Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post

    Others much more informed on the details can answer that both sites are run by left wingers which makes them biased on the issue but the argument and question I continue to make is why should anyone believe and support their solutions to anything they predict about the apocalyptic effects about climate change that they continue to make knowing how wrong they always are?
    That’s the bottom line that everyone needs to know
    The future effects of climate change predicted by them haven’t been disastrous not much has changed that we can’t adapt to when it happens
    Okay thanks for clarifying and taking the time to read the articles and point out the specific errors they made in your post.





    Comment


    • Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post

      Oh not offended at all. Just pointing out that no one with any scientific credibility equates Aspergers with mental retardation.
      Gave the context of retarded post #1452.

      Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post
      That seems to be the realm of people who value personal insults over intelligent discussion.
      Wasn't aware I had personally insulted anyone in this discussion.

      Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post
      Have a great 2020 and thanks for the input.
      Likewise and I appreciate the contribution.





      Comment


      • Originally posted by walle View Post
        Wasn't aware I had personally insulted anyone in this discussion.
        Of course you weren't .


        Comment


        • Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post

          Of course you weren't .

          Correct, no one has taken offense.

          In fact, I haven't been involved in a personal discussion with anyone that would leave room for them to take personal offense in the first place.

          Let us get back to the topic at hand from now on.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post

            Okay thanks for clarifying and taking the time to read the articles and point out the specific errors they made in your post.




            I read the Vox one they’re vague in providing all the proof for their claims it’s you that should provide additional evidence supporting your claims that climate scientists have been right all along
            If you believe that they are do you also believe that we should go along with what they want us to do as a solution no matter what?
            Since that’s the most vital part of the climate change debate.
            Last edited by Snowshoveler; 24 Dec 19, 18:57.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post

              Others much more informed on the details can answer that both sites are run by left wingers which makes them biased on the issue but the argument and question I continue to make is why should anyone believe and support their solutions to anything they predict about the apocalyptic effects about climate change that they continue to make knowing how wrong they always are?
              That’s the bottom line that everyone needs to know
              The future effects of climate change predicted by them haven’t been disastrous not much has changed that we can’t adapt to when it happens
              Anyone making apocalyptic predictions is likely not a scientist. A scientist wouldn't see the point.

              Science is about observing nature, forming hypotheses, and then testing them. Many, even perhaps most hypotheses fail. That's not due to stupidity or duplicity on the part of scientists. This is how the scientific method works.

              There's a tendency among people to assume being wrong means being stupid. A politician would rather cut off their right arm than admit they were wrong about something or changed course. They get hammered for changing their minds about opinions they expressed 20 years in the past. For scientists, being wrong is just another day at the office. In fact, we learn more by being wrong than by being right. Perhaps the real failure of scientists is that they do not appreciate how the public reacts to corrections. But scientists like to talk about their work just like anyone else.

              In the case of climate change, the science is really not that much in debate among scientists any longer. The current conclusions are supported by multiple lines of evidence, or what scientists call "a consilience of evidence". There's really no serious scientific contention these days that climate change is happening and that human factors are a major contribution. Even hard core anti-science climate deniers have moved on from "It's not happening" and "It's not us" to "It won't be bad" or "It's better to deal with it than fight it."

              Now there still IS debate on two topics:
              1. How bad will it get?
              2. What should we do about it?

              The first is largely dependent on climate models and then projections and forecasts. As others have pointed out here, the climate models are doing pretty well, and have for some time.

              As for how bad it could get, here's a good, recent article. The summary is that as the models become more refined their range of forecast narrows. That means there's good news and bad news. The good news is that a 4C temperature rise looks less and less likely. The bad news is that its almost impossible for us to avoid a 1.5 to 2C temperature rise, even if we stopped burning oil right this very second.

