Global warming

[H2]

6 hours ago, ri Alban said:

I could prove, without doubt, that Humans have accelerated climate change. With the pollution, clearing of forests, like the Amazon for livestock (The number one cause) and the dumping of our waste into the waters of the world and you'd still protest. But that's ok, every single person has that right to be wrong, I'm quite partial to it myself at times. 

 

Oh! Improvement, we'll just have a wee listen to the world around you, the others who share this world are having a ball with us out the road for a wee bit.

Anyway! I'm not saying we need to stop, immediately, but come on, I wouldn't throw my rubbish into your back garden, or piss into your kettle. Let's not do it to the rest of our neighborhood of this planet.

 

It's not up for debate anymore about how the climate has become like this, bud. 👍 

 

I'm not looking for a fight either, don't read this as hostile, just an opinion of a fellow Hearts Man. 👍

 

I appreciate no hostility, i think opposing views are healthy, and accept that we all have the right to have different views. I wish others were as open to debate as you are.

I'm not arguing that humanity has had an effect on climate change, indeed I have no doubt that is the case. What I do argue is the extent of the human effect. Is it 0.1 of a degree temperature rise,  0.5, 1 degree or more. The reality is I doubt anyone can answer that question.

 There is research that shows in climate change carbon content increases prior to temperature rise,  and vice versa, and the latter has been used to mislead in some papers to show that climate change is not influenced by humanity, they fail to point out that this was only in Antarctica. This is the problem with both sides, too much fake and misleading  information. And too many people just grasping at propaganda.

 

Electric cars and killing the cows won't solve the problem. I suspect more trees will help.

 

The bit that really gets me is all these people who pontificate about it, blames others and governments yet do nothing other than complain and protest.

There is a few people making a lot of money out of this.

 

I would really like to know what  the people who believe that humanity is the major problem, and that humanity can change it, what are they actually doing and contributing themselves to effect that change. Every little helps.

 

Thank you, mine is just an opinion too, like I said, I'm no expert.👍

[H2]

17 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

”Climate Change is the new religion for folks who think themselves too clever to believe in a God”.

 Brilliant - that made me smile.

[The Internet]

3 minutes ago, H2 said:

 

I appreciate no hostility, i think opposing views are healthy, and accept that we all have the right to have different views. I wish others were as open to debate as you are.

I'm not arguing that humanity has had an effect on climate change, indeed I have no doubt that is the case. What I do argue is the extent of the human effect. Is it 0.1 of a degree temperature rise,  0.5, 1 degree or more. The reality is I doubt anyone can answer that question.

 There is research that shows in climate change carbon content increases prior to temperature rise,  and vice versa, and the latter has been used to mislead in some papers to show that climate change is not influenced by humanity, they fail to point out that this was only in Antarctica. This is the problem with both sides, too much fake and misleading  information. And too many people just grasping at propaganda.

 

Electric cars and killing the cows won't solve the problem. I suspect more trees will help.

 

The bit that really gets me is all these people who pontificate about it, blames others and governments yet do nothing other than complain and protest.

There is a few people making a lot of money out of this.

 

I would really like to know what  the people who believe that humanity is the major problem, and that humanity can change it, what are they actually doing and contributing themselves to effect that change. Every little helps.

 

Thank you, mine is just an opinion too, like I said, I'm no expert.👍

 

Don't disagree with a lot of what you've said but just on the bit in bold - the thing is every little doesn't help unless the majority follow suit. It's a bit of a cop out to respond to climate protesters or whoever with 'aye but what are YOU doing about it???' because in reality individual action doesn't actually make much of a difference unless we all do it, which likely isn't going to happen without government intervention or, in the end, natural forces.

[Bindy Badgy]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Epstein is as entitled as anyone else to read the papers reach an opinion. It is for others to read that and weigh his opinion. 
 

Is he any less entitled to his opinion than Al Gore or Obama or Tony Blair or Greta Thunberg? Why are they entitled to talk about climate science? Although, to be fair to Greta, she does have a super-power, she can see CO2. 

