OT: Climate change - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 63 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 1246
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    2,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1354
    Likes (Received)
    2710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5 axis Fidia guy View Post
    I believe in climate change, however NOT "man made" climate change. Don't matter if I drive a suv or use an entire can of hair spray in the morning, it will always be changing. Considering the age of our planet, saying we have "global warming", is equivalent to watching the stock market this afternoon for 1.5 seconds and saying its crashing.
    If a wheel-go-round is spinning, it'll keep spinning (for a while). If I walk up and start wailing on the bars, it will speed up. That first sentence doesn't mean my actions didn't matter.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    11,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    5136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JNieman View Post
    Questioning is welcomed in scientific circles. There's been massive questioning. There's been competitive evaluation, peer review, and constant challenges that all left experts in the field concluding that it's real, it's happening, and we are not doing enough to curb it.

    You mention some good improvements, though there are gobs more vehicles on the roads today, leaving the per-vehicle efficiency improvements almost moot. Bailing out the Titanic with a water glass is progress. It's getting water out of the ship. It's progress, but that doesn't mean we're doing well enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Welden View Post
    I like how climate sceptics and deniers find it more likely that there is a MASSIVE world wide conspiracy in science and they are trying to con us all into not using fossil fuels. All of the evidence is fake and made up by scientists. Al Gore types are just trying to get rich off this conspiracy.

    They find that easier to believe than the overwhelming evidence showing that the science is right.


  3. Likes jfleisher liked this post
  4. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    2,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1354
    Likes (Received)
    2710

    Default

    9/11 was an inside job, too.

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    11,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    5136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JNieman View Post
    Questioning is welcomed in scientific circles. There's been massive questioning. There's been competitive evaluation, peer review, and constant challenges that all left experts in the field concluding that it's real, it's happening, and we are not doing enough to curb it.

    You mention some good improvements, though there are gobs more vehicles on the roads today, leaving the per-vehicle efficiency improvements almost moot. Bailing out the Titanic with a water glass is progress. It's getting water out of the ship. It's progress, but that doesn't mean we're doing well enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by 5 axis Fidia guy View Post
    I believe in climate change, however NOT "man made" climate change. Don't matter if I drive a suv or use an entire can of hair spray in the morning, it will always be changing. Considering the age of our planet, saying we have "global warming", is equivalent to watching the stock market this afternoon for 1.5 seconds and saying its crashing.
    Not the best comparison.
    Perhaps if you were to say that I will look at for 1.5 seconds...but your life span is 1/10 that time frame.

    The thing about science is it doesn't matter whether you 'believe'.

    Fact it we put trillions of tons of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere each year.
    That DOES change the amount of solar radiation we retain.
    We built our modern world around a very specific set of climate patterns...adapting to them is going to be VERY expensive and disruptive.
    The Pentagon, insurance agencies and every other modern country understand this.

    We are the only nation in the world that the Exxon misinformation machine has managed to retard.

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northern Il
    Posts
    1,015
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    595
    Likes (Received)
    1009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Farmer View Post
    Be interesting to know how many of the people who deny the fact of climate change are people who wake up in climate-controlled housing, get into climate-controlled vehicles, and go to climate-controlled workplaces for most of the daylight hours, then return home the same way.

    And how many work outdoors with living things like plants or animals. Which fewer and fewer do every year.

    Climate change is more obvious to people who actually spend time in the climate.
    I would completely disagree with your assumption. I think you would find that most of the Global Warming skeptics live in the Red States. This population tends to work outside, are landowners, and live in lower population density areas. So you should assume that this group actually is out in the weather at a very high frequency and they experience what the weather is.

    It should also be realized that this group also probably has a relatively low carbon foot print on average. Because they are outside a lot they also have a sense of how little a single humans efforts are in changing anything.

    You also referred to the fact of climate change. This is where we must all be very careful. There is a difference between the facts of the raw data and the interpretation of the raw data. This is where I think the Climate Change crowd seriously jeopardizes there position.

