Global Warming Stuff

[Phatscotty]

I'm still in the middle. I don't deny humans have something to with contribution, but I don't buy into the PC line on climate change either. Just wanted to share this for discussion purposes.

Ta!

[Metsfanmax]

I don't deny humans have something to with contribution, but I don't buy into the PC line on climate change either.

Why should anyone care what your opinion on this issue is?

[got tonkaed]

Speaker could probably be a lot more direct. I got about 5 minutes in before I was like ok gave it a shot.

I don't even disagree with the premise that you have to accept the four points as true.

I think most people would be just as on board with solutions from the business world as they would be from the government in regards to human causation of climate change. Whether or not you believe either group is going to bring society toward a solution or not is probably more of an ideological thing than anything.

I would rather action is taken to make industrial outputs more efficient and create less emission. I don't really care what the impetus for it is.

[AndyDufresne]

Anytime "unmasked" is used, that is usually a red flag.


--Andy

[demonfork]

I'm still in the middle. I don't deny humans have something to with contribution, but I don't buy into the PC line on climate change either. Just wanted to share this for discussion purposes.

Ta!

Great video!

I've never believed that there was a 97% scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming.

As the video points out there is really only a 0.3% consensus, based on using the same but un-doctored data that the folks used to derive the preposterous 97% number.


But even if the 97% value were true, it wouldn't even matter since scientific validity isn't determined by a popular vote...

"in in the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to the majority that later turned out to be right"


Before it was discovered that light, unlike sound, could travel thru space without a medium, the scientific consensus said that light traveled via "space aether".


Many good points in the video...

"just because the earth may be warming doesn't mean that its a bad thing" (as the alarmists may want you to believe)

Increase in global temperatures has had an overall positive effect..

1. Fewer global winter deaths
2. Lower energy costs.
3. Higher agricultural yields
4. Significant growth of 31% of global vegetation over the last 3 decades. (the increase of global co2 from 0.03-0.04% has made the planet greener)

[Metsfanmax]

I've never believed that there was a 97% scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming.

Well, the spirit of the scientific method is to explore the truth for yourself, not to simply believe or disbelieve. In this spirit, I encourage you to open up the latest issue of any major peer-reviewed climate science journal and find even a single article that states that the majority of current global warming is not caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

I'll wait.

But even if the 97% value were true, it wouldn't even matter since scientific validity isn't determined by a popular vote...

Indeed. Scientific validity is determined by a popular* YouTube video.

*5,700 views is a lot, right?

(There is an important point to be made here, though. Your statement about scientific validity is true in the narrow sense that the objective truth or falsehood of a scientific statement is independent of whether Phatscotty, demonfork, Metsfanmax, or Michael Mann believes it is true. However, a little reflection reveals that the vast majority of what we think we know about the world implicitly relies on scientific consensus. I have never actually attempted to measure the curvature of spacetime, or dug for fossils. I assume that general relativity and evolution are true descriptions of the world because a lot of smart people who have done these things found that the predictions of the theory matched the observable evidence, and because a lot more smart people read about their work and agreed that it lent weight to the theory. If the only things I believed to be true about the world were the result of scientific experiments I personally had engaged in, I would be a raving lunatic. I will let you all decide how that integrates with your beliefs about climate science.)

[Phatscotty]

I don't deny humans have something to with contribution, but I don't buy into the PC line on climate change either.

Why should anyone care what your opinion on this issue is?

I don't care if anyone cares about my opinion. I gave it because that's the only way, stating first "I am not a denier", the information can even begin to be viewed/heard/seen in America 2.0 without being immediately pelted with rotten tomatoes and heads of lettuce.



If one is not PC, then without question or a moment wasted that one is not tolerated or accepted and is immediately disregarded and rejected. It doesn't even matter if the information is crucial or even just partly/mostly true to PC peeps. Ironically,the fact you replied shows you care the most.

[Metsfanmax]

Ironically,the fact you replied shows you care the most.

