If you had an account on forum.suprbay.org with at least one post, you do not need to re-register. Your account is still active and your Suprbay username and password will work.

Wow what a speach! (Climate change)
#21
(Oct 07, 2019, 11:58 am)Headbanger Wrote: 1. I've never been to climate change
2. I'm never going to be on the climate change

There. That's what you sound like. That is exactly what you are sounding like right now.

And yes, climate change WILL affect you, whether you believe in it or not. It is already having an effect on the world, and as part of the world, that includes you.

In other words, you are just going to believe whatever it is you want regardless of the facts. That is exactly why you are a climate change denier.


All you need is a bible and you can stand on a corner screaming sinner repent.

I'm sorry but I'll worry about the end times when I see something other than a bunch of "televangelists" buying private jets.

And... Normally religions are beneficial to society. However, it's the zealots that cause problems.
Reply
#22
Oh noez, having my perspective criticized as religious. Its not. A religious argument is one based on faith. Climate change, AGW, is proven through facts. Denying it, however, has no basis in fact and therefore is a faith based argument in that sense. As an addition, since the evidence points that AGW is happening, and will cause problems of increasing severity as time goes on, denying it is also foolish. Pretending to both not believe in climate change and not be a climate change denier is being dishonest with yourself, however you want to spin it.
Reply
#23
I was going to say religion and science are pretty much opposites in the spectrum.

I tried to describe what may be happening in my other post, I'll try to reclarify

I don't think anyone is attacking you personally, and in a way, I agree that all topics of conversation are up to be twisted into a "quasi-religion" to benefit people's personal agenda. But that appears to be a part of the point

The other is that there is actual science that proves its existence. You said you don't care about what scientists think, but that's where I disagree... Scientists should be unbiased fact finders. Most should not be clumped in with the fight between what you see on the media.

Religion is all faith-based, science is fact-based... You can't compare the two. Kinda like the moon and moon landing analogy. We know it exists, but the landing has been up for debate. Like we can prove an actual Jesus existed or didn't What he did can be up for debate. Climate change can be proven, how it affects us and what would happen in the future if we do/don't do certain things can be up for debate.

This is not the Void, so I'm legitimately asking: If you really don't care what happens, why make an OP that offers suggestions on stopping something you may or may not believe in? Proving suggestions and not acknowledging exists puts you in the category (I'm not saying you are) as a denier... If you truly didn;t care you wouldn't have posted this in GD, it would be in the Void where you can troll...

And again... With science, we don't have to give stuff up to fix the planet.
Reply
#24
(Oct 07, 2019, 17:47 pm)LZA Wrote: Scientists should be unbiased fact finders.

Should be but the majority are not.


Unfortunately regardless of what the profession or issue is... 99% of the world has some sort of bias or agenda.

(Oct 07, 2019, 17:47 pm)LZA Wrote: This is not the Void, so I'm legitimately asking: If you really don't care what happens, why make an OP that offers suggestions on stopping something you may or may not believe in?

It's the people with the biggest mouths that are the ones with the most junk. They're yelling that I'm supposed to change the way that I live my life but they're not willing to give up any of their gadgets or comforts.

It's just plain old F'n hypocrisy.

The day that they start giving up their crap is the day that I'll start paying attention.
Reply
#25
I think that the main issue is just because a large portion of the scientific community agrees on an agenda, does not make it a reality. AGW is far from proven despite what some biased site slike scienceskeptic says to the contrary. Its flawed because its underlying hypothesis is incomplete, and only centers around certain data like CO2 while ignoring other major contributing factors to climate.

CO2 AGW is only a diversion from some of the other and more major potential dangers facing us from not just 'climate' but ecological disaster.
I have not been able to grow zucchinin in years. No bees. The long term implication of this singular fact of apiary colony collapse is of infinitely greater importance to life on earth than the potential for any warming that has been cyclical for aeons in any case.
The destruction of soils caused by glyphosate and other environmental toxins is setting the stage for another dustbowl, with the possibility of turning agricultural regions into Central Australia (which was forested before the aorigines turned it into desert). Anthropogenic Climate Change gold standard, actually.

