Climate change
- Thread starter Cypress187
- Start date
A. Gorilla
Omono
The claim and prediction-makers have people in a tizzy about what it even means to be right.
You've probably noticed the "first-world-humans-suck-we-need-to-kill-ourselves" side of the argument just spam with their links and sources and don't even pretend to understand it themselves. They just dump a wheel barrow of bullshit in front of me and say: "Figure it out and draw the conclusion which is identical to mine, otherwise you're dumb." As if they themselves have managed the information to the degree that they can actually explain it in a simple way (they can't). As if the scientists themselves even hold themselves accountable to their data and PREDICTIONS (they don't). They retroactively say: "The date is still solid, we just misinterpreted. What we MEANT to predict was..."
No. Florida should be underwater by now. It's been said. Can't unsay it.
There is X amount of garbage in floating in the pacific. X is required to retrieve it. Z is required to prevent more of it. That's a manageable chunk of information whose cause and effect has boundaries. Same can be said for lots of environmental problems, and I'm on board for just about anything which means cleaner anything.
However, "climate change" propaganda is devoid of boundaries and it's always the most nihilistic and punitive solutions which seem to be the most popular with the commies. Never fails.
Vance Wood
Lord Mugo
In the world we live in with the political divides we have to endure; Yes that is the case, but---- it is not really. The point of my earlier post was to point this out and make the suggestion that in understanding we cannot agree on it, why lose friends because they, we, or me have made ourselves idiots in each other's minds over something we cannot do anything about?
Last edited:
papymandarin
Shohin
It's funny people can accuse science to be a religious dogma, and then are jumping as soon as they can on some discrepency in the predictions (predictions that in no way refute the observed warming, predictions are juste about the future) to dismiss all the body of evidence on climate. while it's just the normal process of self correction of science and actually shows that science is NOT a dogma. Again it shows you don't know how science work. Only religions state absolute certitudes. Science NEVER do, whatever the field, so if you expect science to be 100% accurate before aknowledging it's finding, you must refuse everything science has done in the last 2 centuries. Scientific facts are never absolute truth (or science could never improve over time), Science give the most plausible explanation given the body of current knowledge and evidences ( that's where the scientific consensus is important). Gravity is not an absoute proven fact either, want to jump from a tower to test it?, since science hasn't prove it it must be wrong. Florida is not yet underwater? arctic ice cap are not yet totally melted, "just" 75% of it, big deal, those descrepancies are "details" given the scales of time of climate. That doe snot in any way change all the body of evidence showing the current warming. If you want an absoute "truth", go to a church.
papymandarin
Shohin
and i'd love to see where in the scientific litterature someone stated that Forida should be over water by now. Again that was probably something misquoted by media or politicians, what they say whatever side they are is rarely scientifically sound.
Nonsense. People accuse some scientists of religious dogma. Nothing to do with science.
Nonsense. They jump on to observed inaccuracies of predictions. Look up Guy McPherson. He's a scientist and he predicts mass extinction (including humans) in the near future and he uses his interpretation of the science to boost his crap. Scientists predicted a coming ice age in the 70's. There are plenty of stupid predictions which never eventuate including the latest one from the IPPC. No-one is refuting observed warming. It's the interpretation of the data and where you start your 'trend'' line that makes all the difference and the opposition arguments are just as scientifically valid as any other.
Looks like your precious consensus is getting down to half. Does that make the 48% deniers? And what will you say when the respondents saying ''yes mostly human'' gets below 50%?
75% of what?
leatherback
The Treedeemer
Do you have the source of this graph? I am not very good at math. But if you have 232 climate science respondents (n=232) how the * do you get 301 answers in the list below it? And if I go to the insufficient, I cannot count, but if you look at 6 mostely climate published that say Yes, insufficient evidence section "further subdivision" that number has grown to 7. In other words. It doesn't add up. Sorry. Try again.
Looks like your precious consensus is getting down to half. Does that make the 48% deniers? And what will you say when the respondents saying ''yes mostly human'' gets below 50%?
papymandarin
Shohin
The thing is we are in a mass extinction happening, just open your eyes. nearly 26 000 species are in danger, and populations of vertebrates have diminished by 60% in the last 50 years......and that does not even account for al the species disappearing even before being known by science.
And scientist community NEVER had consensus/predicted a coming ice age in the seventies, even then the consensus was about warming, this was again only something hyped by medias from a few dissending articles, 7, against 42 concluding in favor of warming.
And scientist community NEVER had consensus/predicted a coming ice age in the seventies, even then the consensus was about warming, this was again only something hyped by medias from a few dissending articles, 7, against 42 concluding in favor of warming.
Mass extinction? 26000 out of say 8,000,000 in ''danger'' is mass extinction? You are being brainwashed by the popular media again. But besides that, this is a discussion about whether human emissions of co2 is causing warming. Why do you keep trying to change the subject? We are not talking about habitat loss etc. No habitat loss has occurred due to a 1C increase in temperature, even if you think it's human caused, and if you believe it has, I have a watch for you to buy.
Just one more time. I know this is like talking to a global warming zombie, but no-one is really disputing a warming over the last few years. The debate is over whether it is natural or not. Lots of evidence points to it being natural. There is no evidence to prove co2 is causing it. There IS evidence showing co2 increase follows warming. This makes sense. Have you ever noticed a warm can of beer does not hold dissolved co2? Same with the planet. The human emitting of co2 has occurred in line with natural warming (although they very obviously do NOT correlate well) and this has confused scientists into believing the extra co2 is causing the warming. Co2 is just a trace gas. It has next to zero effect on climate. If you leave out water vapour, co2 makes up 99% of greenhouse gases. If you INCLUDE water vapour, co2 makes up about 1.5% of greenhouse gases. So if you believe that half of the 1.5 % that we have introduced back into the atmosphere (where it originally came from by the way) has such a huge affect on our climate, go right ahead. Hopefully you will be woken up at some point in the future?
More than that, do you realize that the scale in which co2 affects temperature is logarithmic? In other words, even if you think it has done so much damage (which it has not) it can do not much more regardless of the concentration.....So trying to stop co2 emissions is a complete and utter waste of time and a waste of the trillions of dollars which could be better spent planting trees and gathering plastic etc.
You have proven to me more than once that you are a very short sighted, closed minded alarmist with no imagination, no concept of observed reality, live in a confused, group-think state, are totally gullible and swallow anything the popular press puts in front of you without question, use common and popular, emotive and alarmist phrases like ''denier'' when you have no idea what, if anything, is being denied, have a belief that scientists and science is one and the same and generally are a complete waste of my time as are the rest of the sheep you graze with.
papymandarin
Shohin
again some graphs from who knows where from someone obviously not understanding how science work are not proving anything compared to the mountain of evidences of the scientific community
It has been proven that the natural drivers of warming are not responsible of the observed warming, and you continue on spitting out arguments that have been debunked numerous times (the fact that co2 is only a fraction of atmosphere gases ect), how do you expain the shift in carbon isotope which is a direct proof that CO2 in excess is from human activities?
And you are the hypocrite since YOU are the one who brought in the subject of mass exctinction in your former message (and 26000 is a number that can look small but first it is much more above the natural rythm of extinctions outside catastrophic events, second it doe snot mean that other species are doing well on the contrary most are declining rapidly but have just not reach the state of being considered in immediate exctinction danger, and given the destructions of habitat and various pollution, this is likely to only be the start)
and your last paragraph is just again had hominen attacks , reversing arguments that apply more to deniers like you since i don't get my facts from politicians or medias, and that do nothing for making you more right or more credible
It has been proven that the natural drivers of warming are not responsible of the observed warming, and you continue on spitting out arguments that have been debunked numerous times (the fact that co2 is only a fraction of atmosphere gases ect), how do you expain the shift in carbon isotope which is a direct proof that CO2 in excess is from human activities?
