists who see it as an existential threat to their entire philosophy. This is the ony reason there appears to be a "debate".

I recommend some of you read the book or watch the film "Merchants of Doubt". The film and the book explain how big business has manufactured doubt about many issues where public health was in direct opposition to their profits. Climate change is obviously the biggest one but there are many other examples.

[Edited 9/2/17 0:59am]

I'm assuming by the bolded bit you are referring to myself and SanMartin so I'll speak for myself, I cannot speak for others.

Where I agree with Tweety is that human behaviour is, at least, harming, but more probably destroying the Earth's environment. By human behaviours I mean our incessant demand for comsumer items (many of which we don't need or even throw away unused), our stubborn refusal to decrease our usage of energy (instead of cutting down we demand alternatives be found) and our obsession with creating medicines to keep people alive (when the reality is that increasing our longevity is creating monster problems of its own). I have no doubt that the data produced over the past decades shows the Earth is warming but nature is a bitch and I think our obsession with trying to change the climate (atmosphere, call it whatever) is just too big. We cannot change the weather, we have no ability to do that, yet that is exactly what we are trying to do by talking about changing the climate. We haven't even been able to take small steps to controlling earthquakes or hurricanes, let along massive leaps to save the planet from 'overheating'. In my mind, as single individuals, not massive corporations, we should be taking small steps to try and save the environment around us, cutting back on our energy usage, refusing to buy goods containing palm oil, being mindful of our use of plastics etc... If each of us makes small steps then the climate may, or may not, change - but what will improve is the environment that surrounds us (though it would fuck the economy right up).

I am not completely denying climate change but am mindful that we are just a tiny planet in a huge solar system. Humanity could, and almost certainly will be wiped out eventually, and I doubt that if the Earth is heating at such huge rates as has been thrown around over the past 50 years or so, that any of us can stop it whatever we do - in other words let us focus on things that might wipe out humanity that we actually have more control over. Huge temperatures on Mercury have not destroyed the planet but have removed the possiblility that life could exist there because of its proximity to the sun. Earth would not be destroyed if the climate rose and rose, it is simply that humans would cease to exist. I care for our planet, probably more than most, but in my opinion we need at least a thousand years of data before we can really predict whether the Earth is indeed getting hotter, or whether it simply flucuates and changes over centuries. Given that we don't have that amount of time we have to make best guesses and that is all predictions for the future are - best guesses, based on what we already know. Frankly, I'm just not interested enough in guesswork when I can see, and be an active part of, other issues that could just as easily wipe out humanity, but which I might actually be able to do something about.

It is certainly true that global warming is just one part of the broader problem of our trashing the environment, which is why any real solutions to it would involve a lot more than just the tepid ones we hear floated around in respectable circles. However, it's a fantasy to think that you can just ignore climate change (which is effectively what you're arguing) and focus on smaller issues and actually survive as a species. Despite what Tweety and the Daily Mail tell you, ignoring climate change is a GUARANTEE of human extinction at a far greater pace than you realize. We'll be taking most of the other species with us too.

You're just simply wrong when you say that we don't know what is happening right now. We know for a fact that the earth has been heating since the industrial revolution. Study after study has been done to explain why this is happening and time after time the only logical explanation for the warming is the one that is staring us in the face; the greenhouse effect. For millions of years we had a natural carbon sequestration program working. Trees would suck carbon (and other greenhouse gases) out of the atmosphere and over time drag them underground. Then man came along, tore down the trees, dug up the carbon in the form of oil, coal and natural gas, burned it for energy and in so doing he changed the composition of the atmosphere (which has increased the greenhouse effect). This can be measured. The picture that emerges is very clear despite the best efforts of deniers to confuse the issue.


It's probably true that we've left it too late to tackle climate change, but if that's the case it's because people like you have been advocating a wait-and-see approach for 30 years when we should've been putting our shoulders to the wheel to change the way we do things. In that 30 years we have put many times more carbon into the atmosphere than in the whole of our history before.

Our technology makes us a huge force of nature by ourselves. We showed that when we invented the atom bomb. We may just be monkeys with less body hair, but we're monkeys with the power to massively effect our biosphere. We've been doing it for centuries, but we just did it unconsciously. All environmentalists and scientists are saying now is that we should start doing it consciously instead of unconsciously.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Trump's PC Police Purging The Term 'Climate Change'