Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
wanna-b-fanboy

The Anthropogenic Climate Change Thread

Recommended Posts

 

No what I'm saying is that if people don't understand the science they shouldn't be commenting on the science. 

The General Discussion forum is predicated on strong opinions from people who don't know what they're talking about.

 

We should create a forum where only experts can have an opinion and engage in discussion.

 

In fact, citizens should only be allowed to vote in elections if they pass an IQ and knowledge-of-issues test.  Certainly, common folk should not be involved.

 

Also, anyone who posts in a thread merely to be critical of other posters without offering their own "expert" opinion would be ridiculed.

 

In a perfect world!

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No what I'm saying is that if people don't understand the science they shouldn't be commenting on the science. 

So only scientists should have an opinion?

 

There is contradictory "science".  Seems even scientists dont know.

 

the problem is, there is also a lot of bullshit parading around as science that people keep bringing up. 

 

Here are some things that we can accept as true though... The Eath has warmed and cooled on it's own for a variety of reasons in the past and will continue to do so in the future

The greenhouse effect is real, this is not up for debate

CO2 is a greehouse gas, this is not up for debate

Our species has emitted a metric **** ton of CO2 in the last 200 years, this is a fact and not up for debate.

 

So you put all those things together and yeah there is a whole lot of overwhelming evidence pointing towards our actions as a species impacting climate.How much? Well that's where the debate comes in, and what's to be done about it? That's the biggest debate that should be happening. The science is pretty straightforward and trying to hand wave it away with arguments like "Well the Earth warms and cools naturally" aren't scientific they're little better than being a flat earther or creationist. Just flies in the face of real science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No what I'm saying is that if people don't understand the science they shouldn't be commenting on the science. 

So only scientists should have an opinion?

 

There is contradictory "science".  Seems even scientists dont know.

 

the problem is, there is also a lot of bullshit parading around as science that people keep bringing up. 

 

Here are some things that we can accept as true though... The Eath has warmed and cooled on it's own for a variety of reasons in the past and will continue to do so in the future

The greenhouse effect is real, this is not up for debate

CO2 is a greehouse gas, this is not up for debate

Our species has emitted a metric **** ton of CO2 in the last 200 years, this is a fact and not up for debate.

 

So you put all those things together and yeah there is a whole lot of overwhelming evidence pointing towards our actions as a species impacting climate.How much? Well that's where the debate comes in, and what's to be done about it? That's the biggest debate that should be happening. The science is pretty straightforward and trying to hand wave it away with arguments like "Well the Earth warms and cools naturally" aren't scientific they're little better than being a flat earther or creationist. Just flies in the face of real science. 

 

 

I ♥ you.

 

Aaaaand cue KBF's triple "D"  

"Deny, Deflect, Denigrate"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. There's a lot of opinion there. If the earth is warming only because of CO2 why did it warm before? Why will it watm again?

Hey let's not worry about isis. Let's fight the sun. Which is going to win eventually anyway no matter what we do.

Hey isn't mars going through a warming trend? Must be the human produced green house gasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. There's a lot of opinion there. If the earth is warming only because of CO2 why did it warm before? Why will it watm again?

Hey let's not worry about isis. Let's fight the sun. Which is going to win eventually anyway no matter what we do.

Hey isn't mars going through a warming trend? Must be the human produced green house gasses.

Well the sun has cycles that do impact it, there was one a few years back but it's over now and things are still trending warmer, sometimes the CO2 comes from other sources, sometimes it's from other greenhouse gases emitted by wide spread vulcanism. There really isn't a lot of opinion. The majority of scientists agree, it's just a few dissenters trying to argue a losing cause. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No what I'm saying is that if people don't understand the science they shouldn't be commenting on the science. 

So only scientists should have an opinion?

 

There is contradictory "science".  Seems even scientists dont know.

 

the problem is, there is also a lot of bullshit parading around as science that people keep bringing up. 