And you are the hypocrite since YOU are the one who brought in the subject of mass exctinction in your former message (and 26000 is a number that can look small but first it is much more above the natural rythm of extinctions outside catastrophic events, second it doe snot mean that other species are doing well on the contrary most are declining rapidly but have just not reach the state of being considered in immediate exctinction danger, and given the destructions of habitat and various pollution, this is likely to only be the start)
and your last paragraph is just again had hominen attacks , reversing arguments that apply more to deniers like you since i don't get my facts from politicians or medias, and that do nothing for making you more right or more credible
Last edited:
Cypress187
Masterpiece
We emit 36000000000000 kilogram (36,79 GtCO2) of CO2 each year (79366414386555 pounds), a blue whale is 140,000 kg, so we emit around 257142857 (250 million) blue whales each year of CO2 into the atmosphere, how would that not increase the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere? Try to imagine 250 million blue whales... (and then in vision this over a timescale of 1 or 2 decades.).
Also, because it's warmer now, methane is melting from permafrost, which is 20 times more potent than CO2 (you could google on "East Siberian Arctic Shelf").
Last edited:
Vance Wood
Lord Mugo
Let's cut to the chase: If we all bow down and admit this global warming scenario is correct what do you expect us to do?
Cajunrider
Imperial Masterpiece
Better yet, are those who heralded the GW leading by example?
PS: To protect this earth, I will strive to live in the same accommodation as Al Gore's.
Bananaman
Chumono
- Messages
- 668
- Reaction score
- 1,569
We perish like all the species before us. Something new will take over and the cycle starts all over again. The earth is a closed vessel. You can't take or make more than whats here already. All we do is move it around, maybe to our detriment, so be it. When we're gone the earth will heal in about 3 years tops.
Cockroaches better hurry up and grow thumbs so they can do bonsai!
A. Gorilla
Omono
I too have no problem having a private jet.
Cypress187
Masterpiece
Well., not 'promoting' inaction is a start, if we have enough people choosing action over inaction we should see change in attitude / demand / research.
There are a lot of green technology's already available, you could buy an electric car, install solar panels, make your home carbon neutral, the hard one is eat less meat (most emissions are caused by the meat industry, feed the cows (which uses water for the crops that feed the cows), filter the water, freeze the meat, transport the meat, all this costs massive amounts of mostly 'dirty' energy and also uses a lot of space otherwise used to store carbon (tree's / (rain)-forests). But most of it should happen on itself when we the people increase demand, and governments and businesses develop new solutions to meet these demands, legislation (redirect oil funding to funding for renewable energy), etc.
Vance Wood
Lord Mugo
Action demands a direction and even the "already available resources" do nothing but redirect what is already out there. Electric cars? What a boon to mankind they run on batteries that are neither eternal and everlasting they wear out and the extremely dangerous materials they are made of need to be disposed of----Where, your back yard???? Not to mention the unavoidable question; what energy source do you use to recharge them???? Coal, petroleum, solar or the ever present lunar (think about it) if it's lunar it's looney.
Cypress187
Masterpiece
I wish I had a backyard
I don't know the solution man, I drive an old car which pollutes too much, I know this, but I don't have the resources (money) to do anything about it. But I won't be denying the science because its 'inconvenient'.Stormwater
Shohin
Without going back to check my sources, i'd bet you driving the old car produces less "pollution" overall than buying a new car. Especially if the new car was electric using the lithium ion batteries.I wish I had a backyard
The sad news is (maybe) 70 per cent of all the carbon stored in trees is accumulated in the last half of their lives. So those of us with young trees aren't helping and those old folks and folks with $$$ are. Then again, how much carbon could a bonsai hold? And what is the damn carbon footprint of akadama......
Morganlloyd
Seed
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 6
That's extremely insulting to those who have dedicated their lives to understanding the world around us, my girlfriend's one of those 'ideologues' she's not seeking power but she does find it deeply depressing that her and her colleagues work is spat on by sceptics with little to no understanding of the subject. Not to mention the politicising of it, as far as she's concerned it has nothing to do with any politics atall. It's fact. Your either on board with the facts or a blind faith troglodyte seeking to simply carry on as normal with your head in the sand.