By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
robzo100 on 04 June 2017
Edit Thread
Final-Fan said:Okay, you're right, it's $100 billion a year by 2020.  No, you're wrong, it's not $100 billion a year from the USA.  It's, from what I now understand, a goal of $100 billion a year collectively from many of the developed world signatories.  For instance, as of a recent story by the Washington Post, the U.S. had pledged about 3 of about 10 billion dollars worth to the green fund, of which we have actually paid one billion.  And I doubt we would end up paying 30% of the ramped-up pledges even under a pro-Paris-Agreement administration; we have every right to call on others to put in as well.  If this information I got is bogus, please do let me know.  


I think it's fair to say that we don't have one hundred percent certainty of exactly to what degree humanity has affected the environment to cause the current warming and how much impact the warming will have.  But I also think it's very wrong to say that we have no idea how much humanity has done so nor how bad it will be.  There's a broad scientific consensus, evolving on the details but pretty clear on the general picture being painted.  Warming climate, rising seas, less ice, more extreme weather, etc.  How much and how fast is water expected to rise?  They can tell you a probable range, but not nail it down to a certainty.  Is it enough to act on?  I think so. 

I'm curious what you meant by "scientifically sure". 

There are different articles saying different things (Hey if it's this hard validate specific details maybe people of all opinionated backgrounds should not rush to judgement so fast) but this one here seems to indicate that of the legit 100-billion pledge from theUS(this I was right on) there is a minimum of 6 billion promised of which we have supplied 3 billion so far. We're both off but still right, I can celebrate over that. (again this is how society has get to the bottom of things without killing eachother)

"Scientifically sure" means 100 percent certainty. It's just the innate standards set upon by the discipline. They and others should then abide by it if they wish to use the those standards as any part of their supporting argument. Climate Change is scientifically sound. The details we've repeated here stemming from it are not, but I agree that there is a less blurry picture that is evolving over time as we garner more and mroe details, data, theories, etc...some of which, like "planetary weather", may or may not support the conclusions we expect(Earth going through cycles). 

We're not clueless on the situation, but science doesn't have murky standards, we can't "kind of" think we know things when money and legislation are on the line. You won't find any scientific facts that show an estimate of how much human pollution contributes to weather changes - it's not there, there' no scientists saying "we think 50%, 75%, 25%" no one is saying that with any charts, graphs, nothing specific. We just don't know - it's a tough experiment to pull off, I don't blame them, but it doesn't matter. We understand greenhouse gases, what carbon emissions do. We dont' know, due to lack of control variables, what the current world would be like without those factors. Then let's say we knew, we don't know how effective proposals to reverse or slow down the process could work. I could go on, but science is only moving forward as we speak.

Ideal data could eve suggest it would be more financially efficient to focus resources on planetary migration rather than saving this planet, idk, no one knows though.

 

 

The last thing I want to add is that people are afraid to explore this side of the issue(the one I'm defending) because for years it was pathetically advocated by politicians and dumbass pundits who literally didn't even believe in fossils and science in general. This side of the issue has an image/reputation problem. But you can't judge a book by its cover.