 

On the other side of the equation, for example, Mann or Oreskes qualified to talk about and be held as icons of the Climate Change Movement? 
 

Mann, a geologist, self-proclaimed doyen of climate modelling and inventor of the “Hockey Stick”, was roundly criticised recently by a Judge after a protracted defamation case in B.C. He sued for defamation in the form of a claim that his climate models were rigged and designed to produce a desired result. He refused to release his programming code despite several orders from the Court. Read into that what you will. 
 

His models steadfastly continue to fail to match empirical evidence. 
 

Mann also features prominently in the “Climate-Gate” email scandal where he and scientists from U of East Anglia conspired to adjust temperature readings to emphasise warming. 
 

Oreskes is primarily a historian. Her research methodology is, as I have described, questionable. 

 

We are dangerous ground when debate on a topic is not permitted and when science is elevated to the level of a theology where no debate is permitted for fear of being labelled a heretic. It is verging on Medieval. 

 

”Climate Change is the new religion for folks who think themselves too clever to believe in a God”.

 

I didn't say that Epstein isn't entitled to an opinion. I said that he isn't qualified. Stevie Wonder is entitled to give an opinion on how to perform heart surgery. That doesn't mean that you should listen to him when a surgeon is telling you that Wonder is wrong. Can you provide a source that matches your opinion that is provided by someone who is qualified?

 

The rest of your post about Mann and so on is whataboutism that has no relevance to my post. The qualifications of anyone that takes a stance on the topic should be analysed to see how credible their work is. You won't find many researchers in any branch of science that disagree with this. I don't pay much attention to Thunberg but, as far as I can tell her entire message is that people should listen to people that are qualified. The same is true of Obama. What is the issue with this message?

 

What exactly is your issue with the claimte-gate controversy? I've had a cursory look online and can't find any evidence of academic wrong doing being reported by a credible source.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

 

Quote

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.

 

Quote

The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions, which "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues", reached "faulty scientific conclusions", "resorted to hyperbole", and "often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues." In a statement issued on 29 July 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the petitions were based "on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy" and provided "no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare."

 

Obviously, Wikipedia isn't the best source so I would be happy to retract this if a better source is provided.

 

I'm not saying that the topic shouldn't be debated. I'm saying that it should be debated in the correct way. This means doing research and publishing it in reputable journals. If the Koch brothers were so convinced that man made climate change is a hoax they could have used the millions that they have spent sponsoring political candidates and spreading misinformation to finance studies. Syngenta did this when some of their products were linked to bee deaths. Theses studies have been criticised for conflicts of interest but, they're out there in the primary literature and it's up to other researchers to disprove the results. 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Stokesy

[Thunderstruck]

It seems to be a matter of whose unqualified opinion matters. 
 

Anyhow, it all comes down to whether there is any empirical evidence to show that CO2 is unequivocally the cause any particular change to the climate.
 

While it is true (it can’t be proved either way) that CO2 may contribute there is little to suggest that it is material in a constantly changing and cyclical climate and where the variables are multitudinous.  

 

The only evidence of extra (we are in an inter-glacial geological phase) warming resides within computer models which, with few exceptions, have over decades failed to predict actual temperatures. 
 

That the narrative focuses so often on weather events is no accident even if there is no evidence of greater frequency or extremity.
 

It is no longer science but politics. Look no further that BBC’s editorial guidelines for reporting in Climate - no contrasting viewpoint necessary as the science is settled. 
 

I would be interested in what evidence you have or have gleaned to show that a hundred extra ppm of CO2 on its own is able to change the Climate. 

[Justin Z]

2 hours ago, H2 said:

Why would I waste my time debating anything with such an aggressive individual who has their mind made up, and really has on interest in any alternative view other than their own. Have a nice day!

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

6 hours ago, The Brow said:

I always file climate change deniers alongside flat earthers, anti vaxxers and people who believe Australia doesnt exist. 

