|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 1, 2019 13:19:44 GMT -5
This has been a running argument in other threads but why not stoke the fire a little bit more.
I think this video sums up pretty nicely why it's a pseudoscientific hoax:
In short, it's a theory that can't be falsified, refuted or tested, and none of its catastrophic predictions have come true for 40 years. The end is always nigh but nothing ever actually happens, just like in any other religion. Meanwhile, keep paying your CO2 tax everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on Mar 1, 2019 13:22:08 GMT -5
Adding a poll would be a good idea Hiromant. |
|
|
|
Post by tij on Mar 1, 2019 13:24:23 GMT -5
There's significant evidence that suggests anthropogenic climate change is real, and it can be verified that the probability that we would have extreme events like the flooding in Houston, hurricane Maria, and other natural disasters is statistically improbable without climate change. I will respond to this more in depth at a later time.
|
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on Mar 1, 2019 13:46:17 GMT -5
Climate change is obviously real and obviously caused by humans. Anyone with a basic grasp of science understands this. However, no individual meteorological event or natural disaster can be directly tied to climate change. Doing so is disingenuous and people who try to sound the alarm over every event, all of which happened without "climate change" are just as bad as the deniers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 1, 2019 13:50:34 GMT -5
Climate change is obviously real and obviously caused by humans. Anyone with a basic grasp of science understands this. However, no individual meteorological event or natural disaster can be directly tied to climate change is disingenuous and people who try to sound the alarm over every event, all of which happened without "climate change" are just as bad as the deniers. This attitude is what gets me, it reminds me of Aesthete's ramblings. It's all obvious, no proof necessary, anyone who doubts it is a hater and a denier and doesn't understand science. Are you talking about science or Jesus? Because real science welcomes criticism and attempts at refutation and doesn't personally attack critics.
Here are some of the predictions the proponents of this 100% scientifically sound theory have made, all of which were laughably false: - 1988, Dr. James Hansen. Asked by author Rob Reiss how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years, Hansen replied: “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change…There will be more police cars…[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
- Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”
- 1990, Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1996, the Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers… The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”
- October 15, 1990, Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ecological and agricultural catastrophe by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”
- 1990, Actress Meryl Streep: “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away — earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”
- July 26, 1999, The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”
- April 1, 2000, Der Spiegel: “Goodbye winter. Never again snow?”
- March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten years’ time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”
- Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”
I wonder what will happen first, Jesus returning or the North pole melting, because it isn't looking good for either.
|
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on Mar 1, 2019 13:55:42 GMT -5
Climate change is obviously real and obviously caused by humans. Anyone with a basic grasp of science understands this. However, no individual meteorological event or natural disaster can be directly tied to climate change is disingenuous and people who try to sound the alarm over every event, all of which happened without "climate change" are just as bad as the deniers. This attitude is what gets me, it reminds me of Aesthete's ramblings. It's all obvious, no proof necessary, anyone who doubts it is a hater and a denier and doesn't understand science. Are you talking about science or Jesus? Because real science welcomes criticism and attempts at refutation. If you need me to explain how carbon dioxide traps heat and radiates it back to the surface or around the atmosphere instead of allowing it to be reflected back out to space I can but there exists a plethora of online sources you can easily see that explain it better than I can. Climate denial is one of two things, abject stupidity, or willful ignorance...you seem to be afflicted by the latter. You quoting what stupid people have said about a real phenomenon accomplishes nothing. Lets say I believe the earth is round but I also believe that because the earth is round it's only a matter of time before it "rolls" way from the sun and everyone will die. Just because one of the things I believe is wrong doesn't immediately invalidate the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 1, 2019 13:59:20 GMT -5
This attitude is what gets me, it reminds me of Aesthete's ramblings. It's all obvious, no proof necessary, anyone who doubts it is a hater and a denier and doesn't understand science. Are you talking about science or Jesus? Because real science welcomes criticism and attempts at refutation. If you need me to explain how carbon dioxide traps heat and radiates it back to the surface or around the atmosphere instead of allowing it to be reflected back out to space I can but there exists a plethora of online sources you can easily see that explain it better than I can. Climate denial is one of two things, abject stupidity, or willful ignorance...you seem to be afflicted by the latter. Carbon dioxide makes up 0.045% of the atmosphere and has a much weaker greenhouse effect than abundant water vapor. You are claiming that minute changes in the tiny amount of a trace gas can cause rapid, exponential, catastrophic warming of the planet. Oh by the way, at the end of the Ordovician era the CO 2 content of the air was 7000 ppm (currently at 450 ppm) and Earth's temperature was 13°C lower than now. I also love how mainstream media keeps calling it "carbon" to make it sound dirty when it's really a colorless, odorless gas. But just keep calling "deniers" stupid, that'll make the inconvenient facts go away. |
|
|
|
Post by tij on Mar 1, 2019 14:12:46 GMT -5
Climate change is obviously real and obviously caused by humans. Anyone with a basic grasp of science understands this. However, no individual meteorological event or natural disaster can be directly tied to climate change is disingenuous and people who try to sound the alarm over every event, all of which happened without "climate change" are just as bad as the deniers. Not as simple as this, I'm afraid. Climate change creates a "base" for which extreme events can become more statistically possible. |
|
|
|
Post by alex992 on Mar 1, 2019 14:20:58 GMT -5
Climate change is real and caused by humans, but how fast we're warming and the effects of it are highly exaggerated by the media and all the idiotic "projections" like Chicago having Dallas summers by 2080, and literally any little event is blamed by climate change which is counterproductive.