You should read more carefully. I don't care what your opinion actually is, since you probably haven't picked up a science text since you were 16. I care that you have an opinion, precisely for that reason: democracy kind of doesn't work when people decide to start chiming in on issues they don't understand. It is perfectly ok to admit that you do not understand this issue well, and to defer to people who do.

[nietzsche]

I don't deny humans have something to with contribution, but I don't buy into the PC line on climate change either.

Why should anyone care what your opinion on this issue is?

This is exactly what bothers me most about the scientific "establishment". Or those who follow it blindly. Trying to ridicule others and their opinions.

I know you're not the average idiot who eats the words of the onion and think he's super smart.

Wherther you're right or not, demonfork and Scotty beat you here for the simple fact that they are willing to consider different ideas.

I know trying to construct a strong argument in any complex matter it's difficult but when you start like that it shows an annoyance that could mean a lot of things, including that you can't really construct such a strong argument that truly contains and disproves what they're saying. Maybe.

[mrswdk]

Ironically,the fact you replied shows you care the most.

You should read more carefully. I don't care what your opinion actually is, since you probably haven't picked up a science text since you were 16. I care that you have an opinion, precisely for that reason: democracy kind of doesn't work when people decide to start chiming in on issues they don't understand. It is perfectly ok to admit that you do not understand this issue well, and to defer to people who do.

Sucks for you then, because that's how your country's model of democracy works.

[mrswdk]

Aren't the really hardcore effects of climate change only going to kick in so far into the future that we'll all be dead by then anyway?

[Metsfanmax]

Wherther you're right or not, demonfork and Scotty beat you here for the simple fact that they are willing to consider different ideas.

You should probably read try reading a journal article in a science field sometime, if you think that scientists aren't good at "considering different ideas." Until then, withhold comment, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you think that anyone should score scientific points for being open-minded enough to say "nah I don't think Newton's laws are that great, I like instead the hypothesis that it's garden gnomes holding everything together."

Imagine making this comment in nearly any other context, to see how straight up absurd it is. It is only the politicized nature of climate science lately that allows anyone to get away with it. I can just envision the thread now: demonfork posts a video about a perpetual motion machine and how the party line on the second law of thermodynamics is bullshit, and nietzsche praises him for his sincere willingness to criticize well-ensconced ideas.

I know trying to construct a strong argument in any complex matter it's difficult but when you start like that it shows an annoyance that could mean a lot of things, including that you can't really construct such a strong argument that truly contains and disproves what they're saying. Maybe.

You of course know that this is not the case; I have engaged in plenty of discussion about the basics of climate science before, many times on this forum. So why make such an asinine comment?

Aren't the really hardcore effects of climate change only going to kick in so far into the future that we'll all be dead by then anyway?

No, the hardcore effects of climate change have already started happening: melting ice and sea level rise, increased damage from severe weather, more spread of disease especially in tropical regions, increased political instability in vulnerable regions, drought, etc. The question now is how much worse will it get, not whether it has started yet.

[mrswdk]

Aren't the really hardcore effects of climate change only going to kick in so far into the future that we'll all be dead by then anyway?

No, the hardcore effects of climate change have already started happening: melting ice and sea level rise, increased damage from severe weather, more spread of disease especially in tropical regions, increased political instability in vulnerable regions, drought, etc. The question now is how much worse will it get, not whether it has started yet.

Okay, when will the effects be felt by people who do not live on low-lying tropical islands?

[nietzsche]

Wherther you're right or not, demonfork and Scotty beat you here for the simple fact that they are willing to consider different ideas.

You should probably read try reading a journal article in a science field sometime, if you think that scientists aren't good at "considering different ideas." Until then, withhold comment, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you think that anyone should score scientific points for being open-minded enough to say "nah I don't think Newton's laws are that great, I like instead the hypothesis that it's garden gnomes holding everything together."

