Climate change.

[Druss]

Fascinating points made so far, but I'm not convinced

I can't seem to paste the article for some reason, but here's the link:

https://www.lootpress.com/10-reasons-to-prove-that-climate-change-is-a-hoax/

 

[Chippy_Tea]

"According to many reports only 1% of ALL scientists believe there is a problem with the temperature on earth" I wish they had put this as reason 1 instead of 7 it would have saved me reading the other 6

(According to many reports = we just made a figure up)



Reason 7. Scientists are not falling for the Hype.

If there was a problem with global warming, you are sure to hear about it from scientists around the world. There would be far greater talk than what we have heard thus far. But the fact remains that scientists are not all worried about global warming or these claims. According to many reports, only about 1 percent of all scientists believe that there is a problem with the temperature on the earth. The other 99 percent say that just the opposite of global warming is true.

 

[lancon]

Fascinating points made so far, but I'm not convinced

I can't seem to paste the article for some reason, but here's the link:

https://www.lootpress.com/10-reasons-to-prove-that-climate-change-is-a-hoax/

Strangely NASA does believe that something is wrong. Probably disproves the previous points. Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

 

[Druss]

(According to many reports = we just made a figure up)

That's the crux of the matter really, none of the evidence for either argument is empirical, therefore, logically the only reaction would be scepticism towards either.

If we weren't told by the preeminent scientific minds of the time, in the 80's, that the cfc's in deodorant cans were going to melt away the ozone layer in ten years then I might lean more towards middle.

 

[Clarence]

the heavy metals in the batteries do a load of significant damage

The batteries are lithium based. Lithium is the lightest of all metals with atomic number 3. I'm not surprised its mining is a mess. that seems to be common to all mining: exploit and leave the mess for the locals to clean up.
Anyway, what damage does lithium do, especially?

I think Elon Musk might be making a fair bit.

You think!
Is he or isn't he?
Yes, he cornered the market for the new generation of cars.

Any and every two bit hack 'scientist'

Are there any two bit "hack" scientists? Can you name any?
(What is a two bit "hack" scientist anyway?)

Every journalist who takes part in whipping up a frenzy

Who, for example. Can you name any?

This is from the Mail

Ah. You mean Daily Mail journalists.

none of the evidence for either argument is empirical,

The evidence for man-made climate change is empirical and quantifiable. I think the onus is on you to take the evidence piece by piece and refute it if you can. That isn't done by quoting articles in the Daily Mail.

Haven't made much progress, have we!

 

[Druss]

The evidence for man-made climate change is empirical and quantifiable.

Theories do not suddenly become the truth because somebody simply says so. The old 'studies have shown' nonsense has been peddled since such 'studies' began.

It wasn't that long ago that everybody 'knew' that illnesses were caused by 'bad spirits' (and no, I can't cite that particular piece of information, just making a reference to the willful ignorance of the average 'believe anything they're told' types).

There isn't really any onus on me to do anything, I'm not trying to push an agenda or convince anyone. Just pointing out that it's not particularly feasible to me.

 

[Brew_DD2]

That's the crux of the matter really, none of the evidence for either argument is empirical, therefore, logically the only reaction would be scepticism towards either.

If we weren't told by the preeminent scientific minds of the time, in the 80's, that the cfc's in deodorant cans were going to melt away the ozone layer in ten years then I might lean more towards middle.

There is clear empirical evidence. You don't even have to look for it. Plenty of good (and yes, empirical data) has been shared on this forum.

That link you posted is utter drivel. It's that bad that it's not even worthy of the title "pseudoscience".

 

[Brew_DD2]

There isn't really any onus on me to do anything, I'm not trying to push an agenda or convince anyone. Just pointing out that it's not particularly feasible to me.

There is. The claim that humans are responsible for current climate change is backed-up with reams of evidence. You happen to disagree with their data. They've presented their data, you appear to be in the "bad spirits" camp.

 

[lancon]

Theories do not suddenly become the truth because somebody simply says so. The old 'studies have shown' nonsense has been peddled since such 'studies' began.

It wasn't that long ago that everybody 'knew' that illnesses were caused by 'bad spirits' (and no, I can't cite that particular piece of information, just making a reference to the willful ignorance of the average 'believe anything they're told' types).