 

Here are some things that we can accept as true though... The Eath has warmed and cooled on it's own for a variety of reasons in the past and will continue to do so in the future

The greenhouse effect is real, this is not up for debate

CO2 is a greehouse gas, this is not up for debate

Our species has emitted a metric **** ton of CO2 in the last 200 years, this is a fact and not up for debate.

 

So you put all those things together and yeah there is a whole lot of overwhelming evidence pointing towards our actions as a species impacting climate.How much? Well that's where the debate comes in, and what's to be done about it? That's the biggest debate that should be happening. The science is pretty straightforward and trying to hand wave it away with arguments like "Well the Earth warms and cools naturally" aren't scientific they're little better than being a flat earther or creationist. Just flies in the face of real science. 

 

 

I ♥ you.

 

Aaaaand cue KBF's triple "D"  

"Deny, Deflect, Denigrate"

 

 

I'm the one who "denigrates"?  Who is the one posting nonsense about "Front Groups" and only looking at one side of the whole debate?  Who is the one denigrating "Friends of Science" but turning a complete blind eye to the Tides Foundation?  Who funds the Green Party in Canada?  The Sierra Club?  Hint - it's not Canadians. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No what I'm saying is that if people don't understand the science they shouldn't be commenting on the science. 

So only scientists should have an opinion?

 

There is contradictory "science".  Seems even scientists dont know.

 

the problem is, there is also a lot of bullshit parading around as science that people keep bringing up. 

 

Here are some things that we can accept as true though... The Eath has warmed and cooled on it's own for a variety of reasons in the past and will continue to do so in the future

The greenhouse effect is real, this is not up for debate

CO2 is a greehouse gas, this is not up for debate

Our species has emitted a metric **** ton of CO2 in the last 200 years, this is a fact and not up for debate.

 

So you put all those things together and yeah there is a whole lot of overwhelming evidence pointing towards our actions as a species impacting climate.How much? Well that's where the debate comes in, and what's to be done about it? That's the biggest debate that should be happening. The science is pretty straightforward and trying to hand wave it away with arguments like "Well the Earth warms and cools naturally" aren't scientific they're little better than being a flat earther or creationist. Just flies in the face of real science. 

 

 

and yet there have been periods of time where CO2 levels were much higher than they are today, and yet somehow the world didn't experience the doomsday scenarios as forecasted by groups who directly benefit from people believing these doomsday scenarios, as their livelihoods and funding are tied to people continuing to buy the doomsday scenarios.  And that, as they say, is a conflict of interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

No what I'm saying is that if people don't understand the science they shouldn't be commenting on the science. 

So only scientists should have an opinion?

 

There is contradictory "science".  Seems even scientists dont know.

 

the problem is, there is also a lot of bullshit parading around as science that people keep bringing up. 

 

Here are some things that we can accept as true though... The Eath has warmed and cooled on it's own for a variety of reasons in the past and will continue to do so in the future

The greenhouse effect is real, this is not up for debate

CO2 is a greehouse gas, this is not up for debate

Our species has emitted a metric **** ton of CO2 in the last 200 years, this is a fact and not up for debate.

 

So you put all those things together and yeah there is a whole lot of overwhelming evidence pointing towards our actions as a species impacting climate.How much? Well that's where the debate comes in, and what's to be done about it? That's the biggest debate that should be happening. The science is pretty straightforward and trying to hand wave it away with arguments like "Well the Earth warms and cools naturally" aren't scientific they're little better than being a flat earther or creationist. Just flies in the face of real science. 

 

 

I ♥ you.

 

Aaaaand cue KBF's triple "D"  

"Deny, Deflect, Denigrate"

 

 

I'm the one who "denigrates"? 

 

Who is the one posting nonsense about "Front Groups" and only looking at one side of the whole debate? 

 

Who is the one denigrating "Friends of Science" but turning a complete blind eye to the Tides Foundation?  Who funds the Green Party in Canada?  The Sierra Club?  Hint - it's not Canadians. 

 

 

Nice, you mixed this one up a bit:

 

Colour coded for ease of understanding:

 

Deny

 

Deflect

 

Denigrate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No what I'm saying is that if people don't understand the science they shouldn't be commenting on the science. 