Imagine making this comment in nearly any other context, to see how straight up absurd it is. It is only the politicized nature of climate science lately that allows anyone to get away with it. I can just envision the thread now: demonfork posts a video about a perpetual motion machine and how the party line on the second law of thermodynamics is bullshit, and nietzsche praises him for his sincere willingness to criticize well-ensconced ideas.

I know trying to construct a strong argument in any complex matter it's difficult but when you start like that it shows an annoyance that could mean a lot of things, including that you can't really construct such a strong argument that truly contains and disproves what they're saying. Maybe.

You of course know that this is not the case; I have engaged in plenty of discussion about the basics of climate science before, many times on this forum. So why make such an asinine comment?

Aren't the really hardcore effects of climate change only going to kick in so far into the future that we'll all be dead by then anyway?

No, the hardcore effects of climate change have already started happening: melting ice and sea level rise, increased damage from severe weather, more spread of disease especially in tropical regions, increased political instability in vulnerable regions, drought, etc. The question now is how much worse will it get, not whether it has started yet.

Still trying to ridicule and still annoyed. You didn't need to prove my point.

[Phatscotty]

Ironically,the fact you replied shows you care the most.

You should read more carefully. I don't care what your opinion actually is, since you probably haven't picked up a science text since you were 16. I care that you have an opinion, precisely for that reason: democracy kind of doesn't work when people decide to start chiming in on issues they don't understand. It is perfectly ok to admit that you do not understand this issue well, and to defer to people who do.

nor does it work when politicians try to exploit an issue pumping fear all along the way. democracy kind of doesn't work when people decide to make decisions for everyone else and tell them to stfu. Cuz those people say dumb things too. Like, 'you probably haven't picked up a science text since you were 16' #1 I went to college, two different times and places. #2 I'm not Doogie Howser, I was like 25 n stuff. Maybe you are onto something though, since it's possible I'm out of the loop for too long. Hey, when I was in school, it was called 'global cooling' Hey, that was just the results of science! Can't be wrong! Yeah, there was a huge consensus then too. Ya know, for you deferring to people who understand this issue well, they sure don't seem to understand much about this issue well! and deferring to external authority/experts...eh, not my first choice. I like to learn things for myself, always seeking for information, always digging deeper. Plus, I learned a long time ago, you can make science be whatever answers you are looking for. It's scientists who have misplaced 'faith' that I tend to worry about the most

[mrswdk]

Ironically,the fact you replied shows you care the most.

You should read more carefully. I don't care what your opinion actually is, since you probably haven't picked up a science text since you were 16. I care that you have an opinion, precisely for that reason: democracy kind of doesn't work when people decide to start chiming in on issues they don't understand. It is perfectly ok to admit that you do not understand this issue well, and to defer to people who do.

nor does it work when politicians try to exploit an issue pumping fear all along the way. democracy kind of doesn't work when people decide to make decisions for everyone else and tell them to stfu. Cuz those people say dumb things too. Like, 'you probably haven't picked up a science text since you were 16' #1 I went to college, two different times and places. #2 I'm not Doogie Howser, I was like 25 n stuff. Maybe you are onto something though, since it's possible I'm out of the loop for too long. Hey, when I was in school, it was called 'global cooling' Yeah, there was a huge consensus then too. Ya know, for you deferring to people who understand this issue well, they sure don't seem to understand much about this issue well! and deferring to external authority/experts...eh, not my first choice. I like to learn things for myself, always seeking for information, always digging deeper. Plus, I learned a long time ago, you can make science be whatever answers you are looking for. It's the scientists who have to lie and exaggerate that I tend to worry about the most

Let me know when they get a prediction right to finally go along with their 1,872 fails. But it doesn't count of they have to change the name of it again

I thought you said the reason you didn't have time for a 1v1 right now was because you were going out for a walk and a blowjob?

[Phatscotty]

Ironically,the fact you replied shows you care the most.