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on Mar 1, 2019 14:28:57 GMT -5
If you need me to explain how carbon dioxide traps heat and radiates it back to the surface or around the atmosphere instead of allowing it to be reflected back out to space I can but there exists a plethora of online sources you can easily see that explain it better than I can. Climate denial is one of two things, abject stupidity, or willful ignorance...you seem to be afflicted by the latter. Carbon dioxide makes up 0.045% of the atmosphere and has a much weaker greenhouse effect than abundant water vapor. You are claiming that minute changes in the tiny amount of a trace gas can cause rapid, exponential, catastrophic warming of the planet. Oh by the way, at the end of the Ordovician era the CO 2 content of the air was 7000 ppm (currently at 450 ppm) and Earth's temperature was 13°C lower than now. But just keep calling "deniers" stupid, that'll make the inconvenient facts go away. Water vapor has about double the greenhouse effect as carbon dioxide; water vapor is more abundant than carbon dioxide so trace gases can do a lot. Saying it can't do much cause it's trace is moronic; the more common gases are monatomic or diatomic so can't absorb radiation. Source from the Ordovician? The climate denier argument is a moronic "heat trapping gases can't trap heat", greenhouse gases not doing anything would contradict long accepted parts of atmospheric science and radiation physics. |
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on Mar 1, 2019 14:33:01 GMT -5
nei Exactly. For fucks sake physicists in the 1800's knew what would happen if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was meaningfully increased.
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Mar 1, 2019 14:38:19 GMT -5
Climate Change is most certainly real, but Man has little effect; apart from UHI, i.e. CO2 isn't even remotely a "climate driver" by comparison to the AAO, IOD, MJO, ENSO, etc. Merely a climate influence—and a minor one, at that, too of a logarithmic nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Mar 1, 2019 15:06:11 GMT -5
I'm for the "climate change is real, and humans are contributing to it to a not-negligible extent" position. Climate is the result of very complex processes, and there are tons of elements contributing to it.
Spending all the day working with infrared spectroscopy and trying to get rid of the annoying absorption arising from the CO2 & co present in the atmosphere, I definitively don't underestimate the effect of an increasing of green house gasses in the atmosphere. Apart from the not-negligible production of greenhouse gasses and atmospheric particulate matter, people can also contribute to climatic modifications by the changes of the soil usage, which for example can modify the earth albedo.
The system is evidently very complex, and so it is also very hard to set up a reliable model on which calculate long-term predictions. Generally speaking I trust the general trend proposed by those models, but I tend to be more cautious when talking about the numbers coming our from those calculations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steelernation on Mar 1, 2019 15:09:27 GMT -5
Is it real? Yes. You’d have to be a moron or willfully ignorant to deny it.
Is it human caused? Yes. There’s some debate over how much of it is but it’s prettu settled that humans are the main factor.
Is it a big deal? I don’t think so. There will be some negative impacts in the arctic, but I doubt they’ll be much effect elsewhere. Certainly no collapse of civilization like the leftists think.
When 99% of scientists—the professionals in the field—say it’s happening, I’d be inclined to trust then. Arrogant to think some random dude knows more than people who actually study the shit for their jobs.
