Global warming/Climate Change is so last year! We're all going to freeze by 2030!

Forums › Off topic › Global warming/Climate Change is so last year! We're all going to freeze by 2030!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1927988 2-Jan-2018 10:32

MaxLV:

gzt:
MaxLV: I dont know about you, but I was always taught science is not a matter of consensus. It's a matter of provable, verifiable facts, something that current scientific understanding of how the planets global warming and it's causes is a long way from achieving. We just dont know with any scientific certainty what causes global warming and cooling.

Not exactly. When Einstein proposed general relativity there were many objections. Those objections gradually reduced over time. This is why you find yourself in a minority at this point.

It was not a matter of consensus as you state, but over time, and as evidence accumulated, the end result is vast majority of scientists now agree with general relativity.

Even today you can find many objectors to general relativity. They are in a small minority.

If I understand your reply correctly, currently there is a minority scientific opinion against the 'consensus' for the causes of global climate change, but over time that may change as the evidence accumulates, and the vast majority of scientists agree we just dont know with any scientific certainty what all the causes of global warming and cooling are, right?

As to me 'finding myself in a minority' about the consensus for the causes of climate change, I dont see anything wrong with that, and dont see that as a valid reason to stop being skeptical about the 'consensus' at this point.

That is incorrect. The vast majority believe that the spike since Industrial Revolution is human caused and its real, and that as human have evolved their technology, most of this effect is post 1980

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1927994 2-Jan-2018 10:38

MaxLV:

As to me 'finding myself in a minority' about the consensus for the causes of climate change, I dont see anything wrong with that, and dont see that as a valid reason to stop being skeptical about the 'consensus' at this point.

I agree with you on this point but I think you are being bull-headed about the rest. As a non-expert, I believe what the majority of experts are saying. Why wouldn't I? Being a climate change skeptic at this stage seems a lot like being an inferno skeptic in California. Yes, that's a big fire over there but I won't start hosing my house down now because maybe it won't reach me. Or maybe I won't bother braking my car because I might make it around that corner that is approaching. I think skepticism is fine and healthy in itself, because questions always need to be asked about methods and processes, but that should not become a justification for paralysis. If people who know about these things are saying we need to do something or it will be too late, then we should do something. Maybe we can make it around that corner, and maybe the fire won't reach us, but isn't sensible to take what precautions we can anyway?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1927997 2-Jan-2018 10:49

If the belief ratio of the scientific community was 60/40 or 70/30, then its fair to be sceptical. But its an overwhelming majority based on overwhelming tests over a long period of time. Ice cores, old atmosphere, water, its been tested to the hilt. And while there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, there is massive data that pints right back to the Industrial Revolution and since then. Overwhelming evidence is quite likely a conservative view.

The sad thing is little is talked about what we need to do, and how we need to do it. As right now, the money side of using existing FF and not investing in green energy very much is cheaper.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1928000 2-Jan-2018 11:01

MaxLV:
MikeB4: My brother in law is a climate scientist at NIWA. I have talk with him many times and he tells me climate change is real, it's accelerating and it scares the pants off him. He believes everyone needs to wake up and act now as time is running out fast. He says anyone that denies now in face of the avalanche of evidence is akin to a flat earther.

And I should change my mind and stop being a skeptic, right? That anyone who disbelieves your brother in law and his 'avalanche of evidence' is a 'flat earther'. Well thats a really convincing argument isn't it. Ill change my wrong thoughts, wrong doing, and stop spreading dis-information immediately, and become a true believer!

Yeah right.

Mines a Tui thanks

I am merely relaying the views of a climate scientist, you are of course free to believe what you will.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1928001 2-Jan-2018 11:04

tdgeek:
If the belief ratio of the scientific community was 60/40 or 70/30, then its fair to be sceptical. But its an overwhelming majority based on overwhelming tests over a long period of time. Ice cores, old atmosphere, water, its been tested to the hilt. And while there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, there is massive data that pints right back to the Industrial Revolution and since then. Overwhelming evidence is quite likely a conservative view.

The sad thing is little is talked about what we need to do, and how we need to do it. As right now, the money side of using existing FF and not investing in green energy very much is cheaper.

Many seem to believe that this is is about taking things away from them. It's not it is about giving them a future and preserving the only viable home we have.

KiwiME

213 posts

Master Geek

#1928024 2-Jan-2018 12:32

MaxLV:

...I'm not a climate scientist, ... So... I'm still a skeptic.

Surely you have basic university level physics, chemistry and maths which is an essential background to study this subject?

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1928040 2-Jan-2018 13:03

MikeB4:
tdgeek:
If the belief ratio of the scientific community was 60/40 or 70/30, then its fair to be sceptical. But its an overwhelming majority based on overwhelming tests over a long period of time. Ice cores, old atmosphere, water, its been tested to the hilt. And while there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, there is massive data that pints right back to the Industrial Revolution and since then. Overwhelming evidence is quite likely a conservative view.

The sad thing is little is talked about what we need to do, and how we need to do it. As right now, the money side of using existing FF and not investing in green energy very much is cheaper.

Many seem to believe that this is is about taking things away from them. It's not it is about giving them a future and preserving the only viable home we have.