Argument from Authority is a fallacy, and indeed some of the data must be challenged. Especially as the data, depending on source tends to be divergent, and one should suspect some fudging of results. Hells bells, even Mendel the monk omitted data that did not fall into his presuppositions on genetics!
And the scientific community long regarded tobacco as a medicine, and for years produced 'results' that showed it was harmless. Even radium water was advocated by health 'professionals, and to this day quackery such as homeopathy and chiropracty have numerous 'scientific' adherents. There was even a homeopathic 'proof' published in NATURE!

The problem, of course is that there are financial carrots and motivations to doctor climate data on both sides of the issue. The oil industry has no desire to see carbon emission minimized, and the financial industry stand to make fortunes on the Carbon Credit scam. And the bankers have more pull at the moment.

Personally I can use some global warming. But after seeing my figs killed twice by recent brutal winters, I am going to have my doubts, and fire up the wood stove to hopefull save money, and add a lil bit extra carbon to help things along....

Fortunately Paul Erlich's Ice Age did not come to pass. Unless he was right, and we are being kept alive by AGW!


And indeed AGW is a religion. Just express doubts and you are treated like a heretic....
Reply
#26
(Oct 07, 2019, 19:34 pm)soulcity Wrote:
(Oct 07, 2019, 17:47 pm)LZA Wrote: Scientists should be unbiased fact finders.

Should be but the majority are not.

Based on what?

Quote:Unfortunately regardless of what the profession or issue is... 99% of the world has some sort of bias or agenda.


Everyone has something they want to do or are trying to do. Whether or not it is deceptive, dishonest, unethical, or immoral is another story.

Quote:
(Oct 07, 2019, 17:47 pm)LZA Wrote: This is not the Void, so I'm legitimately asking: If you really don't care what happens, why make an OP that offers suggestions on stopping something you may or may not believe in?

It's the people with the biggest mouths that are the ones with the most junk.    They're yelling that I'm supposed to change the way that I live my life but they're not willing to give up any of their gadgets or comforts.

It's just plain old F'n hypocrisy.

The day that they start giving up their crap is the day that I'll start paying attention.

Elon Musk already gave up the exclusive rights to his Tesla patents specifically to help curb carbon emissions, but because that's not the same thing as switching over to a horse that doesn't seem to count. I think you might need to revise your standard on what constitutes doing something. I'm not asking you to give up your car, but when you buy your next one, look at an electric or a hybrid and consider it. Vote for politicians that at least acknowledge global warming exists. Vote for politicians that favor a carbon tax. The big contributors to global warming aren't the little people like you or me, its industry, electrical generation, and transportation.

Sure, you could use your AC less, or wash clothes with a board, or forego TV, or switch to a bike, but that's not going to do much. And in the big picture, that's kind of like grasping at straws to do something. As for things that make more sense to do and invest money into that are coincidentally good for the environment would be things like switching to energy efficient bulbs (save some money on electricity in the long run), insulating your home well (save money on heating and cooling), or upgrading old appliances to newer, energy efficient models. Not only are those options good in the sense of carbon emissions, they are good financially.

If the US built 26 nuclear reactors per year (1 every 2 weeks) over the course of 10 years, at a price of about .75 billion per reactor, it would result in about an average of $140 per taxpayer per year and effectively eliminate most carbon emissions from the energy sector. It would save the country a lot in terms of air pollutant related health issues as well.

Some areas could well do with better systems of mass transit, and some areas are ripe to get it altogether. Those also allow for savings on the carbon footprint.

The government could grant out technologies for carbon sequestration to pull excess CO2 out of the air; some have had some limited success and are potentials for upscaling. In a similar vein, existing technologies to pull carbon out of seawater could be invested in; the US Navy already has the technology to make diesel out of seawater and carbon, but its not very effective in its current state.


This is by no means an exhaustive list either. It is not an individual problem. Its a global problem. Pretending its not a problem is not going to help anything, nor will living in a state of anxiety over it. It is possible to approach the problem without reaching the comic level of hysteria of trying to overthrow all technology of the last 200 years, and reaching reasonable solutions. But that requires actually having an understanding, first, that there is a problem.

(Oct 07, 2019, 20:25 pm)waregim Wrote: Argument from Authority is a fallacy,

No; that is wrong. Argument from Authority is a fallacy in DEDUCTIVE REASONING, whereby if the premises are true and the logic is sound, the argument absolutely has to be true.

It is not a fallacy when it comes to inductive reasoning.

Example:

P1) Albert Einstein is a brilliant physicist
P2) Albert Einstein says that E=MC^2
C) E=MC^2

In deductive reasoning, this would be fallacious. In inductive reasoning (the reasoning most of us use for most things in life), it is logical and not in the least bit fallacious.

(Oct 07, 2019, 20:25 pm)waregim Wrote: I think that the main issue is just because a large portion of the scientific community agrees on an agenda, does not make it a reality. AGW is far from proven despite what some biased site slike scienceskeptic says to the contrary. Its flawed because its underlying hypothesis is incomplete, and only centers around certain data like CO2 while ignoring other major contributing factors to climate.

CO2 AGW is only a diversion from some of the other and more major potential dangers facing us from not just 'climate' but ecological disaster.
I have not been able to grow zucchinin in years. No bees. The long term implication of this singular fact of apiary colony collapse is of infinitely greater importance to life on earth than the potential for any warming that has been cyclical for aeons in any case.
The destruction of soils caused by glyphosate and other environmental toxins is setting the stage for another dustbowl, with the possibility of turning agricultural regions into Central Australia (which was forested before the aorigines turned it into desert). Anthropogenic Climate Change gold standard, actually.

Argument from Authority is a fallacy, and indeed some of the data must be challenged. Especially as the data, depending on source tends to be divergent, and one should suspect some fudging of results. Hells bells, even Mendel the monk omitted data that did not fall into his presuppositions on genetics!
And the scientific community long regarded tobacco as a medicine, and for years produced 'results' that showed it was harmless. Even radium water was advocated by health 'professionals, and to this day quackery such as homeopathy and chiropracty have numerous 'scientific' adherents. There was even a homeopathic 'proof' published in NATURE!

The problem, of course is that there are financial carrots and motivations to doctor climate data on both sides of the issue. The oil industry has no desire to see carbon emission minimized, and the financial industry stand to make fortunes on the Carbon Credit scam. And the bankers have more pull at the moment.

Personally I can use some global warming. But after seeing my figs killed twice by recent brutal winters, I am going to have my doubts, and fire up the wood stove to hopefull save money, and add a lil bit extra carbon to help things along....

Fortunately Paul Erlich's Ice Age did not come to pass. Unless he was right, and we are being kept alive by AGW!


And indeed AGW is a religion. Just express doubts and you are treated like a heretic....


Speaking of sources and reasoning, you have provided precisely one source that has been widely discredited.
The data has been replicated from multiple sources and multiple methodologies to demonstrate that AGW is happening, and climate scientists do take into account many factors besides just CO2 in their models. It just happens that CO2 is the major one.

Your rant is really nothing more than a list of your personal beliefs. You have absolutely no understanding of the underlying science behind climate change, scientific reasoning in general, or even basic physics. You can't support anything you claim with any valid sources. Your entire reasoning rests on, quite frankly, contradicting lines of reasoning and assumptions, and there is absolutely no reason to take anything you say as relevant.

Glyphosate does not cause cancer, let alone lay waste to and ravage the land. AGW is happening. We are not heading into an ice age. Science did not promote tobacco; the tobacco industry did. Homeopathy, naturopathy, et. al. are not medicine and are largely debunked in the scientific literature, despite what homeopaths might say.
Reply
#27
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/
https://globalchange.umich.edu/globalcha...Vostok.htm

The Vostok cores show a significantly higher, if not perfect match with METHANE rather than CO2, and since methane is released mainly from volcanism or as a consequene to global warming from clathrate release , it shows that the debate is far from over. The umich site makes no arguments either way, but was the best representation of the Vostok data easily found.

Time to put down the Nat Geos and go back to school, grasshopper.
Reply
#28
(Oct 07, 2019, 22:23 pm)waregim Wrote: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/

The scope of the paper is stratospheric effects, not surface warming.  The part that does mention some form of surface warming does not mention to what degree. This does not support any of your points.

Quote:Total solar irradiance changes, though of small magnitude, do appear to affect sea surface temperatures (SSTs), most obviously at latitudes where cloud cover is small and irradiance is abundant, such as the Northern Hemisphere subtropics during summer.

Quote:https://globalchange.umich.edu/globalcha...Vostok.htm

The Vostok cores show a significantly higher, if not perfect match with METHANE rather than CO2, and since methane is released mainly from volcanism or as a consequene to global warming from clathrate release , it shows that the debate is far from over. The umich site makes no arguments either way, but was the best representation of the Vostok data easily found.

First, your source is a lab assignment.

The graphs displayed are following different units between the two greenhouse gases. CO2 is in ppm and methane is in ppb. While it is true that methane produces a stronger greenhouse effect than CO2 of an equivalent quantity. It would be like having 2000 pennies or 100 nickels. As a whole, the pennies are worth more. Because of the difference in units, the results are skewed to appear disproportionate in your link.

Here is another view of the CO2 and Temp data with the CO2 line not being flattened by unit choices.
[Image: vostok-temp-vs-co2.gif]


That's not to deny that methane has an impact on AGW, as you seem to think I am doing for whatever reason, but rather it needs to be put into perspective. Reducing CO2 and methane emissions, as well as other GHG's are both goals that need to be pursued.

https://skepticalscience.com/methane-and...arming.htm

[Image: ipcc_forcings.jpg]


Quote:Time to put down the Nat Geos and go back to school, grasshopper.
I'll give you some credit. You at least attempted to find legitimate sources, but not much more than that.
Reply
#29
The best threads in months came by just when I was out on vacations...

Instead of "becomming all Amish", couldn't we just stop making shiploads of babies (and then sending shiploads of people to other countries) ?

There are a few points in the OPs rant; I'll try to put some info in easily understandable form, as I am a layman:

- The USA are (is) a big player in industry and consummerism, even if populational density isn't that high. Population inflation by imigration won't have such an impact as most of those won't be rich, won't buy industry products or services, and most will acquire old cars and washing machines Americans would otherwise recycle/trash, so they would help conserve things in use as the OP seems to prefer. And will probably eat a lot less, burn, spill, wear a lot less.

- The new generation is entitled, but compared to the pre-medieval ones, so were the pilgrims.

- Kids go to school in vehicles (in many places) for safety reasons, not for comfort. In Japan and Ethiopia they walk, from day one. Horses may look funny but they are slow, require proper road conditions (hard floor like stone or asphalt hurts them) and crap. Imagine NY with horses; the reason we switched to cars is not in the comfort or speed, but city density and size, and those are the reasons some people spend 4-8 hours a day just commuting to/from work! Real estate speculating and the freaking CDIs (i.e. Goldman Sachs) are your enemies, not Ford.

As a personnal opinion, the only good thing on the 18th Century was the sexual repression. Hard to find good virgins nowadays. Sure it had it's charm and now it's a little messy and all, but still we could just stop making babies and mortgages. And instead of bombing Lybia the USA could just take charge of the entire world, give everybody education and infrastructure on par with Geneve, etc. Problem solved. But no, they broke Berlin in four, then JFK took the entire continent (America), half southern Asia and a big part of Africa just to exploit and let rot. And invented the uber-consummerism.
Reply
#30
(Nov 12, 2019, 04:40 am)dueda Wrote: Instead of "becomming all Amish", couldn't we just stop making shiploads of babies (and then sending shiploads of people to other countries) ?

Interestingly enough, birth rate is declining globally. Its speculated it could be a result of things like women's rights and economic progression. As a result, most models put a cap on the human population eventually self limiting itself to about 9-10 billion. Of course, those are long range speculations, and the human population can be somewhat unpredictable, so take it with a grain of salt. But, it is a neat idea that at some point the human population will just level off all on its own without some kind of horrible famine or such.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Can you change your thepiratebay.org password? sonicwim 1 1,233 Nov 23, 2020, 13:55 pm
Last Post: ill88eagle
  Piratebay.org search page change languaje Pipo2020 0 2,409 Jan 17, 2020, 10:51 am
Last Post: Pipo2020
  Wow these HIV charts are scary. soulcity 17 13,167 Apr 21, 2019, 18:40 pm
Last Post: xeitgeist
  What’s not going to change in the next 10 years? Sid 20 33,332 Feb 15, 2019, 14:44 pm
Last Post: contrail
  Tixati only uploaded at 15kb/s, this small change multiplied it 20x instantly xbt 1 6,156 Jan 21, 2017, 01:10 am
Last Post: joew771



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)