There isn't really any onus on me to do anything, I'm not trying to push an agenda or convince anyone. Just pointing out that it's not particularly feasible to me.

Theories by their definition are not the truth.
I think you'll still find people knowing the illnesses are caused by bad spirits, so what caused you to change your mind about it, (I assume from what you say that you have).
There was a major mistake that the environmentalists made some years ago, using the term "climate change", without adding 'due to human intervention' this allowed sceptics to use the CC term validly pointing out that there has always been climate change which is not denied.
Science is never absolute, but it relies on probability enforced by data/experiments/observation & etc. And the probability that the Climate change caused by human intervention is a major problem is enforced by the number of scientists for and against the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surve...Reporting,disagreeing and the rest undecided.

 

[stripeyjoe]

I'm not trying to push an agenda or convince anyone.

Yes you are, your agenda is the one bought and paid for by the oil industry. Funny how climate change deniers always bang on about scientists inventing it for monetary gain when the oil companies are raking in trillions…

 

[Brew_DD2]

Yes you are, your agenda is the one bought and paid for by the oil industry. Funny how climate change deniers always bang on about scientists inventing it for monetary gain when the oil companies are raking in trillions…

It's the same with conspiracies on the likes of COVID vaccines, The WEF, 2020 US Election etc. They are quite happy to peddle the narrative of a shadowy cabal with little evidence, rather than the shadowy Russian bot farms pushing these narratives, in which there is stacks of evidence.

 

[dad_of_jon]

I trust the scientific method over religion and other belief systems. I do still question if the scientific method is used correctly and not bent/distorted/politicized

Scientific advancement is made by replacing old theories with better newer theories that fit observations more accurately. Which means the old ones were not correct. Over time we should become less ignorant as we mis-understand less.

Like newtons theory on gravity was replaced by Einsteins although newtons is still used because its still good enough to be used in many cases.

We did measure a hole in the ozone layer and discovered that certain chemicals damaged/destroyed it. By banning CFC's the hole has shrunk and should be repaired. So observation and measurement are key.

The problem with something like the climate is there are so many variables and we can't even predict the weather in 2 weeks time let along 10 years. So we try and model it. But do we really have enough data points and are we measuring enough variables?

Clearly c02 is a warming gas, so is methane, which is a bigger problem? At least plants absorb co2. grow more plants, plant more trees don't cut them down unless they are being replaced. We are focusing on co2 reduction which is a bit short sighted. but if we grow more plants , trees food and wood will become cheaper. hmm, can't let the peasants benefit can we?

I remember the advisory committee on alcohol made a recommendation of 21/14 units a week. There was NO evidence for this but we persuaded to come up with a figure. - Then to present this as being based on scientific evidence was a misleading and tarnishes science. same as 5 a day. It's supposed to be 10 a day but the view was that we'll never get them to buy into that. 5 is better than nothing. Same with covid , the evidence that vaccination reduces transmission wasn't studied at the time but that was the narrative that was pushed.

So whilst I am suspicious of discoveries presented in the name of science. Just because there is a status quo of scientists that understand things are such a way, it only takes 1 new discovery to turn that on it's head.

Just because we couldn't see yeast until we invented the microscope didn't mean beer wasn't being fermented until we could detect it.

I don't believe we really can claim to understand the climate with our current level of knowledge other than make broad general statements on it.

 

[GhostShip]

There is. The claim that humans are responsible for current climate change is backed-up with reams of evidence. You happen to disagree with their data. They've presented their data, you appear to be in the "bad spirits" camp.

So given that 125,000 years ago, the world was warmer than it is right now, what caused that? Becuase it definitely wasn't man made CO2.

 

[lancon]

I trust the scientific method over religion and other belief systems. I do still question if the scientific method is used correctly and not bent/distorted/politicized

Scientific advancement is made by replacing old theories with better newer theories that fit observations more accurately. Which means the old ones were not correct. Over time we should become less ignorant as we mis-understand less.

Like newtons theory on gravity was replaced by Einsteins although newtons is still used because its still good enough to be used in many cases.

We did measure a hole in the ozone layer and discovered that certain chemicals damaged/destroyed it. By banning CFC's the hole has shrunk and should be repaired. So observation and measurement are key.

The problem with something like the climate is there are so many variables and we can't even predict the weather in 2 weeks time let along 10 years. So we try and model it. But do we really have enough data points and are we measuring enough variables?