 

Seems there is a large following for the sort of right-wing-edge-lord conspiracy theorists around. A very strange breed and the reason folk like Dave Cullen/Sargon of Akkad/London Real TV/Alex Jones are popular (despite their insistence to the contrary). Normally working class & patriotic yet vote Tory, like the weed, live in council houses or with their mums, yet claim to be worldly knowledgeable. 

 

Its a no from me. 

I accept the earth is round and most other things, but no danger Australia is a real place.

[Justin Z]

2 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

It seems to be a matter of whose unqualified opinion matters.

 

See but that's the exact problem. No one here is a climate scientist. Yet here we find individuals ranting about "experts" (anything but--they are, in fact, deferring to experts). Ranting about people who have the gall to listen to climate scientists and believe what they're saying and their explanations for why, and rejecting the idea there is a worldwide conspiracy amongst thousands of qualified individuals to doctor data. Ranting about people being rational and coming to a rational conclusion.

 

Dressing ignorance up as free inquiry is silly. The science is settled, among the best settled scientific questions in history, and you and others making it political doesn't change that simple fact. Unfortunately this quote applies as equally to the UK now as it did to the US when Asimov uttered it (and obviously still does).

 

[H2]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

[JFK-1]

4 hours ago, H2 said:

Why would I waste my time debating anything with such an aggressive individual who has their mind made up, and really has on interest in any alternative view other than their own. Have a nice day!

 

What are you even talking about? Debate? You can't debate this you're not a climate scientist. Is that getting through? I'm not debating it. I'm simply pointing out what the leading scientists in the fields are saying.

Think you can debate the arguments for string theory? Got an 'alternative view' the physicists should bother listening to? Probably not and that's wise because your 'alternative view' in physics is as worthless and frankly ludicrous as your "alternative view" on the science of climate change.

The actual scientists who are qualified to debate it have stopped debating it. The jury is in with nothing left to debate but how to deal with it and that too is for people qualified to come up with answers.

That's not you and your 'alternative view'

[H2]

6 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

What are you even talking about? Debate? You can't debate this you're not a climate scientist. Is that getting through? I'm not debating it. I'm simply pointing out what the leading scientists in the fields are saying.

Think you can debate the arguments for string theory? Got an 'alternative view' the physicists should bother listening to? Probably not and that's wise because your 'alternative view' in physics is as worthless and frankly ludicrous as your "alternative view" on the science of climate change.

The actual scientists who are qualified to debate it have stopped debating it. The jury is in with nothing left to debate but how to deal with it and that too is for people qualified to come up with answers.

That's not you and your 'alternative view'

Yawn !

[jambopilms]

I watched Game Changers and Cowspiracy on Netflix. Apparently eating meat is the single biggest environment disaster out there and you are not allowed to say it out loud in USA. The amount of land, food , water it takes to make a burger is unreal and if we grew the food we need instead of growing food for cows thing would be much better.

The depletion of fresh water in some countries is an eye opener too.

Obviously paid for by rebellion types but interesting all the same.

[Justin Z]

5 hours ago, H2 said:

Why would I waste my time debating anything with such an aggressive individual who has their mind made up, and really has on interest in any alternative view other than their own. Have a nice day!

 

38 minutes ago, H2 said:

Yawn !

 

2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

 

[H2]

13 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

 

 

[JFK-1]

3 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

See but that's the exact problem. No one here is a climate scientist. Yet here we find individuals ranting about "experts" (anything but--they are, in fact, deferring to experts). Ranting about people who have the gall to listen to climate scientists and believe what they're saying and their explanations for why, and rejecting the idea there is a worldwide conspiracy amongst thousands of qualified individuals to doctor data. Ranting about people being rational and coming to a rational conclusion.

 

Dressing ignorance up as free inquiry is silly. The science is settled, among the best settled scientific questions in history, and you and others making it political doesn't change that simple fact. Unfortunately this quote applies as equally to the UK now as it did to the US when Asimov uttered it (and obviously still does).