I'm sure it'll be fine for next 30 years which is enough.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1928041 2-Jan-2018 13:08

Geektastic:
MikeB4:
tdgeek:

If the belief ratio of the scientific community was 60/40 or 70/30, then its fair to be sceptical. But its an overwhelming majority based on overwhelming tests over a long period of time. Ice cores, old atmosphere, water, its been tested to the hilt. And while there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, there is massive data that pints right back to the Industrial Revolution and since then. Overwhelming evidence is quite likely a conservative view.

The sad thing is little is talked about what we need to do, and how we need to do it. As right now, the money side of using existing FF and not investing in green energy very much is cheaper.

Many seem to believe that this is is about taking things away from them. It's not it is about giving them a future and preserving the only viable home we have.

I'm sure it'll be fine for next 30 years which is enough.

I have sons and mokopuna that will live well beyond that. We have an obligation to future generations to pass on the best home we can as previous generations did for us.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1928046 2-Jan-2018 13:22

MikeB4:
Geektastic:
MikeB4:
tdgeek:

If the belief ratio of the scientific community was 60/40 or 70/30, then its fair to be sceptical. But its an overwhelming majority based on overwhelming tests over a long period of time. Ice cores, old atmosphere, water, its been tested to the hilt. And while there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, there is massive data that pints right back to the Industrial Revolution and since then. Overwhelming evidence is quite likely a conservative view.

The sad thing is little is talked about what we need to do, and how we need to do it. As right now, the money side of using existing FF and not investing in green energy very much is cheaper.

Many seem to believe that this is is about taking things away from them. It's not it is about giving them a future and preserving the only viable home we have.

I'm sure it'll be fine for next 30 years which is enough.

I have sons and mokopuna that will live well beyond that. We have an obligation to future generations to pass on the best home we can as previous generations did for us.

If you say so. If previous generations had done that we probably wouldn't be debating this.

As yet, I have not seen a valid argument as to why the human race should not simply be allowed to die out.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1928048 2-Jan-2018 13:32

Geektastic:

If you say so. If previous generations had done that we probably wouldn't be debating this.

As yet, I have not seen a valid argument as to why the human race should not simply be allowed to die out.

There is still thousands caring for you

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1928075 2-Jan-2018 15:04

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

If you say so. If previous generations had done that we probably wouldn't be debating this.

As yet, I have not seen a valid argument as to why the human race should not simply be allowed to die out.

There is still thousands caring for you

I doubt half a dozen would even notice my absence but that isn't really the point.

If (say) we could live a comfortable life and in 300 years humanity would have faded away to join the dinosaurs in the fossil record, why is that an especially awful outcome which requires averting at all cost?

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1928078 2-Jan-2018 15:22

KiwiME:

MaxLV:

...I'm not a climate scientist, ... So... I'm still a skeptic.

Surely you have basic university level physics, chemistry and maths which is an essential background to study this subject?

Here we go again... If you're not X then you have no right to say anything at all about Y...

As to all my educational achievements, I was taught how to read, write, and think...

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1928079 2-Jan-2018 15:26

Geektastic:
MikeB4:

Geektastic:
MikeB4:
tdgeek:

If the belief ratio of the scientific community was 60/40 or 70/30, then its fair to be sceptical. But its an overwhelming majority based on overwhelming tests over a long period of time. Ice cores, old atmosphere, water, its been tested to the hilt. And while there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, there is massive data that pints right back to the Industrial Revolution and since then. Overwhelming evidence is quite likely a conservative view.

The sad thing is little is talked about what we need to do, and how we need to do it. As right now, the money side of using existing FF and not investing in green energy very much is cheaper.

Many seem to believe that this is is about taking things away from them. It's not it is about giving them a future and preserving the only viable home we have.

I'm sure it'll be fine for next 30 years which is enough.

I have sons and mokopuna that will live well beyond that. We have an obligation to future generations to pass on the best home we can as previous generations did for us.

If you say so. If previous generations had done that we probably wouldn't be debating this.

As yet, I have not seen a valid argument as to why the human race should not simply be allowed to die out.

Well going by the biological evolution of all known species (existing and extinct) on this little blue dot, the human species will also die out at some time in the future.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1928085 2-Jan-2018 15:40

tdgeek:

If the belief ratio of the scientific community was 60/40 or 70/30, then its fair to be sceptical. But its an overwhelming majority based on overwhelming tests over a long period of time. Ice cores, old atmosphere, water, its been tested to the hilt. And while there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, there is massive data that pints right back to the Industrial Revolution and since then. Overwhelming evidence is quite likely a conservative view.

The sad thing is little is talked about what we need to do, and how we need to do it. As right now, the money side of using existing FF and not investing in green energy very much is cheaper.

See, this is the thing... You're right there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, and no amount of juggling the percentages of who believes or disbelieves these unknowns is going to change that salient fact.

As to what we need to do, what do you think of the global carbon credits market? Can you figure out how polluters buying carbon credits to allow them to keep polluting solves the pollution problems they're responsible for?

Trading carbon credits:

What is the carbon trading?

The carbon trade also refers to the ability of individual companies to trade polluting rights through a regulatory system known as cap and trade. Companies that pollute less can sell their unused pollution rights to companies that pollute more.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1928088 2-Jan-2018 15:47

MaxLV:

Well going by the biological evolution of all known species (existing and extinct) on this little blue dot, the human species will also die out at some time in the future.

We are the first species (that we know about) who have been able to significantly alter their environment to suit their existence so we may, unfortunately, be able to avoid becoming extinct.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9