              What that means for the world becomes less clear. In terms of North America, broad forecasts like more, and more severe hurricanes along the US south coast seem pretty likely. Greater frequency of floods, like those in Quebec this spring. Greater frequency of hot, dry summers with the attending risk of wildfires like those in Alberta and California, also likely. Flooding of coastal cities due to ice melt? Likely, but difficult to precisely predict how bad it could get. I think investing in dike building companies is probably a good long term bet.

              Unfortunately, climate change is really an ideological debate masquerading as a scientific debate. The science is pretty clear. Initial denial groups were largely driven by fear of government regulation and attacks on the free market system. The science denial has failed but unfortunately those efforts have poisoned the water so to speak and attitudes on climate change are now largely driven by political belief. Such is our times, where politics matters more than facts.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                Anyone making apocalyptic predictions is likely not a scientist. A scientist wouldn't see the point.

                Science is about observing nature, forming hypotheses, and then testing them. Many, even perhaps most hypotheses fail. That's not due to stupidity or duplicity on the part of scientists. This is how the scientific method works.

                There's a tendency among people to assume being wrong means being stupid. A politician would rather cut off their right arm than admit they were wrong about something or changed course. They get hammered for changing their minds about opinions they expressed 20 years in the past. For scientists, being wrong is just another day at the office. In fact, we learn more by being wrong than by being right. Perhaps the real failure of scientists is that they do not appreciate how the public reacts to corrections. But scientists like to talk about their work just like anyone else.

                In the case of climate change, the science is really not that much in debate among scientists any longer. The current conclusions are supported by multiple lines of evidence, or what scientists call "a consilience of evidence". There's really no serious scientific contention these days that climate change is happening and that human factors are a major contribution. Even hard core anti-science climate deniers have moved on from "It's not happening" and "It's not us" to "It won't be bad" or "It's better to deal with it than fight it."

                Now there still IS debate on two topics:
                1. How bad will it get?
                2. What should we do about it?

                The first is largely dependent on climate models and then projections and forecasts. As others have pointed out here, the climate models are doing pretty well, and have for some time.

                As for how bad it could get, here's a good, recent article. The summary is that as the models become more refined their range of forecast narrows. That means there's good news and bad news. The good news is that a 4C temperature rise looks less and less likely. The bad news is that its almost impossible for us to avoid a 1.5 to 2C temperature rise, even if we stopped burning oil right this very second.

                What that means for the world becomes less clear. In terms of North America, broad forecasts like more, and more severe hurricanes along the US south coast seem pretty likely. Greater frequency of floods, like those in Quebec this spring. Greater frequency of hot, dry summers with the attending risk of wildfires like those in Alberta and California, also likely. Flooding of coastal cities due to ice melt? Likely, but difficult to precisely predict how bad it could get. I think investing in dike building companies is probably a good long term bet.

                Unfortunately, climate change is really an ideological debate masquerading as a scientific debate. The science is pretty clear. Initial denial groups were largely driven by fear of government regulation and attacks on the free market system. The science denial has failed but unfortunately those efforts have poisoned the water so to speak and attitudes on climate change are now largely driven by political belief. Such is our times, where politics matters more than facts.
                Yes they have and still do make those type of extreme hyperbolic predictions the science has not been settled there are many scientists that disagree with the man made climate change theory and that’s what it still is a theory the facts are that the Earths temperature rises then CO2 rises after it doesn’t work the other way around
                Unless scientists can provide concrete proof of that I’m not going to fall for all the fearmongering hype

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post

                  Nope the science has not been settled there are many scientists that disagree with the man made climate change theory and that’s what it still is a theory the facts are that the Earths temperature rises then CO2 rises it doesn’t work the other way around
                  Unless someone can provide concrete proof of that I’m not going to fall for all the hype
                  Please provide a list of names of scientists that disagree with man made climate change. I'll wait.