And no, it’s not a conspiracy. Every government leader and politician and scientist isn’t colluding in some elaborate hoax to destroy the economy. Have a brain folks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steelernation on Mar 1, 2019 15:26:47 GMT -5
Al Gore, Julia Gillard ring any bells?  Al Gore has even admitted to downright lying, so there ya go. 2 people don’t create a conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 1, 2019 15:32:53 GMT -5
Argumentum ad Populum and Argumentum ad Hominem as presented by Steelernation are indeed the main fallacies used by the media to convince the masses, they never cease to remind us just how many scientists (who will lose their jobs if they say anything contrary to the party line) have reached a completely conclusive consensus which must mean the theory is true. I think the last article I read claimed five sigma or 99.9999% certainty. And boy, if you don't believe it, you're just an ignorant moron who doesn't understand science and we all think so! It reeks of desperation. We'll see how many more decades of lies have to pass before people start questioning the narrative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Mar 1, 2019 15:35:47 GMT -5
Argumentum ad Populum as presented by Steelernation is indeed one of the main fallacies used by the media to convince the masses, they never cease to remind us just how many scientists (who will lose their jobs if they say anything contrary to the party line) have reached a completely conclusive consensus which must mean the theory is true. I think the last article I read claimed five sigma or 99.9999% certainty. It reeks of desperation. We'll see how many more decades of lies have to pass before people start questioning the narrative.
Is it the same people convincing people to drink coffee because it's the government's legal meth?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 1, 2019 15:36:33 GMT -5
Argumentum ad Populum as presented by Steelernation is indeed one of the main fallacies used by the media to convince the masses, they never cease to remind us just how many scientists (who will lose their jobs if they say anything contrary to the party line) have reached a completely conclusive consensus which must mean the theory is true. I think the last article I read claimed five sigma or 99.9999% certainty. It reeks of desperation. We'll see how many more decades of lies have to pass before people start questioning the narrative.
Is it the same people convincing people to drink coffee because it's the government's legal meth?
How about you reply to the thread topic? Also note how nearly every AGW proponent, unable to make actual arguments, immediately resorts to personal attacks. |
|
|
|
Post by Lommaren on Mar 1, 2019 15:37:42 GMT -5
The truth is somewhere in the middle in relation to the media climate scenarios. I'm not overly concerned about the short or medium term, but climate change definitely is happening and partially (probably a majority) of the cause is man-made, still it might be close to being split down the middle with a warmer phase of the sun (lots of sun spots during the mini ice age), but at the same time increased carbon dioxide aids photosynthesis and helps rather than harms plants, which will actually have a net positive effect on vegetation in most areas. The melting of the ice is slow enough for sea levels to only microscopically rise within our lifetimes and any full melting of large ice sheets would take thousands of years and only raise sea levels with something like 100 metres if I recall correctly, which would still make most of the earth's land surface easily inhabitable. The tropics and subtropics are also warming much slower than the poles, so it seems like the strongest effect of increased Co2 in the atmosphere is going to make the global climate more evenly distributed. For areas already on a knife-edge with regards to habitability because of warmth, such as tropical deserts, then it's very bad news indeed and the same goes for the Maldives et cetera, but within our lifetimes in the places us on here live anything that will occur is going to be adaptable. Still, we can't go on like we do now until forever, it's completely unsustainable. That being said, the greed and look for a quick buck is what really makes the situation get worse. What is a bigger worry for me is the species extinction because of all the pollutants and toxic waste dumping along with the oceans getting filled with dumped plastics. We have absolutely no idea what that is going to do long-term. Finally, for my area, climate change is actually going to be a net positive just with some adaptation. The growth season will expand, the Baltic Sea coast is actually raising the land from post-glacial rebound so sea levels will either be flat or shrinking and long-term plant hardiness will go down, enabling a lot more crops to be grown. It's unfortunate for those areas that won't be so lucky, but nothing ever remains stale in nature, it always changes. After the end of the Ice Age, where I live right now was submerged under the Baltic Sea until the glacial rebound got much of what now is Southern Sweden back over the water. The Dutch have also shown already prior to the high-tech area how to engineer having a safe environment close to the sea at a low elevation. So, in summation, we need to decrease emissions and find an energy-efficient route to deliver the first-world lifestyle. Gigantic solar cells need to be utilized in areas with really high and strong sunshine such as Chile, Arizona, Algeria and the Himalayas to name a few. Then countries can own those cells together and use them for cheap energy that retires carbon and oil dependency for good. Unfortunately, the oil giants' greed holds such a necessary development back. Humans are our own worst enemy, but it doesn't change that those "climate reports" that have made Isleofpalms believe Indianapolis will be like Dallas in 2050 shouldn't be called out, because it doesn't help anyone to make models and projections up out of thin air that only will be relevant for areas close to the poles and won't affect the humid and stable tropics much.
I voted for the first option, but I think a middle ground between Al Gore-style ridiculous fearmongering from last decade about the end being nigh by 2013 that has already been disproven by reality and merely saying "climate change happens but ain't got nothing to do with humans" would be helpful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 15:45:54 GMT -5
it's real. look at svalbard, no colder than average month since nov 2010. but i don't belive in sustainable energy or whatever it's called. i think geo-engineering the the only way to solve it.
|
|