    What we currently have today are climate models. With any model it is important to understand what it can and can not do. In the case of the existing climate models, they show serious instability if used for projections very far forward or backward. This does not mean they are worthless but it is very important to acknowledge their limits and the limitations in interpreting the output data. It is also very important to understand how little we actually do know and need to approach the subject with a great degree of humility no matter which side of the argument that you are on.

    It is also very damaging and indigenous when the news media picks up stories such as street flooding in Miami or other coastal flooding and refer to it as proof of Climate Change when what it is caused by is ground subsidence. Yes it is flooding but not caused by a rising sea level but being caused by the ground sinking for various reasons. Some of these are human caused and others are natural events.

    If the Climate Change crowd wants to be taken seriously, then they need to start walking the talk. It is hypocritical when Leonardo Dicaprio and Al Gore jet around in their private jets making speeches living a life style that is anything but carbon neutral.

    I consider my self a Climate Change skeptic. I am very familiar with the limitations and strengths of computer models so am rather cautious about giving them undo importance. I am also very familiar with the raw data sets that we are accumulating.

    I live in a house that does not have central air, open windows in the summer is usually quite adequate, do not fertilize the grass, do not bag the grass clippings, let the tree leaves blow in the fall onto the rest of the 1200acres. We hydrologically have a zero foot print except for the purchased food since we have our own well and septic system.

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    2,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1354
    Likes (Received)
    2710

    Default

    Yea, I'm with Ziggy. The skeptics are more likely midwest red staters like in my locale. They know what the weather feels like.

    However, it doesn't matter because weather isn't climate. We're talking global climate trends, not how much rain we got today in Bumfuck, Arkansas, and how the temperature is 5 degrees colder today, than this day last year.

    If the Climate Change crowd wants to be taken seriously, then they need to start walking the talk. It is hypocritical when Leonardo Dicaprio and Al Gore jet around in their private jets making speeches living a life style that is anything but carbon neutral.
    That's just dumb.

    They are not "the climate change crowd" they are just two fucking assholes spouting off their mouths out of narcissism. They don't have dick to do with anything other than magazine covers no one cares about.

    Being a skeptic is good. Scientists are basically skeptics by definition. Nothing serious is assumed without evidence or testing. That's all being a skeptic is.

    When you fly in the face of overwhelming evidence and expert consensus, that is not being a skeptic. That's being wrong.

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    11,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    5136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy2 View Post
    I would completely disagree with your assumption. I think you would find that most of the Global Warming skeptics live in the Red States. This population tends to work outside, are landowners, and live in lower population density areas. So you should assume that this group actually is out in the weather at a very high frequency and they experience what the weather is.

    It should also be realized that this group also probably has a relatively low carbon foot print on average. Because they are outside a lot they also have a sense of how little a single humans efforts are in changing anything.

    You also referred to the fact of climate change. This is where we must all be very careful. There is a difference between the facts of the raw data and the interpretation of the raw data. This is where I think the Climate Change crowd seriously jeopardizes there position.

    What we currently have today are climate models. With any model it is important to understand what it can and can not do. In the case of the existing climate models, they show serious instability if used for projections very far forward or backward. This does not mean they are worthless but it is very important to acknowledge their limits and the limitations in interpreting the output data. It is also very important to understand how little we actually do know and need to approach the subject with a great degree of humility no matter which side of the argument that you are on.

    It is also very damaging and indigenous when the news media picks up stories such as street flooding in Miami or other coastal flooding and refer to it as proof of Climate Change when what it is caused by is ground subsidence. Yes it is flooding but not caused by a rising sea level but being caused by the ground sinking for various reasons. Some of these are human caused and others are natural events.

    If the Climate Change crowd wants to be taken seriously, then they need to start walking the talk. It is hypocritical when Leonardo Dicaprio and Al Gore jet around in their private jets making speeches living a life style that is anything but carbon neutral.

    I consider my self a Climate Change skeptic. I am very familiar with the limitations and strengths of computer models so am rather cautious about giving them undo importance. I am also very familiar with the raw data sets that we are accumulating.
    Read up.
    How reliable are climate models?