Clearly c02 is a warming gas, so is methane, which is a bigger problem? At least plants absorb co2. grow more plants, plant more trees don't cut them down unless they are being replaced. We are focusing on co2 reduction which is a bit short sighted. but if we grow more plants , trees food and wood will become cheaper. hmm, can't let the peasants benefit can we?

I remember the advisory committee on alcohol made a recommendation of 21/14 units a week. There was NO evidence for this but we persuaded to come up with a figure. - Then to present this as being based on scientific evidence was a misleading and tarnishes science. same as 5 a day. It's supposed to be 10 a day but the view was that we'll never get them to buy into that. 5 is better than nothing. Same with covid , the evidence that vaccination reduces transmission wasn't studied at the time but that was the narrative that was pushed.

So whilst I am suspicious of discoveries presented in the name of science. Just because there is a status quo of scientists that understand things are such a way, it only takes 1 new discovery to turn that on it's head.

Just because we couldn't see yeast until we invented the microscope didn't mean beer wasn't being fermented until we could detect it.

I don't believe we really can claim to understand the climate with our current level of knowledge other than make broad general statements on it.

1. Interesting to see some examples of bent/distorted/politicised
2. Re ozone hole, observation and measurement is what gives the data for the climate change due to human intervention
3. As before data in the form of observation and measurement is what gives the scientists confidence to predict.
4.Methane is a problem, well highlighted, which is why cutting animal production for food, cows and sheep are said to produce 30% of methane. (As well as Brazilian rain forests being destroyed for beef raising)
4. Alcohol intake, 5 a day, are recommendations, there is science on lower alcohol/more fresh fruit & vegetables, but when making targets for people make them SMART
5. Even with all the data, the catastrophic weather conditions in various parts of the world you're just going to wait for a discovery?
6. "our current level of knowledge", you've obviously studied to a high degree to write this. What actual science have you read to gain this knowledge and scepticism of generally accepted viewpoints?

 

[Druss]

Yes you are, your agenda is the one bought and paid for by the oil industry. Funny how climate change deniers always bang on about scientists inventing it for monetary gain when the oil companies are raking in trillions…

It's the same with conspiracies on the likes of COVID vaccines, The WEF, 2020 US Election etc. They are quite happy to peddle the narrative of a shadowy cabal with little evidence, rather than the shadowy Russian bot farms pushing these narratives, in which there is stacks of evidence.

I'm not a climate change denier, nor am I a conspiracy theorist.

As I've said from the get go, I'm a sceptic, there has been no evidence put forward to date that convinces me that human activity has been a deciding factor in the changing climate of the planet. I'm far more inclined to believe in the 'state of fear' agenda of keeping the populace cowering, terrified and controllable.

I don't doubt for a moment that the planetary climate is indeed warming up, I'm simply not convinced it's due to humans, blind faith in a homocentric universe is a bit much for me really.

 

[lancon]

So given that 125,000 years ago, the world was warmer than it is right now, what caused that? Becuase it definitely wasn't man made CO2.

The clue was in the statement "that humans were responsible for current climate change"

 

[Brew_DD2]

As I've said from the get go, I'm a sceptic, there has been no evidence put forward to date that convinces me that human activity has been a deciding factor in the changing climate of the planet. I'm far more inclined to believe in the 'state of fear' agenda of keeping the populace cowering, terrified and controllable.

Then I don't know what to say to you. It's one thing to be skeptical, a position I completely respect, and to a other thing to dismiss the overwhelming evidence of man-made warming because you choose to believe in an agenda, for which you've provided no evidence.

 

[Clarence]

Yes you are:

I'm far more inclined to believe in the 'state of fear' agenda of keeping the populace cowering, terrified and controllable.

This is a conspiracy theory.

 

[Druss]

Yes you are:

This is a conspiracy theory.

Really? So every alarmist headline in the media is absolute truth?

Common sense would dictate that's probably not the case.

 

[Brew_DD2]

Really? So every alarmist headline in the media is absolute truth?

Common sense would dictate that's probably not the case.

You're not going to get any argument from me that the media are good at stirring things up. I'd suggest that it's more that fear and sensationalism works better for click bait that drives their agenda though.

Edit: Why is the word clìckbait censored?