                  Edit: You know what, never mind. Pointless waste of time. Merry Christmas, instead.
                  Last edited by DingBat; 24 Dec 19, 19:31.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                    Please provide a list of names of scientists that disagree with man made climate change. I'll wait.
                    Yep 97% of climate scientists believe in man made climate change but most scientists also believed the Sun and Stars revolved around the Earth for the longest time and what caused sickness and diseases that has been disproven we haven’t studied the Earths climate for long enough to accurately know why the temperature is rising and falling like it has done throughout Earths history
                    We can debate those arguments but the fact remains that the scientists continue to give the most ridiculous apocalyptic scenarios that never come true to what the climate will do and far left loony politicians are using them to push far left policies that wouldn’t be accepted by people under normal circumstances but they take advantage of peoples fears being pushed by climate scientists
                    The fear of climate change is worse then the reality of what actually happens
                    Last edited by Snowshoveler; 24 Dec 19, 20:28.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post

                      Yep 97% of climate scientists believe in man made climate change but most scientists also believed the Sun and Stars revolved around the Earth for the longest time and what caused sickness and diseases that has been disproven we haven’t studied the Earths climate for long enough to accurately know why the temperature is rising and falling like it has done throughout Earths history
                      We can debate those arguments but the fact remains that the scientists continue to give the most ridiculous apocalyptic scenarios that never come true to what the climate will do and far left loony politicians are using them to push far left policies that wouldn’t be accepted by people under normal circumstances but they take advantage of peoples fears being pushed by climate scientists
                      The fear of climate change is worse then the reality of what actually happens
                      Is there any possibility of an English translation, preferably punctuated?
                      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post

                        Yep 97% of climate scientists believe in man made climate change but most scientists also believed the Sun and Stars revolved around the Earth for the longest time and what caused sickness and diseases that has been disproven we haven’t studied the Earths climate for long enough to accurately know why the temperature is rising and falling like it has done throughout Earths history
                        We can debate those arguments but the fact remains that the scientists continue to give the most ridiculous apocalyptic scenarios that never come true to what the climate will do and far left loony politicians are using them to push far left policies that wouldn’t be accepted by people under normal circumstances but they take advantage of peoples fears being pushed by climate scientists
                        The fear of climate change is worse then the reality of what actually happens
                        What a horrifically bad example. The view of earth as the center of the universe persisted because it was the simplest explanation for what people saw around them. After telescopes were invented it was scientists who noted that what they believed wasn’t supported by what they were seeing. It was scientists who developed the heliocentric model and often paid the price for it at the hands of the church and public who resisted such a fundamental change to their world view.

                        It actually has a lot in common with today’s anti-science popularism and attacks on scientists.

                        CO2 was first noted as a green house gas over 150 years ago. This is not new science.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                          What a horrifically bad example. The view of earth as the center of the universe persisted because it was the simplest explanation for what people saw around them. After telescopes were invented it was scientists who noted that what they believed wasn’t supported by what they were seeing. It was scientists who developed the heliocentric model and often paid the price for it at the hands of the church and public who resisted such a fundamental change to their world view.

                          It actually has a lot in common with today’s anti-science popularism and attacks on scientists.

                          CO2 was first noted as a green house gas over 150 years ago. This is not new science.
                          Then let's go more recent:

                          Prior to the 1960's the bottoms of the oceans were a blank. We knew next to zero about what was there.

                          Plate tectonics and the movement of continents, how mountain ranges formed, volcano locations, and the cause of earthquakes were all poorly understood prior to the late 1950's.

                          The upper atmosphere and things like the jet stream weren't discovered until the 30's and 40's.

                          The van Allen radiation belts and Earth's magnetic field were poorly understood before the 1950's.

                          That's just a few of the recent major discoveries in science about which we're still learning. Yet, somehow we have scientists telling us with hubris that manmade CO2 is going to cause a catastrophic problem to the whole planet in a decade. I'm not buying it. There's simply too much about the planetary atmosphere, oceans, and their dynamics we still don't fully grasp and yet we're to believe because they came up with some simplistic model on a computer that we should upend society and economics to "fix" this problem?

                          Worse, the suggested solutions are all Leftist in nature, and not what would be best choices. That is wind and solar are expensive fails. Public transit and rail systems are not optimal and are generally economic losers. That is, how many of these systems make money? Toss in demands for increased urban density, an aversion to nuclear, and calls for more socialism all doesn't fit a narrative of really wanting to fix the problem.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                            What a horrifically bad example. The view of earth as the center of the universe persisted because it was the simplest explanation for what people saw around them. After telescopes were invented it was scientists who noted that what they believed wasn’t supported by what they were seeing. It was scientists who developed the heliocentric model and often paid the price for it at the hands of the church and public who resisted such a fundamental change to their world view.

                            It actually has a lot in common with today’s anti-science popularism and attacks on scientists.

                            CO2 was first noted as a green house gas over 150 years ago. This is not new science.
                            A picture is worth a thouusand words::

                            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              That's just a few of the recent major discoveries in science about which we're still learning. Yet, somehow we have scientists telling us with hubris that manmade CO2 is going to cause a catastrophic problem to the whole planet in a decade. I'm not buying it. There's simply too much about the planetary atmosphere, oceans, and their dynamics we still don't fully grasp and yet we're to believe because they came up with some simplistic model on a computer that we should upend society and economics to "fix" this problem?
                              You do understand that you're arguing from a position of no knowledge against a position of little knowledge? Just because the climate science might be wrong doesn't mean that your position of denial of everything is somehow superior. The general consensus among those who care is that things are getting worse and something should be done. You can argue all you want that they are wrong, but you have even less evidence for that supposition...and if your whole point is that they don't have enough evidence and you have none...
                              Wisdom is personal

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Karri View Post

                                You do understand that you're arguing from a position of no knowledge against a position of little knowledge? Just because the climate science might be wrong doesn't mean that your position of denial of everything is somehow superior. The general consensus among those who care is that things are getting worse and something should be done. You can argue all you want that they are wrong, but you have even less evidence for that supposition...and if your whole point is that they don't have enough evidence and you have none...
                                I'm saying their position is questionable, and based on their past performance (eg., past predictions) they are scoring near zero on being correct as to outcomes-- from rising seas to "climate refugees" etc. Even a psychic usually does better.

                                That doesn't give me confidence to want to upend economies and societies to correct something that probably isn't even going to happen. I'd also be far more comfortable if they were pushing what I'd call common sense solutions to the problem. That is, phasing out coal for natural gas while pushing nuclear, both fission and fusion, and pushing for hydrogen as a portable fuel in vehicles.

                                What they want isn't workable. For example, here in Arizona supposedly a great place for solar, you'd need to pave over an area almost as large as the city of Phoenix (about 500 square miles) with solar panels to match the output of Palo Verde Nuclear plant that takes up 4,000 acres (6.25 sq mi) and you'd need about 2500 square miles of solar panels to provide equal energy 24 hours a day to that plant. How sensible is that?

                                In Germany the whole energiwände program is proving just what an economic disaster solar and wind really are. Germany has just about the highest per KWH cost of any nation. Their grid has become unreliable enough that many companies are installing emergency diesel and gas generators to prevent problems. Others invest heavily in UPS systems to prevent damage from "hiccups" in the system (momentary power fluctuations). Germany is on their way to spending nearly a trillion on a "smart grid." They got rid of nuclear only to have to build 25 new "clean" coal plants to replace the 6 nuclear ones.

                                Battery cars remain a niche market and companies like Tesla have never turned a profit. How long can that go on? The Left and presidents like Obama were willing to heavily subsidize them with taxpayer money. The more intelligent would make them go it on their own.

                                California is no different. Prices for power are skyrocketing there. The grid is falling apart.

                                If these scientists are so brilliant, why aren't they calling for solutions that work instead of ones that are politically correct with the Left?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X