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Tucson AZ
    Posts
    5,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    8162
    Likes (Received)
    2724

    Default

    "People are still talking about deforestation, though. Maybe we have our heads in slightly different circles. I don't see it like I did when I was a kid (I think some of the 'save the earth' stuff gets marketed to them, though. Arbor Day, Earth Day, etc) but I still see fundraising campaigns and adverts for it. Companies still promote the idea of reducing paper consumption, increasing paper/cardboard recycling efforts. I think it's become more of a norm, honestly, so it stands out less. Our post offices have large paper recycling dumpsters the public can throw paper into. Cities have recycling pickup programs much more than 20/30 years ago. It's common to see 3 waste bins where there was previous 1, in public buildings, for various recycling drops."

    I think this a bigger problem than most realize. I'm from the Southeast. I grew up seeing pine trees planted in rows like corn. The paper companies did lots of research, developed fast growing, more productive trees, owned vast amounts of land to grow them on, and practiced the best in forestry techniques.
    Then suddenly we are told to recycle, save trees and all that horse shit. Waste management had a huge campagne claiming that they "recycled enough paper last year to save 3,000,000 trees. The paper companies had trees that could go from seedling to pulpwood in 11 years. So, What that means is that they saved 33,000,000 trees from being planted. Timber is a renewable resource. It absorbs and sequesters cast amounts of carbon and releases oxygen to the atmosphere. However vast numbers of the population think that they are saving the world when they are harming it. The harm goes further however. Union Camp had the world's largest kraft paper mill in Savannah Ga. They not only made the paper and linerboard but manufactured and sold the machines to produce the bags and boxes. In 1980 that plant employed well over 3000 people. Today, about 350. Those job losses are the tip of the iceberg. Foresters, loggers, people involved in production and transportation at many levels plus the people that made those bags and boxes.

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    356
    Likes (Received)
    4219

    Default

    FWIW, a group of friends has regular learn-something-new meetings. This Sunday, this guy: http://oceansci.ucsc.edu/faculty/sin...ruz_id=jzachos will be our speaker. Jim is an actual ocean and climate scientist. His topic is past climate change -- what we know about the last time we had a huge rise in CO2 around 56 million years ago.

    Here's more (National Geographic article): Hothouse Earth - Pictures, More From National Geographic Magazine

    Maybe I'll learn something to contribute to this thread, if it hasn't gone to hell and back in the next couple days?

  11. Likes jCandlish liked this post
  12. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    370

    Default

    There is a reason why the vast majority of climate scientists are in agreement on this issue -- it's pretty hard to argue with the scientific evidence. Most people who argue against it have a very shallow understanding of the science.

    I do my best to limit my contribution on the problem. On the other hand, I don't have kids and I don't believe in reincarnation, so it doesn't really matter to me what happens in the mid or long term. (I have my money on the cockroaches for long term survival.) Someday our sun will explode and all life on earth will perish. In the near term, however, I would like to avoid screwing over the next few generations of people. Seems like the right thing to do ...

  13. Likes seiner, jCandlish, jlrii, TeachMePlease liked this post
  14. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    11,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    5136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
    There is a reason why the vast majority of climate scientists are in agreement on this issue -- it's pretty hard to argue with the scientific evidence. Most people who argue against it have a very shallow understanding of the science.

    I do my best to limit my contribution on the problem. On the other hand, I don't have kids and I don't believe in reincarnation, so it doesn't really matter to me what happens in the mid or long term. (I have my money on the cockroaches for long term survival.) Someday our sun will explode and all life on earth will perish. In the near term, however, I would like to avoid screwing over the next few generations of people. Seems like the right thing to do ...
    Christ what an asshole.

  15. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
    There is a reason why the vast majority of climate scientists are in agreement on this issue -- it's pretty hard to argue with the scientific evidence. Most people who argue against it have a very shallow understanding of the science.