So only scientists should have an opinion?

 

There is contradictory "science".  Seems even scientists dont know.

 

the problem is, there is also a lot of bullshit parading around as science that people keep bringing up. 

 

Here are some things that we can accept as true though... The Eath has warmed and cooled on it's own for a variety of reasons in the past and will continue to do so in the future

The greenhouse effect is real, this is not up for debate

CO2 is a greehouse gas, this is not up for debate

Our species has emitted a metric **** ton of CO2 in the last 200 years, this is a fact and not up for debate.

 

So you put all those things together and yeah there is a whole lot of overwhelming evidence pointing towards our actions as a species impacting climate.How much? Well that's where the debate comes in, and what's to be done about it? That's the biggest debate that should be happening. The science is pretty straightforward and trying to hand wave it away with arguments like "Well the Earth warms and cools naturally" aren't scientific they're little better than being a flat earther or creationist. Just flies in the face of real science. 

 

 

and yet there have been periods of time where CO2 levels were much higher than they are today, and yet somehow the world didn't experience the doomsday scenarios as forecasted by groups who directly benefit from people believing these doomsday scenarios, as their livelihoods and funding are tied to people continuing to buy the doomsday scenarios.  And that, as they say, is a conflict of interest. 

 

Oh don't get me wrong, I am far from a doom and gloomer, I'm of the opinion that it's a lot of fretting over things we shouldn't worry about. We're better off doing what humans do best and adapting to the change rather than trying to halt said change. Fossil fuels will naturally be replaced at some point anyway, I'd rather let economics dictate when to make the change as opposed to forcing it at huge cost. I also don't agree with schemes like cap and trade and carbon taxes, I don't believe they actually address the issue. That being said, the science is pretty sound and the opposing science doesn't hold up to scrutiny. That's how science works, it's not about opinions it's about proving and disproving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh don't get me wrong, I am far from a doom and gloomer, I'm of the opinion that it's a lot of fretting over things we shouldn't worry about. We're better off doing what humans do best and adapting to the change rather than trying to halt said change. Fossil fuels will naturally be replaced at some point anyway, I'd rather let economics dictate when to make the change as opposed to forcing it at huge cost. I also don't agree with schemes like cap and trade and carbon taxes, I don't believe they actually address the issue. That being said, the science is pretty sound and the opposing science doesn't hold up to scrutiny. That's how science works, it's not about opinions it's about proving and disproving. 

 

 

You sound a lot like two guys I really admire, Bjorn Lomborg and Matthew Ridley.  Both are self-described "luke-warmers", in that they agree with the hypothesis to some extent that man-generated CO2 may be having an effect on climate, but they say the costs and the actual cures themselves are far worse than actual man-made climate change.  Matt Ridley actually describes a lot of the suggested "cures" for man-made climate change as wrapping a tourniquet around your neck to stop a nosebleed.  I think a lot of people would agree with this, but are shouted down,  Lomborg has a serious problem with wasting billions on solving "man-made climate change" in Africa while for a few million, all Africans could receive mosquito nets, and therefore not die of malaria long before they ever die of climate change.  Lomborg has been attacked mercilessly by the AGW warm-mongers, and I'm sure the resident muck-rakers could in five minutes find several sites pointing out how Lomborg's aunt once spoke at a conference and the Koch brothers took a dump in the hotel during the conference so therefore his opinion is worthless, but that's beside the point.  IF this is an issue, how big an issue is it?  Is it the apocalyptic ****-storm that those being paid a lot of money to "study" this problem say it is?  I agree with you, the answer is probably "no".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet people feel obligated to comment despite that?

Are you suggesting no one should comment on any subjects of which they are not certified experts? That would eliminate pretty much every thread and certainly eliminate all discussion.

In that case, will someone tell Leonardo to shut the hell up? Lol.

Chinooks are proof of global warming apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol warm-mongers!