You should read more carefully. I don't care what your opinion actually is, since you probably haven't picked up a science text since you were 16. I care that you have an opinion, precisely for that reason: democracy kind of doesn't work when people decide to start chiming in on issues they don't understand. It is perfectly ok to admit that you do not understand this issue well, and to defer to people who do.

nor does it work when politicians try to exploit an issue pumping fear all along the way. democracy kind of doesn't work when people decide to make decisions for everyone else and tell them to stfu. Cuz those people say dumb things too. Like, 'you probably haven't picked up a science text since you were 16' #1 I went to college, two different times and places. #2 I'm not Doogie Howser, I was like 25 n stuff. Maybe you are onto something though, since it's possible I'm out of the loop for too long. Hey, when I was in school, it was called 'global cooling' Yeah, there was a huge consensus then too. Ya know, for you deferring to people who understand this issue well, they sure don't seem to understand much about this issue well! and deferring to external authority/experts...eh, not my first choice. I like to learn things for myself, always seeking for information, always digging deeper. Plus, I learned a long time ago, you can make science be whatever answers you are looking for. It's the scientists who have to lie and exaggerate that I tend to worry about the most

Let me know when they get a prediction right to finally go along with their 1,872 fails. But it doesn't count of they have to change the name of it again

I thought you said the reason you didn't have time for a 1v1 right now was because you were going out for a walk and a blowjob?

I know better than to start the process in motion without setting up all the dominoes. I've been making coffee, weather check, umbrella check, pocket size carry-on mouthwash check, 2 funny jokes with slight sexual innuendo check, I'm like a domesticated Arnold these days

[clangfield]

Increase in global temperatures has had an overall positive effect..

1. Fewer global winter deaths
2. Lower energy costs.
3. Higher agricultural yields
4. Significant growth of 31% of global vegetation over the last 3 decades. (the increase of global co2 from 0.03-0.04% has made the planet greener)

Hmm... higher agricultural yields in some places, but vegetation turned to desert in others is a likely consequence.
In the UK, global warming is thought to make us colder due to the gulf stream being turned south, so we'll actually get worse weather. Hence points 1 and 2 will go the other way here, and Scotland may become uninhabitable.
What is now the North Sea used to be a fertile grazing area for woolly mammoths apparently. Think on.

[mrswdk]

Increase in global temperatures has had an overall positive effect..

1. Fewer global winter deaths
2. Lower energy costs.
3. Higher agricultural yields
4. Significant growth of 31% of global vegetation over the last 3 decades. (the increase of global co2 from 0.03-0.04% has made the planet greener)

Hmm... higher agricultural yields in some places, but vegetation turned to desert in others is a likely consequence.
In the UK, global warming is thought to make us colder due to the gulf stream being turned south, so we'll actually get worse weather.
Hence points 1 and 2 will go the other way here, and Scotland may become uninhabitable.
What is now the North Sea used to be a fertile grazing area for woolly mammoths apparently. Think on.

That's a very unique example.

[Dukasaur]

Wherther you're right or not, demonfork and Scotty beat you here for the simple fact that they are willing to consider different ideas.

You should probably read try reading a journal article in a science field sometime, if you think that scientists aren't good at "considering different ideas." Until then, withhold comment, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you think that anyone should score scientific points for being open-minded enough to say "nah I don't think Newton's laws are that great, I like instead the hypothesis that it's garden gnomes holding everything together."

Imagine making this comment in nearly any other context, to see how straight up absurd it is. It is only the politicized nature of climate science lately that allows anyone to get away with it. I can just envision the thread now: demonfork posts a video about a perpetual motion machine and how the party line on the second law of thermodynamics is bullshit, and nietzsche praises him for his sincere willingness to criticize well-ensconced ideas.

I know trying to construct a strong argument in any complex matter it's difficult but when you start like that it shows an annoyance that could mean a lot of things, including that you can't really construct such a strong argument that truly contains and disproves what they're saying. Maybe.

You of course know that this is not the case; I have engaged in plenty of discussion about the basics of climate science before, many times on this forum. So why make such an asinine comment?