    I do my best to limit my contribution on the problem. On the other hand, I don't have kids and I don't believe in reincarnation, so it doesn't really matter to me what happens in the mid or long term. (I have my money on the cockroaches for long term survival.) Someday our sun will explode and all life on earth will perish. In the near term, however, I would like to avoid screwing over the next few generations of people. Seems like the right thing to do ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Miguels244 View Post
    Christ what an asshole.
    Why?
    ?

  16. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Temecula, Ca
    Posts
    2,056
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    924
    Likes (Received)
    2711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
    it's pretty hard to argue with the scientific evidence. Most people who argue against it have a very shallow understanding of the science.

    .
    A few years back, there was a theory called plate tectonics, people who believed in it were considered lunatics. The entire scientific community scoffed at the idea, even in the face of overwhelming scientific data.

    Scientists are not always right, they can be assholes just like every one else.

  17. Likes Bobw, MikeS-54 liked this post
  18. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    11,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    5136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
    Why?
    ?
    Sorry...it's a joke.

  19. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    11,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    5136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Dickman View Post
    A few years back, there was a theory called plate tectonics, people who believed in it were considered lunatics. The entire scientific community scoffed at the idea, even in the face of overwhelming scientific data.

    Scientists are not always right, they can be assholes just like every one else.
    Once the evidence was verified the consensus changed.
    A paradigm shift.
    In the case of AGW the evidence is already there...even so, the hypothesis was not really investigated seriously until the 60s. That's 50 years of steady investigation to bring the community to consensus.

    It about the same amount of time for geology to line up behind plate tectonics.

    So, what you are implying is that scientists that aren't in the consensus on climate change are like a geologist in 2000 denying plate tectonics.

  20. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Dickman View Post
    A few years back, there was a theory called plate tectonics, people who believed in it were considered lunatics. The entire scientific community scoffed at the idea, even in the face of overwhelming scientific data.

    Scientists are not always right, they can be assholes just like every one else.
    Actually, plate tectonics was adopted pretty quickly by the scientific community. Regardless of the time frame, however, it illustrates that solid evidence wins in the end. (In your argument, how are the scientists wrong if they adopted the new, currently accepted theory?)

    You are correct that scientists are not always right, but it is uncommon for them to be wrong about issues where there is a large consensus.

  21. Likes TeachMePlease liked this post
  22. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguels244 View Post
    Sorry...it's a joke.
    No harm, no foul.

  23. #58
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    17,479
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3605
    Likes (Received)
    10381

    Default

    Basically it boils down to two opinions. The climate is changing, always has always will.

    How much influence has humanity on the current change? We don't have to continue to do what might speed up the change but apart from that as things are at present (technology stage) there isn't much that can be done.

    And this is where I add that what I've written is my personal opinion. The biggest issue IMO is "How much will the sea level rise if it in fact does?". That should be solvable most places.

    Architects work against the clock to protect New York from rising sea levels - YouTube

    Building Shelters for Displaced People in the Maldives - YouTube

    The Great Wall of Louisiana - YouTube

    The Palm Island, Dubai UAE - Megastructure Development - YouTube

  24. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    11,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    5136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
    Actually, plate tectonics was adopted pretty quickly by the scientific community. Regardless of the time frame, however, it illustrates that solid evidence wins in the end. (In your argument, how are the scientists wrong if they adopted the new, currently accepted theory?)

    You are correct that scientists are not always right, but it is uncommon for them to be wrong about issues where there is a large consensus.
    Took about 50 years from proposal to widespread adoption.
    I have a text that refers to the theory of plate tectonics.

    Geology makes sense with it...I cant imagine what mental gymnastics were like before adoption.

  25. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    11,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    5136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    Basically it boils down to two opinions. The climate is changing, always has always will.

    How much influence has humanity on the current change? We don't have to continue to do what might speed up the change but apart from that as things are at present (technology stage) there isn't much that can be done.

    And this is where I add that what I've written is my personal opinion. The biggest issue IMO is "How much will the sea level rise if it in fact does?". That should be solvable most places.
    Soluble or not, it's inefficient, and where it fails it's an economic and political destabilizing force.

  26. Likes stephen thomas liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •