By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump: 'Nobody Really Knows' If Climate Change Is Real

Lafiel on 29 December 2016
thranx said:

the universe must revolve around us. All people believed this at one point in time. it must be true. Science is now a majority vote not based on facts and reason but on the community agreeing to it. Very Democratic and all. But what a load of BS. Science comes from the dissenters who question. By your standards there would be no advancement as we should just agree with the consensus and not look at or question things our selves, because the majority must be right.  They took a vote, listen to that, consensus, listen to that. Where are the facts? why have their climate models been so wrong so far? Why is it so bad to question them?

What would a scientific analphabet like you do with the facts anyway? Many many scientists that actually understand how the earth changed over the course of 4.5 billion years and how the different factors are connected reviewed and double reviewed and tripple reviewed all of the incomming data for the thousends of factors influencing earth's climate and almost every one of them individually came to the conclusion that there is a very high probability our emission are directly responsible for a negative change that could even accelerate in the future and that we should absolutely act now.

The people speaking out against this very often reduce "climate change" to 1 simple factor, global average temperature, which luckily hasn't seen as much of an uptrend as feared in the last decades. But instead we have seen an alarming rise in the oceans acidity, meaning the oceans have acted as a buffer and shown an increased intake of CO2. Also the local temperatures at the arctic shot through the roof making arctic ice disappear quicker than estimated (influence on sea levels only due to melting of glaciers like on greenland/in scandinavia, as arctic ice is already swimming on the water - melting ice cubes also don't influence water levels in a glass of water), yet the antartic region still is pretty stable and even increased inland ice a bit making sea levels rise slower than estimated.

Chris Hu said:
What really is going to fuck us over isn't the CO2 emissions but all the methane gas that will be released when all the permafrost melts. Guy McPherson thinks this could lead to the 6th mass extinction event which would include the extinctions of humans.

there have been many many more mass extinction events than just 5, although the big 5 certainly were exceptionally devastating - independent from whether or not climate change is happening/will occur in the future we are already living within a mass extinction event pretty much on the same level as the big 5 going by the amount of species that vanish completely each year, a catastrophic climate change just would add to that

but personally I doubt human kind would die from that - we are too adaptable and smart and the only way I can see us possibly become extinct in the near future is if we add an all out nuclear war to the pile (chances for that ofcourse increase like 1000 fold if a rapid climate change occurs)



Around the Network
thranx on 30 December 2016
Lafiel said:
thranx said:

the universe must revolve around us. All people believed this at one point in time. it must be true. Science is now a majority vote not based on facts and reason but on the community agreeing to it. Very Democratic and all. But what a load of BS. Science comes from the dissenters who question. By your standards there would be no advancement as we should just agree with the consensus and not look at or question things our selves, because the majority must be right.  They took a vote, listen to that, consensus, listen to that. Where are the facts? why have their climate models been so wrong so far? Why is it so bad to question them?

What would a scientific analphabet like you do with the facts anyway? Many many scientists that actually understand how the earth changed over the course of 4.5 billion years and how the different factors are connected reviewed and double reviewed and tripple reviewed all of the incomming data for the thousends of factors influencing earth's climate and almost every one of them individually came to the conclusion that there is a very high probability our emission are directly responsible for a negative change that could even accelerate in the future and that we should absolutely act now.

The people speaking out against this very often reduce "climate change" to 1 simple factor, global average temperature, which luckily hasn't seen as much of an uptrend as feared in the last decades. But instead we have seen an alarming rise in the oceans acidity, meaning the oceans have acted as a buffer and shown an increased intake of CO2. Also the local temperatures at the arctic shot through the roof making arctic ice disappear quicker than estimated (influence on sea levels only due to melting of glaciers like on greenland/in scandinavia, as arctic ice is already swimming on the water - melting ice cubes also don't influence water levels in a glass of water), yet the antartic region still is pretty stable and even increased inland ice a bit making sea levels rise slower than estimated.

Chris Hu said:
What really is going to fuck us over isn't the CO2 emissions but all the methane gas that will be released when all the permafrost melts. Guy McPherson thinks this could lead to the 6th mass extinction event which would include the extinctions of humans.

there have been many many more mass extinction events than just 5, although the big 5 certainly were exceptionally devastating - independent from whether or not climate change is happening/will occur in the future we are already living within a mass extinction event pretty much on the same level as the big 5 going by the amount of species that vanish completely each year, a catastrophic climate change just would add to that

but personally I doubt human kind would die from that - we are too adaptable and smart and the only way I can see us possibly become extinct in the near future is if we add an all out nuclear war to the pile (chances for that ofcourse increase like 1000 fold if a rapid climate change occurs)

Oh so now its I'm not capable. I must listen to the rulers. If they dont want us to focus on the one aspect on climate change they shouldn trey and make political policy on it. Not my fault I care more for the economy of the US than I do "climate change". If they were smart they wouldn't try and bundle it all together. Yes the oceans absorb the co2, something they didnt factor in in the begining, yes there are massive under water currents and weather systems that may or may moay not be affected by "climate change" that they didnt know exsited when they first started. Many aspects to it, in fact so many perhaps we just dont know enough yet. Which is of course my view, we do not know enough yet, and certainly not enough to alter apour entire economy. Because we do know what that will bring, which is higher energy costs, which means higher costs for all goods, which means more people will go without and possibly suffer. But hey, lets take care of that co2. I would much rather envirmentalists try and clean our water, clean our air of actual pollution and smog, make fossil fuels even more effieceint as gains there will help the entire world at once. But instead science is backing a view they can't prove. And you can claim I'm too stupid all you want, the fact is more people dont believe than do beleieve and the number of non believers is only going up as the science is not there to back up the claims. With Trump in the whitehouse and funding being yanked from these guys wew ill see how the scientific consensus changes.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/pew-most-americans-dont-believe-scientific-consensus-climate-change



Lafiel on 30 December 2016
thranx said:
Lafiel said:

What would a scientific analphabet like you do with the facts anyway? Many many scientists that actually understand how the earth changed over the course of 4.5 billion years and how the different factors are connected reviewed and double reviewed and tripple reviewed all of the incomming data for the thousends of factors influencing earth's climate and almost every one of them individually came to the conclusion that there is a very high probability our emission are directly responsible for a negative change that could even accelerate in the future and that we should absolutely act now.

The people speaking out against this very often reduce "climate change" to 1 simple factor, global average temperature, which luckily hasn't seen as much of an uptrend as feared in the last decades. But instead we have seen an alarming rise in the oceans acidity, meaning the oceans have acted as a buffer and shown an increased intake of CO2. Also the local temperatures at the arctic shot through the roof making arctic ice disappear quicker than estimated (influence on sea levels only due to melting of glaciers like on greenland/in scandinavia, as arctic ice is already swimming on the water - melting ice cubes also don't influence water levels in a glass of water), yet the antartic region still is pretty stable and even increased inland ice a bit making sea levels rise slower than estimated.

there have been many many more mass extinction events than just 5, although the big 5 certainly were exceptionally devastating - independent from whether or not climate change is happening/will occur in the future we are already living within a mass extinction event pretty much on the same level as the big 5 going by the amount of species that vanish completely each year, a catastrophic climate change just would add to that

but personally I doubt human kind would die from that - we are too adaptable and smart and the only way I can see us possibly become extinct in the near future is if we add an all out nuclear war to the pile (chances for that ofcourse increase like 1000 fold if a rapid climate change occurs)

Oh so now its I'm not capable. I must listen to the rulers. If they dont want us to focus on the one aspect on climate change they shouldn trey and make political policy on it. Not my fault I care more for the economy of the US than I do "climate change". If they were smart they wouldn't try and bundle it all together. Yes the oceans absorb the co2, something they didnt factor in in the begining, yes there are massive under water currents and weather systems that may or may moay not be affected by "climate change" that they didnt know exsited when they first started. Many aspects to it, in fact so many perhaps we just dont know enough yet. Which is of course my view, we do not know enough yet, and certainly not enough to alter apour entire economy. Because we do know what that will bring, which is higher energy costs, which means higher costs for all goods, which means more people will go without and possibly suffer. But hey, lets take care of that co2. I would much rather envirmentalists try and clean our water, clean our air of actual pollution and smog, make fossil fuels even more effieceint as gains there will help the entire world at once. But instead science is backing a view they can't prove. And you can claim I'm too stupid all you want, the fact is more people dont believe than do beleieve and the number of non believers is only going up as the science is not there to back up the claims. With Trump in the whitehouse and funding being yanked from these guys wew ill see how the scientific consensus changes.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/pew-most-americans-dont-believe-scientific-consensus-climate-change

Yes you are not capable of understanding and interpreting the available data correctly, neither am I and I had many courses directly related to climatology in my curriculum.

That doesn't mean you are too stupid and I never said/implied you were (analphabets in almost all cases can learn the alphabet), but I'm aware that people with far more intellect than I have studied these matters intensively and looked at this in a very objective manner before comming to their conclusions.

Obviously if you came across something in your field of expertise that bears an unreasonably high risk to alter life on the planet for the worse you'd try to push that to the forefront of politics in order to make a change, especially if you tried to do it the conventional way for decades, but everybody is just twiddling their thumbs, as it's so much more comfortable to do nothing and hope for the best since doing business as usual is the best for the richest people and richest companies.

Yes, at this point it's just "a risk", meaning there is a small chance nothing (bad) happens even if we go to 500 or 600ppm CO2 or to 2-3 °C temperature anomaly, but in this case it's in my opinion far more prudent and sane to be "conservative", to try and conserve the state of the earth we have right now for as long as we can!

To do so we have to alter our energy resources and I don't doubt this could have a mild effect on our daily lifes for up to 2 decades, but I also expect the process to be far less intrusive than the opposition paints it. We have come a very long way in making renewable energy cheaper and the only big hurdle left is energy storage as many renewables don't have constant output. With enough "political will " (i.e. money and research focus) we should easily find good solutions to that.

In the longer run renewables will make energy costs much much lower for the general public, as alsmost everyone will be able to generate their own power (obviously electricity providers won't be happy with that - just like camera film makers weren't happy about digital cameras) and probably just have to pay for companies to manage the decentralised power system.

 

btw pls don't write wall texts



Torillian on 30 December 2016
thranx said:
Lafiel said:

What would a scientific analphabet like you do with the facts anyway? Many many scientists that actually understand how the earth changed over the course of 4.5 billion years and how the different factors are connected reviewed and double reviewed and tripple reviewed all of the incomming data for the thousends of factors influencing earth's climate and almost every one of them individually came to the conclusion that there is a very high probability our emission are directly responsible for a negative change that could even accelerate in the future and that we should absolutely act now.

The people speaking out against this very often reduce "climate change" to 1 simple factor, global average temperature, which luckily hasn't seen as much of an uptrend as feared in the last decades. But instead we have seen an alarming rise in the oceans acidity, meaning the oceans have acted as a buffer and shown an increased intake of CO2. Also the local temperatures at the arctic shot through the roof making arctic ice disappear quicker than estimated (influence on sea levels only due to melting of glaciers like on greenland/in scandinavia, as arctic ice is already swimming on the water - melting ice cubes also don't influence water levels in a glass of water), yet the antartic region still is pretty stable and even increased inland ice a bit making sea levels rise slower than estimated.

there have been many many more mass extinction events than just 5, although the big 5 certainly were exceptionally devastating - independent from whether or not climate change is happening/will occur in the future we are already living within a mass extinction event pretty much on the same level as the big 5 going by the amount of species that vanish completely each year, a catastrophic climate change just would add to that

but personally I doubt human kind would die from that - we are too adaptable and smart and the only way I can see us possibly become extinct in the near future is if we add an all out nuclear war to the pile (chances for that ofcourse increase like 1000 fold if a rapid climate change occurs)

Oh so now its I'm not capable. I must listen to the rulers. If they dont want us to focus on the one aspect on climate change they shouldn trey and make political policy on it. Not my fault I care more for the economy of the US than I do "climate change". If they were smart they wouldn't try and bundle it all together. Yes the oceans absorb the co2, something they didnt factor in in the begining, yes there are massive under water currents and weather systems that may or may moay not be affected by "climate change" that they didnt know exsited when they first started. Many aspects to it, in fact so many perhaps we just dont know enough yet. Which is of course my view, we do not know enough yet, and certainly not enough to alter apour entire economy. Because we do know what that will bring, which is higher energy costs, which means higher costs for all goods, which means more people will go without and possibly suffer. But hey, lets take care of that co2. I would much rather envirmentalists try and clean our water, clean our air of actual pollution and smog, make fossil fuels even more effieceint as gains there will help the entire world at once. But instead science is backing a view they can't prove. And you can claim I'm too stupid all you want, the fact is more people dont believe than do beleieve and the number of non believers is only going up as the science is not there to back up the claims. With Trump in the whitehouse and funding being yanked from these guys wew ill see how the scientific consensus changes.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/pew-most-americans-dont-believe-scientific-consensus-climate-change

If most americans don't believe in climate change that makes the scientists dissenters right?  If that's true climate change must be right, "cuz Galileo".  

Don't see why the consensus of people who actually study these things is meaningless but the consensus of people who have no degree in the subject means that the science must be wrong in this case.  



...

Chris Hu on 30 December 2016
Lafiel said:
thranx said:

the universe must revolve around us. All people believed this at one point in time. it must be true. Science is now a majority vote not based on facts and reason but on the community agreeing to it. Very Democratic and all. But what a load of BS. Science comes from the dissenters who question. By your standards there would be no advancement as we should just agree with the consensus and not look at or question things our selves, because the majority must be right.  They took a vote, listen to that, consensus, listen to that. Where are the facts? why have their climate models been so wrong so far? Why is it so bad to question them?

What would a scientific analphabet like you do with the facts anyway? Many many scientists that actually understand how the earth changed over the course of 4.5 billion years and how the different factors are connected reviewed and double reviewed and tripple reviewed all of the incomming data for the thousends of factors influencing earth's climate and almost every one of them individually came to the conclusion that there is a very high probability our emission are directly responsible for a negative change that could even accelerate in the future and that we should absolutely act now.

The people speaking out against this very often reduce "climate change" to 1 simple factor, global average temperature, which luckily hasn't seen as much of an uptrend as feared in the last decades. But instead we have seen an alarming rise in the oceans acidity, meaning the oceans have acted as a buffer and shown an increased intake of CO2. Also the local temperatures at the arctic shot through the roof making arctic ice disappear quicker than estimated (influence on sea levels only due to melting of glaciers like on greenland/in scandinavia, as arctic ice is already swimming on the water - melting ice cubes also don't influence water levels in a glass of water), yet the antartic region still is pretty stable and even increased inland ice a bit making sea levels rise slower than estimated.

Chris Hu said:
What really is going to fuck us over isn't the CO2 emissions but all the methane gas that will be released when all the permafrost melts. Guy McPherson thinks this could lead to the 6th mass extinction event which would include the extinctions of humans.

there have been many many more mass extinction events than just 5, although the big 5 certainly were exceptionally devastating - independent from whether or not climate change is happening/will occur in the future we are already living within a mass extinction event pretty much on the same level as the big 5 going by the amount of species that vanish completely each year, a catastrophic climate change just would add to that

but personally I doubt human kind would die from that - we are too adaptable and smart and the only way I can see us possibly become extinct in the near future is if we add an all out nuclear war to the pile (chances for that ofcourse increase like 1000 fold if a rapid climate change occurs)

Well I guess should have said 6th major mass extinction event.  I think that there is at least some evidence that at least one of the five earlier ones was caused by increased levels of methane in the atmosphere.