 

Credit to Mark Steyn on that one!  Speaking of Steyn, he was testifying the other day in Congress.  Here's his testimony, and what he's been through since a SLAPP lawsuit was launched against him by Michael Mann, the father of the AGW "hockey stick", so loved by Al Gore and other warm-mongers. Well worth the read.  What he's been through sounds a lot like the McCarthy era in the 1950's.  Don't criticize the AGW fraud, or you will be persecuted!

 

http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c6a57a91-8bbd-45f3-9eaa-51cc8f64e9dc/5DDB5BDF028B536F0A1A4E116D144E9D.mr.-mark-steyn-testimony.pdf

 

This is just awesome:

 

 

In the three years that I have been ensnared in the dysfunctional court system of the District of

Columbia, I have come to know well what I call the “climate of fear” within climate science.

Professors Christy, Curry and Happer are sufficiently eminent that they can, just about, bear the

assault the Big Climate enforcers mount on those who dissent from the dogma – although that

assault is fierce and unrelenting. If you’re a professor emeritus, you’re told you’re senile. If

you’re one of the few women in this very male field, you’re told you’re whoring for Big Oil: The

aforementioned Michael Mann of Penn State, who is too cowardly to be here today and has

instead sent his proxy, approvingly linked to an Internet post accusing Dr Curry of sleeping with

me. This is how a supposedly distinguished climate scientist treats those who disagree with him.

On May 13th last year I wrote:

It’s always fun in a legal battle to have something bigger at stake than a mere victory.

In Canada, we put the ‘human rights’ system itself on trial, to the point where the

disgusting and indefensible ‘hate speech’ law Section 13 was eventually repealed by

Parliament. It seems to me that in this particular case the bigger issue is the climate of

fear that Mann and his fellow ayatollahs of alarmism have succeeded in imposing on an

important scientific field.1

 

The very next day the distinguished 79-year-old Swedish climatologist Lennart Bengtsson was

forced to resign from a dissident climate group after the Big Climate enforcers took the hockey

stick to him in the back alley. He had agreed to participate in a group headed by Nigel Lawson.

Some of you may know Lord Lawson personally. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Mrs

Thatcher’s ministry in the United Kingdom. He’s nobody’s idea of a fringe madman: He’s a

member of the House of Lords, a Privy Counselor; his daughter is a popular celebrity chef on

America’s Food Network; his fellow trustees include a bishop of the Church of England, a

former private secretary to the Queen, and an advisor to two Prime Ministers from the Labour

Party. But they disagree with the tight little coterie of climate alarmists, and so Lennart

Bengtsson could not be permitted to meet with them. As Professor Bengtsson wrote:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the

world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be

unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and

safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not

expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I

have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other

colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what

will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never

have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as

meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're better off doing what humans do best and adapting to the change rather than trying to halt said change. Fossil fuels will naturally be replaced at some point anyway, I'd rather let economics dictate when to make the change as opposed to forcing it at huge cost.

What is the cost of adapting to climate change? What is the cost of effectively forestalling it? If you look at this stuff in purely economic terms, you want to select the cheaper option, right?

(and I don't believe that you should look at these issues as pure economics: there are large human costs involved, which is why the KBF argument about climate change investment vs, say, malaria investment, is actually a pretty effective one)

Additionally, if we are investing in alternative energy technologies today, won't that make tomorrow's "natural" replacement of fossil fuels easier and cheaper and less disruptive? Aren't those investments good ones for the future even if climate change is not a disaster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How disgusting.   And for what?  Its really just about money.  They cant truly believe their nonsense.  Like I said, if they really believed the world was at risk, then they'd all be leading by example.  How is their carbon footprint looking?

 

And whats the end game?  To say "yeah well we know the ice caps were melted before and will melt again and there is nothing we can do about it but lets put it off by 100 years?" 

 

Id we're going to spend billions of dollars on something we can never win, let's spend it on space travel and learning to live on Mars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We're better off doing what humans do best and adapting to the change rather than trying to halt said change. Fossil fuels will naturally be replaced at some point anyway, I'd rather let economics dictate when to make the change as opposed to forcing it at huge cost.

What is the cost of adapting to climate change? What is the cost of effectively forestalling it? If you look at this stuff in purely economic terms, you want to select the cheaper option, right?

(and I don't believe that you should look at these issues as pure economics: there are large human costs involved, which is why the KBF argument about climate change investment vs, say, malaria investment, is actually a pretty effective one)

Additionally, if we are investing in alternative energy technologies today, won't that make tomorrow's natural replacement of fossil fuels easier and cheaper and less disruptive? Aren't those investments good ones for the future even if climate change is not a disaster?

 

isnt this an organic thing though, the development of better technology?

 

Could we realistically say, if we wanted to make a car run on unicorn tears and good wishes we could...?  We just have to want to?  Doesnt the development of electric cars and better fuel cell technology work against big oil and yet we have undertaken that development and made advancements.  Can we not continue down the path of organically developing replacement for these things?  And empower corporations to want to make those changes and advancements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id we're going to spend billions of dollars on something we can never win, let's spend it on space travel and learning to live on Mars.

Unless Mars is wayyyy more interesting than we think it is, there's no fossil fuels there. Mars colonies will need to be powered by nuclear or renewables, so we need to get on that in any case. :)

Investing in Mars is a sound idea. Even if we don't bake ourselves out of a planet, humanity will eventually be extinguished on Earth. Supervolcanoes, gamma-ray bursters, asteroids, ice ages ... in the long view, we escape Earth or we die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Id we're going to spend billions of dollars on something we can never win, let's spend it on space travel and learning to live on Mars.

Unless Mars is wayyyy more interesting than we think it is, there's no fossil fuels there. Mars colonies will need to be powered by nuclear or renewables, so we need to get on that in any case. :)

Investing in Mars is a sound idea. Even if we don't bake ourselves out of a planet, humanity will eventually be extinguished on Earth. Supervolcanoes, gamma-ray bursters, asteroids, ice ages ... in the long view, we escape Earth or we die.

 

 

Yup, I agree.  Time to start terra-forming Mars right now. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In recall hearing as a young lad, ideas for terra forming Venus.  Let's get on that.  Im sure a focused effort at space exploration will lead to a lot more technological advances than gathering a bunch of elites to spout a lot of hot air in Paris.  I wonder what Trudeau has done to decrease his carbon footprint.  Well, I heard he recently got two nannies off his payroll....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isnt this an organic thing though, the development of better technology?

Could we realistically say, if we wanted to make a car run on unicorn tears and good wishes we could...? We just have to want to? Doesnt the development of electric cars and better fuel cell technology work against big oil and yet we have undertaken that development and made advancements. Can we not continue down the path of organically developing replacement for these things? And empower corporations to want to make those changes and advancements?

Absolutely. The free market is pretty wonderful at making new stuff for us. For instance, the free market is kicking ass when it comes to making better and better computer hardware. It's a great time to be a software guy like me. The automotive industry is awesome too. Cars in the 2010s are insanely better than cars built just fifteen years ago. We have practical hybrid vehicles and plug-in cars. We have Teslas.

However, the free market can also be addicted to the status quo, to rent-seeking, to profiteering. Look at how fat and happy the telecommunications industry is. Look at how the quality of Internet access in the West lags behind the rest of the world. Look at how the pharma industry invests in the next Viagra instead of a cure for diabetes.

There's a role for governments to invest and incentivize for the public good. The American government subsidizes things like corn and oil to an absurd degree, and while it's infuriating to see companies like Exxon and BP and Monsanto sucking at the public teat, it also makes some sense from a strategic standpoint. What nation can survive without a stable food and energy supply -- especially one as big and spread-out as the USA?

In telecommunications, we see communities across the USA starting to build their own publicly owned broadband networks, because the free market just isn't cutting it. We have publicly-funded pharma research (which is then snapped up and patented by pharma companies, but that's another issue). We have investments with no obvious immediate return -- any crewed space travel falls under this category.

The free market is cool, but it needs to be nudged sometimes and, occasionally, bypassed completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×