Aren't the really hardcore effects of climate change only going to kick in so far into the future that we'll all be dead by then anyway?

No, the hardcore effects of climate change have already started happening: melting ice and sea level rise, increased damage from severe weather, more spread of disease especially in tropical regions, increased political instability in vulnerable regions, drought, etc. The question now is how much worse will it get, not whether it has started yet.

Still trying to ridicule and still annoyed. You didn't need to prove my point.

Pot, meet kettle. You haven't addressed anything he actually said, only ridiculed.

[Dukasaur]

Aren't the really hardcore effects of climate change only going to kick in so far into the future that we'll all be dead by then anyway?

No, the hardcore effects of climate change have already started happening: melting ice and sea level rise, increased damage from severe weather, more spread of disease especially in tropical regions, increased political instability in vulnerable regions, drought, etc. The question now is how much worse will it get, not whether it has started yet.

Okay, when will the effects be felt by people who do not live on low-lying tropical islands?

They are felt all the time. I'm sure there are millions of people in your country feeling them right now. You're rich and you presumably live in an air-conditioned apartment, but I'll bet there are agricultural workers in your fields right now who are feeling the heat.

Maybe it's only 0.3 degrees warmer today than it was on this day 10 years ago, but that 0.3 degrees, over time, has an impact on the quality of life.

I noted that your winter was ridiculously mild this year. Biting and stinging insects are probably both larger and more plentiful than normal for your rural residents this year. This too is probably something you can ignore, but some person working to grow your food will die of bee stings this year that otherwise would not have.

[Metsfanmax]

I like to learn things for myself, always seeking for information, always digging deeper.

Have you ever read a climate science journal article or IPCC report?

since it's possible I'm out of the loop for too long

You are obviously out of the loop. There is zero question that you don't really know anything about modern climate science. The question is, do you have the intellectual fortitude to admit this to yourself?

[Metsfanmax]

Still trying to ridicule and still annoyed. You didn't need to prove my point.

This is hardly about ridicule. I don't blame Phatscotty for not being an expert on climate science; few are. However, I have the reasonable expectation that when people don't really know anythign about a subject, that they shut the f*ck up about it and listen to the people who do. There's really nothing glamorous about opening your mouth when you should be listening instead.

[mrswdk]

Okay, when will the effects be felt by people who do not live on low-lying tropical islands?

They are felt all the time. I'm sure there are millions of people in your country feeling them right now. You're rich and you presumably live in an air-conditioned apartment, but I'll bet there are agricultural workers in your fields right now who are feeling the heat.

Maybe it's only 0.3 degrees warmer today than it was on this day 10 years ago, but that 0.3 degrees, over time, has an impact on the quality of life.

I noted that your winter was ridiculously mild this year. Biting and stinging insects are probably both larger and more plentiful than normal for your rural residents this year. This too is probably something you can ignore, but some person working to grow your food will die of bee stings this year that otherwise would not have.

This winter was just as cold as the last few. The temperature was down to -10C at the end of December, I spent a few months needing to wear base layers every time I left the apartment etc.. The only difference I noticed was that the pollution was lighter than it has been in years gone by

People die of bee stings?

[Metsfanmax]

Aren't the really hardcore effects of climate change only going to kick in so far into the future that we'll all be dead by then anyway?

No, the hardcore effects of climate change have already started happening: melting ice and sea level rise, increased damage from severe weather, more spread of disease especially in tropical regions, increased political instability in vulnerable regions, drought, etc. The question now is how much worse will it get, not whether it has started yet.

Okay, when will the effects be felt by people who do not live on low-lying tropical islands?

China has coastlines, storms, mosquitos, politics, and water, so it is vulnerable to more or less everything I mentioned.

Even if it wasn't, people who live on low-lying tropical islands need to go somewhere when their island vanishes underwater. The places they're going to don't necessarily have the resources to support an entire new nation moving in. That is exactly the sort of stuff that leads to political strife and it will affect your country, directly or indirectly.