|
|
Post by jgtheone on Mar 1, 2019 17:26:15 GMT -5
Climate change is real and humans definitely have an effect, but I highly doubt it will be the end of the world. Will plants and wildlife really dramatically die out over a 2°C increase? Some might but humans can adapt for example. In fact, I'm sure heaps of species can adapt, evolution is a thing.
Going against climate change because "i HaTe LeFtIsTs!!!111" is more than not believing in it for your own reasons, it is just plain childish. There shouldn't even be a right and a left to this issue, it affects everyone regardless of what silly politics you subscribe to.
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Mar 1, 2019 17:27:30 GMT -5
Ok, even if NOAA would've been tampering the data, how about all met agencies and universities of Europe? They show similar results. If you think national and university researchers are all bought by some shadow cabal, you need to get your head checked. Or as one FMI meteorologist said to me: "where's my money? I could create a nonsense study when watching TV."
Then riddle me this: why on Earth do they feel such a need to tamper with data? If it is indeed true that the Earth is so rapidly warming, then NOAA wouldn't even require tampered data for to prove such absurdity(s). Signals red flags immediately, I must say.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Mar 1, 2019 18:03:27 GMT -5
Talking about money, keep in mind only one side of this battle is asking for billions of dollars from the public every year. Our power plants and fuels already have CO 2 taxes on them. Countries are paying for quotas so they can keep their industries alive. Researchers aren't brainwashed, they just want to keep their job, funding and reputation. Always follow the money.
Look, I know several researchers who work for the Uni of Turku or Åbo Akademi. They are doing research because it's their passion, but are hampered by constant finance cuts, and have to beg for grants all the time to even survive to pay their bills. Some of them work as teachers giving more income, but that distracts them of their "real" job. Or not even that, they might cashiers at the local corner store.
Of course, you can claim that why do these people even work in this field if they cannot live on their grants, but that is how it is, and how it has been the last 1000 years or so. They do it because they seek the truth, they want to explore, and think their work is important.
And it is, because we cannot restrict ourselves to the claim that only something which is financially viable is valuable. The Kardashians are financially viable but worth nothing, a symphony of a new aspiring composer hotshot is not financially viable, but culturally it might be a masterpiece which will be remembered centuries from now.
Anyway, where is the money? If it's a conspiracy they should've been paid off, and there would be some evidence at least.
Or is the conspiracy that the fossil fuel industry have employed some loudmouths trying to dispel the facts of AGW?
Damn, I don't know. Would the State of Finland pay university researchers to get a result they want, or would Exxon Mobil pay hacks posing as researchers to get a result they want?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 1, 2019 18:15:19 GMT -5
It's not about directly paying them off, it's about only certain fields and directions of research getting support and funding. String theory for example, many scientists have come out and said they think it's pseudo-scientific hogwash, I even read a book about it, but if you want to have funding and a career you will study it and you will like it because that's where the consensus and money is. A counterexample is the guy who discovered much of western USA's geography, including badlands and canyons, has been shaped by a single giant prehistoric flood. He was laughed at all his life until finally the truth prevailed decades later.
Academia isn't always an objective paragon of truth, it's full of big egos and feuds, discrimination by funding and established consensuses that people will have a hard time going against. The goals are noble but they're often soiled by the fact we're still a bunch of greedy, selfish, emotional monkeys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Mar 1, 2019 18:33:02 GMT -5
It's not about directly paying them off, it's about only certain fields and directions of research getting support and funding. String theory for example, many scientists have come out and said they think it's hogwash, I even read a book about it, but if you want to have funding and a career you will study it and you will like it because that's where the consensus and money is. Same with the guy who discovered much of western USA's geography, including badlands and canyons, has been shaped by a single giant prehistoric flood. He was laughed at all his life until finally the truth prevailed decades later. Academia is far from an objective paragon of truth, it's full of big egos and feuds, discrimination by funding and established consensuses that people will have a hard time going against. The goals are noble but they're often soiled by the fact we're still a bunch of greedy, selfish monkeys.
That assumption is factually false. Universities are independent because it's in their very foundation to be so. The university "system" we know today is a result of Italian dissidents who wanted a non-guild separate organisation of scholars.
The Uni of Tartu is the 3rd oldest in this region, and I haven't seen anyone claiming that the researchers there would be bought by Soros.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 1, 2019 18:39:15 GMT -5
Now you're just putting words in my mouth. But I'm off to sleep.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moron on Mar 1, 2019 18:40:23 GMT -5
Can we put this in the politics section please?
|
|
|
|
Post by jgtheone on Mar 1, 2019 18:56:47 GMT -5
Can we put this in the politics section please? At its core, climate change is not political. People have made it political, like everything else. |
|
|
|
Post by Donar on Mar 2, 2019 8:49:00 GMT -5
Scientific data shows a global warming trend, and I haven't heard a single cogent argument why this evidence shouldn't be true. Warming trends can be correlated to increasing CO2 levels, and the radiative effect of certain gases has been experimentally studied and proven.
Human emissions of C02 can be measured, and increasing C02 levels correlate with an increasing world population and an increasing industrial output. Changes in land use can be measured too by remote sensing data, and the carbon cycle has been studied for hundreds of years and is quite well understood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 4, 2019 9:29:59 GMT -5
The good news is, in 1989 we only had 11 years left but now we have 12! Our heroic efforts are finally paying off! Now we only need to pay a few more billion dollars into the pockets of rich politicians every year and maybe, just maybe, we can get it up to 13. Might take another 30 years though. |
|
|
|
Post by Donar on Mar 4, 2019 10:07:36 GMT -5
The good news is, in 1989 we only had 11 years left but now we have 12! Our heroic efforts are finally paying off! Now we only need to pay a few more billion dollars into the pockets of rich politicians every year and maybe, just maybe, we can get it up to 13. Might take another 30 years though. The article from 1989 didn't predict a disaster by the year 2000. Read carefully.
"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."
And why do you think finding some stupid armageddon quotes from alarmists is a proper counter argument to the scientific evidence of a warming earth?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 4, 2019 10:17:35 GMT -5
The good news is, in 1989 we only had 11 years left but now we have 12! Our heroic efforts are finally paying off! Now we only need to pay a few more billion dollars into the pockets of rich politicians every year and maybe, just maybe, we can get it up to 13. Might take another 30 years though. The article from 1989 didn't predict a disaster by the year 2000. Read carefully.
"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."
And why do you think finding some stupid armageddon quotes from alarmists is a proper counter argument to the scientific evidence of a warming earth?
How dare you call what 97% percent of climate scientists are 99.9999% sure will happen alarmism? It's because of people like you that we are in this predicament. |
|
|
|
Post by Donar on Mar 4, 2019 10:25:17 GMT -5
How dare you call what 97% percent of climate scientists are 99.9999% sure will happen alarmism? It's because of people like you that we are in this predicament. Al Gore isn't 97% of climate scientists  |
|
|
|
Post by Steelernation on Mar 4, 2019 14:27:01 GMT -5
99% of scientists think global warming is happening.
99% if scientists ARE NOT alarmists that think the world will end in 10 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by aabc123 on Mar 10, 2019 13:23:13 GMT -5
Option 2. Imo, climate change is real but humans have little or no effect. Climate change already existed 10000, 20000 years ago. Then there were so few people on Earth, about what human factor we can talk.
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Mar 11, 2019 5:07:47 GMT -5
Just thought I might add two sources which plainly show BOM's meddling with past temperature records in Australia, particularly at Bourke Post Office, with its fabled 51.7° C in 1909—which is (well, was), the real Australian National Heat Record. www.waclimate.net/extreme-temperatures.htmljennifermarohasy.com/2014/03/fiddling-temperatures-for-bourke-part-1-hot-days/Apparently, a Stevenson Screen was installed at Bourke Post Office in August 1908; well before the 1909 reading of 51.7° C had stricken the station. But alas! BOM had blatantly discarded this particular reading because it was merely recorded before 1910—and as you may not know, any data prior to 1910 is ultimately discarded by BOM...be it with an installed Stevenson Screen, or not. I shall urge you AGW alarmists to pay much heed to these source(s)—you might very well learn something today. To farther worsen this pitiful embarassment, Blair Trewin—who is also on Weatherzone Forums nowadays—was caught red-handed lying about myriads of matters, as well as twisting the words of the older newspaper articles regarding this crooked ordeal. Does this petty and often blatant meddling not signal any red flags for you lot? Because it certainly does me! |
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 13, 2019 3:58:50 GMT -5
Looks like Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace and now a "denier," has garnered some media attention after Trump cited him in a tweet. Greenpeace aka the Ministry of Truth responded with lies and diversions as usual. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Mar 13, 2019 16:03:18 GMT -5
Climate change in action. Mountain hare populations have halved in many parts of Finland due to less snow. The change of the fur is triggered by the amount of daylight and not the amount of snow, so they stand out like a sore thumb much of the winter. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Mar 13, 2019 18:12:00 GMT -5
Them kids are planning a global strike for action against climate change on Friday. Walkouts are planned in over 100 countries.
Today, 1228 Finnish researchers from different fields have signed a petition that the kids should be allowed to skip school and demonstrate freely.
But I guess they are all - researchers and kids - morons bought by Soros. Probably some Australians and Estonians are triggered because Soros doesn't pay them, and thus think it's all a hoax.
|
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on Mar 13, 2019 18:13:35 GMT -5
Ariete Well the kids are morons. In this instance the researchers are too. If it’s so so important to the kids they could protest outside of school hours. Pathetic whining imo.
|
|
