Quantcast
Trump: 'Nobody Really Knows' If Climate Change Is Real

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

Jumpin said:

You won't get any kind of rational response from them. You have to keep in mind that Trump voters are these sorts:

     

And everyone who voted for Hillary is retarded! Wow, what a great discussion /s



Around the Network
thranx said:
SpokenTruth said:

OK, then lets have that debate.  With 99% of field relevant scientists on one side and...what, the fossil fuel industry on the other side?   Who exactly is in this debate?  The overwhelming majority that are part of the debate have already come to a conclusion.  And most new evidence only corroborates their claims.

As for your link, did you read it?  It's not about making it illegal to question anthropogenic global climate change, it's about the fossil fuel industry being held liable for intentionally lying.   Are you saying you're against that?

 

And finally, your historical religion/science analogy.  What fails is the church had no evidence for their claims while the scientists did.  Now the scientists still have the evidence and the lone dissenters do not. 

And before you go there, let's talk the money and birbery angle to get it out of the way.  What sounds more realistic?  The green renewable industry paying off thousands upon thousands of scientists around the world or the fossil fuel industry paying off a couple in politically charged nations?

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?

You keep talking as if no scientific research on anthropogenic climate change has taken place.  Like you asume they just all agreed to believe it without ever having done any science on it at all.

As to why their models are wrong?  Depends on what models you are talking about and how much deviation must take place before you claim it as wrong?  Keep in mind that your local meterologist can be off in their weather models too.  And that's just local.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

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.



.....Good Luck America



Black Women Are The Most Beautiful Women On The Planet.

"In video game terms, RPGs are games that involve a form of separate battles taking place with a specialized battle system and the use of a system that increases your power through a form of points.

Sure, what you say is the definition, but the connotation of RPGs is what they are in video games." - dtewi

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
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



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



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.  



...

Zanten said:
Illusion said:

Did you consider that the "pushback against science" might be far larger in this case because the "science" supporting AGW is far weaker than it was for issues such as the ozone depletion?

*SNIP*

I haven't had time to reply to this thread for the past several days because of work (and I don't have a ton of time today, either), but your reply to him sums it up pretty well. Thanks.

thranx said:

the universe must revolve around us. All people believed this at one point in time. it must be true.

Enough with the geocentrism argument. It's BS to trot that out to claim "science has been wrong before" and you know it.

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?

You seem to be operating from the assumption that there's some "Council of Climatologists" who get together and do a vote. That's not how consensus works in science, regardless of the field. A consensus happens when the vast majority of scientists do independent research and the evidence leads them to come to the same conclusion about a given theory. They didn't do a show of hands or have a secret ballot. "Alternative" theories eventually fail because fewer and fewer researchers can make a convincing case that the now-standard theory doesn't work. That's why 97% of all scientific papers claim that global warming is primarily anthropogenic.

And that's why "dissenters" usually just end up being cranks after a time, rather than being the once to push science forward like you claim. There have been many dissenters to the Big Bang theory, but their numbers have dwindled. You used to have prominent astronomers like Halton Arp claiming that the universe actually wasn't expanding, you had Fred Hoyle's gang pushing the Steady State theory, and you had Hannes Alfven's gang advocating "plasma cosmology." All of their theories were found lacking. They didn't predict and couldn't explain anything the BBT predicted and explained. Over time, the "dissenters" just sounded more and more like cranks, claiming that there was a "conspiracy" in mainstream science to suppress their work, and as those older dissenters have died, it has increasingly left non-scientists being the only people left that believe them. The near-unanimous support for the BBT happened because the BBT was the best fit for the evidence. Nowadays about the only people who reject the BBT are creationists and Velikovsky supporters, few if any of which are actual practicing scientists with relevant credentials.

And that's the case with AGW theory. The idea that the Earth's average surface temperature is increasing and that human activity is the primary cause of it is simply the best fit for the evidence. Climatology operates on the same basic principles as cosmology and other sciences. Just like the BBT had Arp, Hoyle, and Alfven, you still have a few "renegade" scientists with relevant credentials saying that the world is either not warming or that the warming is natural, but they're becoming fewer and further in between, because the evidence is what it is and it has led the vast majority of climatologists to independently reach the same conclusion: global warming is real and humans are the main cause. The only thing remaining is to work out the details, such as how much warming will we experience and what its effects might be. But the reality of warming and its causes is no more in question among climatologists than the BBT is with cosmologists, or evolution is with biologists, or plate tectonics is with geologists. The only "controversy" is the political controversy, which only exists because the science threatens certain people's worldviews and/or bottom lines.



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.