 

 

 

[Justin Z]

2 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

 

 

Absolutely perfect in context, too.

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

This long spell of good weather is welcome by most I'm sure but probably global warming has a part to play in it. However, as a side issue I wonder if the drastic reduction in flights has led to clearer skies. I might be wrong but I seem to recall after 9/11 we had a similar good spell of weather when flights were grounded and it might have been similar after the Icelandic volcano eruption but I am not so sure on that one. 

You do sometimes notice how vapour trails can form into larger clouds when temperatures at 30000 or so are low enough for the moisture to condense enough. 

 

[The Brow]

51 minutes ago, jambopilms said:

I watched Game Changers and Cowspiracy on Netflix. Apparently eating meat is the single biggest environment disaster out there and you are not allowed to say it out loud in USA. The amount of land, food , water it takes to make a burger is unreal and if we grew the food we need instead of growing food for cows thing would be much better.

The depletion of fresh water in some countries is an eye opener too.

Obviously paid for by rebellion types but interesting all the same.

 

Game changers is the biggest load of wank I've seen in a while, and I barely eat meat as the mrs is a veggie. 

 

ThE NfL PlayERS WoN AftER GiVInG uP FasT FoOD 

 

Course they ****ing did. Their diets were horrific before. 

 

The whole thing is vegan funded and I could barely believe how stupid the follow-up Joe Rogan 'debate' was. None of the netflix documentaries are worth more than a passing glance, if they do make more folk health conscious then clearly thats great, but they arent anything resembling scientific and are always funded by people with agendas. 

 

Just eat less meat. Dont pretend youre saving the world though, your avocados and jackfruit still flew here. 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by The Brow

[The Brow]

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

 

What are you even talking about? Debate? You can't debate this you're not a climate scientist. Is that getting through? I'm not debating it. I'm simply pointing out what the leading scientists in the fields are saying.

Think you can debate the arguments for string theory? Got an 'alternative view' the physicists should bother listening to? Probably not and that's wise because your 'alternative view' in physics is as worthless and frankly ludicrous as your "alternative view" on the science of climate change.

The actual scientists who are qualified to debate it have stopped debating it. The jury is in with nothing left to debate but how to deal with it and that too is for people qualified to come up with answers.

That's not you and your 'alternative view'

 

Round of applause, an excellent post. 

 

Facebook scientists are the ****ing worst. 

[jambopilms]

16 minutes ago, The Brow said:

 

Game changers is the biggest load of wank I've seen in a while, and I barely eat meat as the mrs is a veggie. 

 

ThE NfL PlayERS WoN AftER GiVInG uP FasT FoOD 

 

Course they ****ing did. Their diets were horrific before. 

 

The whole thing is vegan funded and I could barely believe how stupid the follow-up Joe Rogan 'debate' was. None of the netflix documentaries are worth more than a passing glance, if they do make more folk health conscious then clearly thats great, but they arent anything resembling scientific and are always funded by people with agendas. 

 

Just eat less meat. Dont pretend youre saving the world though, your avocados and jackfruit still flew here. 

 

 

Well I went vegan for about a day so it did something.

If everyone ate less meat it would go a long way to saving the world as the meat production is worse than all planes together.

[Tazio]

23 minutes ago, The Brow said:

Just eat less meat. Dont pretend youre saving the world though, your avocados and jackfruit still flew here. 

 

Not to mention the huge damage the production of avocado and almonds are doing to California. 

[The Brow]

13 minutes ago, jambopilms said:

Well I went vegan for about a day so it did something.

If everyone ate less meat it would go a long way to saving the world as the meat production is worse than all planes together.

 

Course it would - im not debating that. The Game changers presented Veganism as the answer to all mans ailments, which is bollocks. 

[jambopilms]

17 minutes ago, The Brow said:

 

Course it would - im not debating that. The Game changers presented Veganism as the answer to all mans ailments, which is bollocks. 

It also said that meat production is the biggest environmental problem, considering burning fossil fuels seems what most people think is the biggest problem, I found it quite interesting.