Forum
»
Has anyone looked at the science on global warming?
09-12-2019, 03:21 AM
-
#1
- keels141
- Registered User
-
- keels141
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2008
- Location: Australia
- Age: 41
- Posts: 6,469
- Rep Power: 35966
-
-
Has anyone looked at the science on global warming?
I have been looking at it recently (after seeing ads for David Attenborough's doco on it), and it seems far from a 'settled science'.
Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.
It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...
Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.
It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...
***Trapped on prison island crew***
09-12-2019, 03:26 AM
-
#2
- backinthegymbro
- Never accept defeat!
-
- backinthegymbro
- Never accept defeat!
- Join Date: Aug 2018
- Posts: 23,402
- Rep Power: 275845
-
-
I believe CO2 traps heat. So the more you get it, the more the heat is unable to escape back into space and it becomes a snowball effect.
This happened on the planet Venus.
As to how much man contributes to global warming is up for debate.
And yes the earth has gone through a lot of temperature changes before the industrialization but that's irrelevant when it comes to the science of green house effects due to the cause and effect in the future once we do reach a critical point of no return due to our own contribution.
This happened on the planet Venus.
As to how much man contributes to global warming is up for debate.
And yes the earth has gone through a lot of temperature changes before the industrialization but that's irrelevant when it comes to the science of green house effects due to the cause and effect in the future once we do reach a critical point of no return due to our own contribution.
Cobra Kai never dies!
09-12-2019, 03:57 AM
-
#3
- wodrock
- Registered User
-
- wodrock
- Registered User
- Join Date: Feb 2012
- Location: Estonia
- Age: 35
- Posts: 127
- Rep Power: 2545
-
-
Originally Posted By keels141⏩
It's just lemming mentality to latch on to whatever they were purposefully fed through media and spread hysteria without understanding the complexity of the "issue". If you wonder why people are seemingly "crazy", just take a look at the IQ curve and understand that the majority of people lack critical thinking abilities just due to the intellectual level they were born with. Most people are able to understand extremely simple concepts and luckily enough that's exactly what the media is providing. Leftist ideologists abuse this phenomenon and create a narrative of a crisis situation in order to obtain rapid political power.I have been looking at it recently (after seeing ads for David Attenborough's doco on it), and it seems far from a 'settled science'.
Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.
It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...
Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.
It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...
Realistically about 90-95% of people aren't equipped for rational thinking.
09-12-2019, 04:03 AM
-
#4
You don't need much cyanide to kill yourself.
Lorries overtake each other on the motorway even with a miniscule speed difference.
It doesn't take much to make a difference and upset a balance.
And yes, there is more water vapour in the atmosphere. And it is a greenhouse gas. And it will get more when it gets warner. You get a runaway effect at a certain point.
And - burning hydrocarbons like petrol or diesel increases the water vapour in the atmosphere
There is one interesting aspect though: if I use less gas for heating or transportation, and less electricity than my neighbours, then I will spend less money than them.
Lorries overtake each other on the motorway even with a miniscule speed difference.
It doesn't take much to make a difference and upset a balance.
And yes, there is more water vapour in the atmosphere. And it is a greenhouse gas. And it will get more when it gets warner. You get a runaway effect at a certain point.
And - burning hydrocarbons like petrol or diesel increases the water vapour in the atmosphere
There is one interesting aspect though: if I use less gas for heating or transportation, and less electricity than my neighbours, then I will spend less money than them.
Cycling, walking, swimming.
No car.
09-12-2019, 04:28 AM
-
#5
- steeler505
- 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺
-
- steeler505
- 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺
- Join Date: Nov 2016
- Location: Denmark
- Posts: 22,068
- Rep Power: 156449
-
-
I am by no means a climate change denier.The greenhouse effect is tried, tested and true.I just fkin wish people would stop pretending it is settled and completely understood,. because no-one is able to stateto what extenthumans are the cause.
If you can't tell me damn near precisely what, for example, what the temperature would be now if we had stopped released CO2 into the atmosphere in 1960, then obviously it is not 'settled'.
A science is a true and tested fact. A fact that can be applied universally, and consistent results will be found.
So until they have a formula, they can **** off.
If you can't tell me damn near precisely what, for example, what the temperature would be now if we had stopped released CO2 into the atmosphere in 1960, then obviously it is not 'settled'.
A science is a true and tested fact. A fact that can be applied universally, and consistent results will be found.
So until they have a formula, they can **** off.
**Misc. Pureblood Crew**
**No Hymen No Diamond Crew**
**Russia/anti-degen Crew**
**Her anus tint tells you everything you need to about her Crew**
Auto-negging posts with instagram/tiktok links and not embedding a single image
09-12-2019, 04:42 AM
-
#6
- Sandmang27
- Registered User
-
- Sandmang27
- Registered User
- Join Date: Feb 2014
- Location: Canada
- Age: 37
- Posts: 2,063
- Rep Power: 20520
-
-
I absolutely hate the phase "The science is settled" science is never settled, it's just based on known information and is almost always changing.
I also hate the every 10 years the worlds going to end from the hole in the ozone, or is it the melting ice caps, or global warming, or climate change boy who cried wolf crap. They're just going to keep on saying everything and anything bad is because of climate change just so they can have little wins and act smug.
And of course I hate the attitude of typically left wing people that somehow this will all change if we let the government tax the crap out of us, because the government is known for not wasting money and actually doing what they said they'd do. Miss AOC had a 30 year plan to stop the world ending in 12 years etc.
Having said all that, I'm 100% for us to stop being dicks to the environment and trying our best to have clean water, clean air, investing in new technology that is better for the environment. Stopping future pollution and cleaning up the pollution we already created is a goal we should all work towards.
I also hate the every 10 years the worlds going to end from the hole in the ozone, or is it the melting ice caps, or global warming, or climate change boy who cried wolf crap. They're just going to keep on saying everything and anything bad is because of climate change just so they can have little wins and act smug.
And of course I hate the attitude of typically left wing people that somehow this will all change if we let the government tax the crap out of us, because the government is known for not wasting money and actually doing what they said they'd do. Miss AOC had a 30 year plan to stop the world ending in 12 years etc.
Having said all that, I'm 100% for us to stop being dicks to the environment and trying our best to have clean water, clean air, investing in new technology that is better for the environment. Stopping future pollution and cleaning up the pollution we already created is a goal we should all work towards.
Liverpool FC. YNWA.
Toronto Crew
Ooooo I'm a ghost
09-12-2019, 05:15 AM
-
#7
- RonaldMcflurry
- I woke up like dis
-
- RonaldMcflurry
- I woke up like dis
- Join Date: Jun 2016
- Posts: 14,495
- Rep Power: 80496
-
-
They believe that men in dresses are LITERALLY women. Of course the science is far from settled.
Originally Posted By andy0w⏩
And it won't make the slightest bit of difference, because the real threat to the environment comes from governments/ultra rich/corporations anyways.There is one interesting aspect though: if I use less gas for heating or transportation, and less electricity than my neighbours, then I will spend less money than them.
Nuggets of Wisdom
09-12-2019, 05:22 AM
-
#8
- FPS75
- Registered User
-
- FPS75
- Registered User
- Join Date: Feb 2014
- Location: Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa
- Posts: 1,895
- Rep Power: 18369
-
-
Originally Posted By keels141⏩
I have been looking at it recently (after seeing ads for David Attenborough's doco on it), and it seems far from a 'settled science'.
Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.
It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...
Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.
It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...
1Rep Max
Deadlift 463 lbs / 210 kg
Bench 364 lbs / 165 kg
Squat 419 lbs / 190 kg
5'10" 196lbs
09-12-2019, 05:31 AM
-
#9
Only deniers demand science to be settled.
Like food science.
How many steaks I need to eat on Monday, and how many pushups do I need to do on Wednesday, so that I look ripped on Friday night.
Like food science.
How many steaks I need to eat on Monday, and how many pushups do I need to do on Wednesday, so that I look ripped on Friday night.
Cycling, walking, swimming.
No car.
09-12-2019, 05:37 AM
-
#10
- aleeboy
- It's over for you
-
- aleeboy
- It's over for you
- Join Date: Dec 2008
- Posts: 23,424
- Rep Power: 87439
-
-
Have people really looked at the size of the Earth?
I do not think humans can have as big of an impact on the Earth as they would like to believe. Hubris at its finest.
The biggest threat to humanity comes from women taking over the world. There is currently no stopping this.
We try to pull the brakes = they get mad
We do nothing = they eat their cake, get fat and get mad
What a time to be alive.
I do not think humans can have as big of an impact on the Earth as they would like to believe. Hubris at its finest.
The biggest threat to humanity comes from women taking over the world. There is currently no stopping this.
We try to pull the brakes = they get mad
We do nothing = they eat their cake, get fat and get mad
What a time to be alive.
"The manlet is a savage beast that knows no moral bound. After falling in disgrace to a manmore, a ravaged manlet would not hesitate to come from behind and land a sucker punch/ swing with a rock to the back of a manmore's head. They are ruthless and you need to spend some more time in the gutter to even begin trying to comprehend what goes on in their minds."
Hurt by the aleeboy and need to cope? Go here for hugs: https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178724011
09-12-2019, 05:38 AM
-
#11
- SerpentHearted
- Fitness Anarchist
-
- SerpentHearted
- Fitness Anarchist
- Join Date: Nov 2009
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Posts: 5,971
- Rep Power: 21675
-
-
I'm not gonna get too far into this rabbit hole but I'm just saying... they taught us this **** was going to happen when i was in school in the late 80s / early 90s.
since then it has all unfolded much as predicted. the past year or so particularly dramatic events are observable with storms, droughts, glaciers melting, and so on.
I don't see how it's possible to have any doubts. But even if there's some doubt and we clean up the planet, create new technology and new jobs in clean energy production... where's the downside?
To my mind climate change denial is on a similar level to flat earthers.
since then it has all unfolded much as predicted. the past year or so particularly dramatic events are observable with storms, droughts, glaciers melting, and so on.
I don't see how it's possible to have any doubts. But even if there's some doubt and we clean up the planet, create new technology and new jobs in clean energy production... where's the downside?
To my mind climate change denial is on a similar level to flat earthers.
09-12-2019, 05:42 AM
-
#12
- AltarOfPlagues
- yerrrrrrrr meh?
-
- AltarOfPlagues
- yerrrrrrrr meh?
- Join Date: Oct 2015
- Posts: 14,613
- Rep Power: 136737
-
-
ive looked into it
do not read my posts and weep, i am not there i do not sleep
i am the thousand greens that rep, i am the ban bet dutifully kept
of memes and trolls in toasted breads, i am not there, i am not dead.
09-12-2019, 05:53 AM
-
#13
- LouiePiper
- Banned
-
- LouiePiper
- Banned
- Join Date: Feb 2018
- Posts: 1,312
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Put climate deniers in prison. Being dumb is not a good enough excuse i'm sorry. Just f*cking lock them all up.
09-12-2019, 05:55 AM
-
#14
- Frank Drebin
- Cutting
-
- Frank Drebin
- Cutting
- Join Date: Jul 2007
- Location: Canada
- Posts: 24,590
- Rep Power: 86323
-
-
Its at the point where you either accept the information that is being fed to you by the media or you are labelled as an idiot "denier". I'm not qualified to do my own research on it so I'm not qualified to have an opinion on it. I don't think its as much of a threat as its being made out to be
My opinion: A decade or 2 down the road we won't be as concerned with it as we are today. We'll be obsessing over the next "threat".
My opinion: A decade or 2 down the road we won't be as concerned with it as we are today. We'll be obsessing over the next "threat".
09-12-2019, 05:57 AM
-
#15
- DesiredUserphag
- 1:12TilTheDayIFukinDie
-
- DesiredUserphag
- 1:12TilTheDayIFukinDie
- Join Date: Sep 2014
- Posts: 40,176
- Rep Power: 397140
-
-
No because we only care about feelings now! OK?!
Srsly, the Earth has been heating and cooling without any help from us for billions of years. Wait... I mean 6,000 years? Fuk this ghey Eart
Srsly, the Earth has been heating and cooling without any help from us for billions of years. Wait... I mean 6,000 years? Fuk this ghey Eart
𝗣𝗨𝗥𝗘𝗕𝗟𝗢𝗢𝗗
ωσяℓ∂ тяανєℓєя ȼяєω ₅₀/₁₉₅
𝕬𝖊𝖘𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖙𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖑𝖑𝖞 𝕮𝖚𝖙 𝕸𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖗 𝕽𝖆𝖈𝖊 ®
ᗪIᔕᑕᖇIᗰIᑎᗩTIOᑎ E᙭ᑕᒪᑌᔕIOᑎ IᑎᗪOᑕTᖇIᑎᗩTIOᑎ
09-12-2019, 06:01 AM
-
#16
- Frank Drebin
- Cutting
-
- Frank Drebin
- Cutting
- Join Date: Jul 2007
- Location: Canada
- Posts: 24,590
- Rep Power: 86323
-
-
Originally Posted By SerpentHearted⏩
this all sounds so scientificI'm not gonna get too far into this rabbit hole but I'm just saying... they taught us this **** was going to happen when i was in school in the late 80s / early 90s.
since then it has all unfolded much as predicted. the past year or so particularly dramatic events are observable with storms, droughts, glaciers melting, and so on.
I don't see how it's possible to have any doubts. But even if there's some doubt and we clean up the planet, create new technology and new jobs in clean energy production... where's the downside?
To my mind climate change denial is on a similar level to flat earthers.
since then it has all unfolded much as predicted. the past year or so particularly dramatic events are observable with storms, droughts, glaciers melting, and so on.
I don't see how it's possible to have any doubts. But even if there's some doubt and we clean up the planet, create new technology and new jobs in clean energy production... where's the downside?
To my mind climate change denial is on a similar level to flat earthers.
09-12-2019, 06:09 AM
-
#17
- jtaylor2010
- Join Date: Mar 2010
- Location: United States
- Posts: 33,186
- Rep Power: 441972
-
-
1.) we know humans can impact the environment/climate
2.) we don’t know how much of an impact we have
3.) we don’t understand all of the variables like cloud coverage, CO2 absorption rates, sun cycles, etc. that impact not only the climate but change based on what we do to it
4.) we don’t know if the human impact is a net positive or net negative
5.) if it’s a net negative we don’t know if we can make a meaningful difference to negate some of that impact
6.) if we found out for a fact that we could, we still don’t know the best way to go about doing it
7.) if we answer 2-6 there’s a good chance the best course of action wouldn’t be to tax the sh!t out of first world countries while propagating population explosions in 3rd world countries....and in fact the best course of action would probably be to send China back to the 17th century through attacks, or sanction them until they get caught up with 1st world countries when it comes to environmental impact
8.) since global leaders seem adamant about doing the exact opposite of #7 I’ll remain skeptical about the real reason for pushing this subject to the forefront of political discussion
2.) we don’t know how much of an impact we have
3.) we don’t understand all of the variables like cloud coverage, CO2 absorption rates, sun cycles, etc. that impact not only the climate but change based on what we do to it
4.) we don’t know if the human impact is a net positive or net negative
5.) if it’s a net negative we don’t know if we can make a meaningful difference to negate some of that impact
6.) if we found out for a fact that we could, we still don’t know the best way to go about doing it
7.) if we answer 2-6 there’s a good chance the best course of action wouldn’t be to tax the sh!t out of first world countries while propagating population explosions in 3rd world countries....and in fact the best course of action would probably be to send China back to the 17th century through attacks, or sanction them until they get caught up with 1st world countries when it comes to environmental impact
8.) since global leaders seem adamant about doing the exact opposite of #7 I’ll remain skeptical about the real reason for pushing this subject to the forefront of political discussion
09-12-2019, 06:31 AM
-
#18
- keels141
- Registered User
-
- keels141
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2008
- Location: Australia
- Age: 41
- Posts: 6,469
- Rep Power: 35966
-
-
Originally Posted By SerpentHearted⏩
It's more like treating the info that is fed to you with skeptical open-mindedness IMO.I'm not gonna get too far into this rabbit hole but I'm just saying... they taught us this **** was going to happen when i was in school in the late 80s / early 90s.
since then it has all unfolded much as predicted. the past year or so particularly dramatic events are observable with storms, droughts, glaciers melting, and so on.
I don't see how it's possible to have any doubts. But even if there's some doubt and we clean up the planet, create new technology and new jobs in clean energy production... where's the downside?
To my mind climate change denial is on a similar level to flat earthers.
since then it has all unfolded much as predicted. the past year or so particularly dramatic events are observable with storms, droughts, glaciers melting, and so on.
I don't see how it's possible to have any doubts. But even if there's some doubt and we clean up the planet, create new technology and new jobs in clean energy production... where's the downside?
To my mind climate change denial is on a similar level to flat earthers.
Lumping 'climate deniers' in with flat-earthers, tin-foil hat wearers etc. is just avoiding debating the facts on their merits.
Appeals to authority is another cop-out - "the scientists" said it so it must be right. Are we not allowed to think for ourselves?
And also have a look at the globalcoolingcraze from the early '70s - where the scientists right there as well?
In fact I would say these predictions have been consistently WRONG since 1988 when the IPCC was first brought in. There have been no rising sea levels and no warming - in fact, the narrative has changed from "global warming" to "climate change" due to this. Much easier to point to every natural disaster being further evidence of climate change this way.
These greenies are similar to ISIS in the way that they take credit for every terrorist attack. Di Natale in Australia has just blamed climate change on the bushfires out here, when they were actually caused by arson attacks.
I agree we should live sustainably and think about future generations, but overpopulation is more of an issue as far as I can tell. Climate change seems more like a religion than a science.
***Trapped on prison island crew***
09-12-2019, 06:56 AM
-
#19
- FPS75
- Registered User
-
- FPS75
- Registered User
- Join Date: Feb 2014
- Location: Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa
- Posts: 1,895
- Rep Power: 18369
-
-
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
1.) we know humans can impact the environment/climate
2.) we don’t know how much of an impact we have
3.) we don’t understand all of the variables like cloud coverage, CO2 absorption rates, sun cycles, etc. that impact not only the climate but change based on what we do to it
4.) we don’t know if the human impact is a net positive or net negative
5.) if it’s a net negative we don’t know if we can make a meaningful difference to negate some of that impact
6.) if we found out for a fact that we could we still don’t know the best way to go about doing it
7.) if we answer 2-7 there’s a good chance the best course of action wouldn’t be to tax the sh!t out of first world countries while propagating population explosions in 3rd world countries....and in fact the best course of action would probably be to send China back to the 17th century through attacks, or sanction them until they get caught up with 1st world countries when it comes to environmental impact
8.) since global leaders seem adamant about doing the exact opposite of #7 I’ll remain skeptical about the real reason for pushing this subject to the forefront of political discussion
2.) we don’t know how much of an impact we have
3.) we don’t understand all of the variables like cloud coverage, CO2 absorption rates, sun cycles, etc. that impact not only the climate but change based on what we do to it
4.) we don’t know if the human impact is a net positive or net negative
5.) if it’s a net negative we don’t know if we can make a meaningful difference to negate some of that impact
6.) if we found out for a fact that we could we still don’t know the best way to go about doing it
7.) if we answer 2-7 there’s a good chance the best course of action wouldn’t be to tax the sh!t out of first world countries while propagating population explosions in 3rd world countries....and in fact the best course of action would probably be to send China back to the 17th century through attacks, or sanction them until they get caught up with 1st world countries when it comes to environmental impact
8.) since global leaders seem adamant about doing the exact opposite of #7 I’ll remain skeptical about the real reason for pushing this subject to the forefront of political discussion
1Rep Max
Deadlift 463 lbs / 210 kg
Bench 364 lbs / 165 kg
Squat 419 lbs / 190 kg
5'10" 196lbs
09-12-2019, 06:59 AM
-
#20
- Jacobcapra
- AAS Free since '93
-
- Jacobcapra
- AAS Free since '93
- Join Date: Apr 2015
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia, United States
- Age: 33
- Posts: 15,933
- Rep Power: 174320
-
-
Originally Posted By keels141⏩
Yes, it is far from a settled science.I have been looking at it recently (after seeing ads for David Attenborough's doco on it), and it seems far from a 'settled science'.
Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.
It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...
Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.
It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...
We cannot tell how much hotter the Earth is as a result of our presence with any degree of accuracy, therefore man-made climate change is a theory at best. For all we know, or even the best scientists in the field know, the Earth would be HOTTER today than it is now, if it weren't for our presence.
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
Yeah wow exactly this.1.) we know humans can impact the environment/climate
2.) we don’t know how much of an impact we have
3.) we don’t understand all of the variables like cloud coverage, CO2 absorption rates, sun cycles, etc. that impact not only the climate but change based on what we do to it
4.) we don’t know if the human impact is a net positive or net negative
5.) if it’s a net negative we don’t know if we can make a meaningful difference to negate some of that impact
6.) if we found out for a fact that we could we still don’t know the best way to go about doing it
7.) if we answer 2-7 there’s a good chance the best course of action wouldn’t be to tax the sh!t out of first world countries while propagating population explosions in 3rd world countries....and in fact the best course of action would probably be to send China back to the 17th century through attacks, or sanction them until they get caught up with 1st world countries when it comes to environmental impact
8.) since global leaders seem adamant about doing the exact opposite of #7 I’ll remain skeptical about the real reason for pushing this subject to the forefront of political discussion
2.) we don’t know how much of an impact we have
3.) we don’t understand all of the variables like cloud coverage, CO2 absorption rates, sun cycles, etc. that impact not only the climate but change based on what we do to it
4.) we don’t know if the human impact is a net positive or net negative
5.) if it’s a net negative we don’t know if we can make a meaningful difference to negate some of that impact
6.) if we found out for a fact that we could we still don’t know the best way to go about doing it
7.) if we answer 2-7 there’s a good chance the best course of action wouldn’t be to tax the sh!t out of first world countries while propagating population explosions in 3rd world countries....and in fact the best course of action would probably be to send China back to the 17th century through attacks, or sanction them until they get caught up with 1st world countries when it comes to environmental impact
8.) since global leaders seem adamant about doing the exact opposite of #7 I’ll remain skeptical about the real reason for pushing this subject to the forefront of political discussion
**Georgia Crew**
**Mechanical Engineering Crew**
**2018 Aesthetics Crew**
01/02/2018 - 202.2 lb.
Current - 181.4 lb. (1/23/18)
09-12-2019, 07:17 AM
-
#21
- Kev1972
- Registered User
-
- Kev1972
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jun 2013
- Location: Big Arm, Montana, United States
- Posts: 49,924
- Rep Power: 287644
-
-
What many in the peanut gallery fail to understand is that these researchers have to invent crisis to get funded. So they have a monetary interest in feeding people bullchit in order to keep their jobs. If they came out and said "we have concluded humans have minimal impact on global temperatures and it follows solar cycles" they would be looking for work the next day. Obviously they are going to try to do everything in their power to keep that research and grant money flowing. Even lie.
Motorcycle crew
Army veteran crew
One Meal a day crew
09-12-2019, 07:20 AM
-
#22
- SerpentHearted
- Fitness Anarchist
-
- SerpentHearted
- Fitness Anarchist
- Join Date: Nov 2009
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Posts: 5,971
- Rep Power: 21675
-
-
Originally Posted By keels141⏩
i mean... the main point of my argument is that the effects of climate change are readily observable.It's more like treating the info that is fed to you with skeptical open-mindedness IMO.
Lumping 'climate deniers' in with flat-earthers, tin-foil hat wearers etc. is just avoiding debating the facts on their merits.
Appeals to authority is another cop-out - "the scientists" said it so it must be right. Are we not allowed to think for ourselves?
And also have a look at the globalcoolingcraze from the early '70s - where the scientists right there as well?
In fact I would say these predictions have been consistently WRONG since 1988 when the IPCC was first brought in. There have been no rising sea levels and no warming - in fact, the narrative has changed from "global warming" to "climate change" due to this. Much easier to point to every natural disaster being further evidence of climate change this way.
These greenies are similar to ISIS in the way that they take credit for every terrorist attack. Di Natale in Australia has just blamed climate change on the bushfires out here, when they were actually caused by arson attacks.
I agree we should live sustainably and think about future generations, but overpopulation is more of an issue as far as I can tell. Climate change seems more like a religion than a science.
Lumping 'climate deniers' in with flat-earthers, tin-foil hat wearers etc. is just avoiding debating the facts on their merits.
Appeals to authority is another cop-out - "the scientists" said it so it must be right. Are we not allowed to think for ourselves?
And also have a look at the globalcoolingcraze from the early '70s - where the scientists right there as well?
In fact I would say these predictions have been consistently WRONG since 1988 when the IPCC was first brought in. There have been no rising sea levels and no warming - in fact, the narrative has changed from "global warming" to "climate change" due to this. Much easier to point to every natural disaster being further evidence of climate change this way.
These greenies are similar to ISIS in the way that they take credit for every terrorist attack. Di Natale in Australia has just blamed climate change on the bushfires out here, when they were actually caused by arson attacks.
I agree we should live sustainably and think about future generations, but overpopulation is more of an issue as far as I can tell. Climate change seems more like a religion than a science.
but feel free to ignore that.
it's not an appeal to authority fallacy to point out that something is observable and there is scientific consensus on the cause. especially when the effects now observable were predicted 30 or 40 years ago.
also re: no rising sea levels people living in pacific island nations for example the Marshall Islands might disagree with you on that.
it's not skeptical open mindedness to disregard observable phenomenon and dismiss the most qualified explanations for those phenomenon. it is simple denialism.
09-12-2019, 07:26 AM
-
#23
- Pad264
- Misc'er
-
- Pad264
- Misc'er
- Join Date: Mar 2006
- Location: New York, United States
- Age: 42
- Posts: 6,415
- Rep Power: 4679
-
-
There is a correlation between the rise of CO2 gas in the atmosphere over the last 70-100 years and the burning of fossil fuels. There is a separate correlation between the rise of CO2 gas and the rise of global temperature. The science on those individually is very clear. The primary problem is this has turned into a political debate being fought by misinformation from big money on both sides.
My advice is this: you will likely be faced with moments in your life where you are presented with a choice that includes a greener option with a negligible economical or logistical impact. In those moments, choose the greener option as the risk-reward is in the favor of the collective mankind.
My advice is this: you will likely be faced with moments in your life where you are presented with a choice that includes a greener option with a negligible economical or logistical impact. In those moments, choose the greener option as the risk-reward is in the favor of the collective mankind.
"My only enemy is time." - Charlie Chaplin
My movie blog:
http://paulopicks.blogspot.com/
09-12-2019, 07:28 AM
-
#24
- proteinsnake
- Registered User
-
- proteinsnake
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2019
- Age: 56
- Posts: 2,100
- Rep Power: 18107
-
-
Any issue, even climate change, is highly politicized on both ends of the political spectrum. It's without a doubt that the left is fear-mongering and exaggerating the urgency of certain issues as well as selectively choosing data that proves their agenda while ignoring the larger context and like with most issues you aren't even allowed to ask questions without the left losing their chit.
Just don't think that the little bit of research you've done is enough to debunk climate change. There are people much smarter than you who dedicate their lives to researching this subject and 99% of them agree that climate change is real and caused by humans. That's enough for me to believe it.
Just don't think that the little bit of research you've done is enough to debunk climate change. There are people much smarter than you who dedicate their lives to researching this subject and 99% of them agree that climate change is real and caused by humans. That's enough for me to believe it.
500lb Squat
375lb Bench
675lb Deadlift
201lbs Bodyweight
09-12-2019, 07:44 AM
-
#25
- keels141
- Registered User
-
- keels141
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2008
- Location: Australia
- Age: 41
- Posts: 6,469
- Rep Power: 35966
-
-
Originally Posted By SerpentHearted⏩
What's observable?i mean... the main point of my argument is that the effects of climate change are readily observable.
but feel free to ignore that.
it's not an appeal to authority fallacy to point out that something is observable and there is scientific consensus on the cause. especially when the effects now observable were predicted 30 or 40 years ago.
also re: no rising sea levels people living in pacific island nations for example the Marshall Islands might disagree with you on that.
it's not skeptical open mindedness to disregardobservablephenomenon and dismiss the most qualified explanations for those phenomenon. it is simple denialism.
but feel free to ignore that.
it's not an appeal to authority fallacy to point out that something is observable and there is scientific consensus on the cause. especially when the effects now observable were predicted 30 or 40 years ago.
also re: no rising sea levels people living in pacific island nations for example the Marshall Islands might disagree with you on that.
it's not skeptical open mindedness to disregardobservablephenomenon and dismiss the most qualified explanations for those phenomenon. it is simple denialism.
I am open to be persuaded, but everything I have looked at has suggested there is no proof of it.
Also, if anyone speaks out against the 'consensus' they are punished. i.e. Peter Ridd has studied the Barrier Reef for 30+ years and was sacked for saying that coral regenerates and the Barrier Reef is not dying...so I take things with a grain of salt.
***Trapped on prison island crew***
09-12-2019, 08:04 AM
-
#26
- jamalfudge
- Throbbing Member
-
- jamalfudge
- Throbbing Member
- Join Date: Jan 2013
- Location: United States
- Posts: 39,406
- Rep Power: 297374
-
-
Originally Posted By keels141⏩
Don't forget CO2 is a trailing indicator of temperature change. That is, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a result of what's going on with temps, not a cause.I have been looking at it recently (after seeing ads for David Attenborough's doco on it), and it seems far from a 'settled science'.
Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.
It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...
Issues I have are:
- the medieval warming period from 900-1300 AD - there was no anthropogenic climate change in those days
- the 'hockey stick' graph controversy, where a scientist was caught basically making up data to put on a graph...which the IPCC referred to in its' 2001 report.
- there is evidence that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels, not the other way round.
- Carbon dioxide make up a small amount of greenhouse gases (water vapour being the main one), not sure how such a small element of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for increases in temperature.
It seems like the world has gone crazy, and is ignoring any critical thinking on this issue. It seems like more of a religion than a science at this point, with anyone daring to question the validity of it basically becoming an outcast or a heretic. Strange times we are living in...
Also grand solar minimum, etc.
#
09-12-2019, 08:10 AM
-
#27
- superiorlogic
- Banned
-
- superiorlogic
- Banned
- Join Date: Dec 2016
- Posts: 4,135
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
I support a green world simply because it is the future and being slaves to a finite resource makes us vulnerable. But global warming is mumbo jumbo
09-12-2019, 08:22 AM
-
#28
- Duckliver
- Offal
-
- Duckliver
- Offal
- Join Date: Jun 2013
- Location: Washington, United States
- Posts: 32,177
- Rep Power: 347469
-
-
Even if the earth is fine with humanities imprint.
I grew up in the woods. I want to live in a setting surrounded by nature. And smokestacks and smog are disgusting. I don’t want all human cities to look like Beijing it’s like fukking Midgard from FF7.
I just want to keep my beautiful planet. Srs. And I want less people on this planet. It’s for purely selfish aesthetic reasons.
I grew up in the woods. I want to live in a setting surrounded by nature. And smokestacks and smog are disgusting. I don’t want all human cities to look like Beijing it’s like fukking Midgard from FF7.
I just want to keep my beautiful planet. Srs. And I want less people on this planet. It’s for purely selfish aesthetic reasons.
09-12-2019, 08:28 AM
-
#29
- MiamiLife305
- Registered User
-
- MiamiLife305
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2013
- Age: 36
- Posts: 18,052
- Rep Power: 41951
-
-
Originally Posted By Pad264⏩
This is well saidThere is a correlation between the rise of CO2 gas in the atmosphere over the last 70-100 years and the burning of fossil fuels. There is a separate correlation between the rise of CO2 gas and the rise of global temperature. The science on those individually is very clear. The primary problem is this has turned into a political debate being fought by misinformation from big money on both sides.
My advice is this: you will likely be faced with moments in your life where you are presented with a choice that includes a greener option with a negligible economical or logistical impact. In those moments, choose the greener option as the risk-reward is in the favor of the collective mankind.
My advice is this: you will likely be faced with moments in your life where you are presented with a choice that includes a greener option with a negligible economical or logistical impact. In those moments, choose the greener option as the risk-reward is in the favor of the collective mankind.
Simple and to the point
Future P.A in progress
We're all gonna make it
sleep tight pupper
09-12-2019, 08:50 AM
-
#30
- jtaylor2010
- Join Date: Mar 2010
- Location: United States
- Posts: 33,186
- Rep Power: 441972
-
-
Originally Posted By proteinsnake⏩
See post 17. So most scientists agree with point number 1. That still leaves us with questions 2-7 to answer.Any issue, even climate change, is highly politicized on both ends of the political spectrum. It's without a doubt that the left is fear-mongering and exaggerating the urgency of certain issues as well as selectively choosing data that proves their agenda while ignoring the larger context and like with most issues you aren't even allowed to ask questions without the left losing their chit.
Just don't think that the little bit of research you've done is enough to debunk climate change. There are people much smarter than you who dedicate their lives to researching this subject and 99% of them agree that climate change is real and caused by humans. That's enough for me to believe it.
Just don't think that the little bit of research you've done is enough to debunk climate change. There are people much smarter than you who dedicate their lives to researching this subject and 99% of them agree that climate change is real and caused by humans. That's enough for me to believe it.
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts