Climate change

[Detroit Blues]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Medication goes through a whole lot of trials before it is released on patients.  Climate change forecast models don't?

What you're trying to get at is called peer review. In the case of medicine, you usually have a government entity that tests the science behind medicine. For example, we have the FDA (food and drug administration) in the states that tests the claims that medicine makes.

 

This same process is done throughout the world in the scientific community, on almost every topic. If you were the devils advocate, and climate change was scientifically unproven, it would be very easy to re-create the experiments that were done in the thousands of papers written on the subject, and come up with the results that challenge the original claim (that the earth is getting warmer, or that human activity raises the CO2 level of the planet).

[Detroit Blues]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Nobody gives you medicine because you might be ill in 100 years time.

 

Correct. That's because people don't live that long. However, 100 years in the timeline of humanity is very short. Making changes now  to help humanity in 100 years time is called progress. 

 

It's like a doctor telling humanity that smoking will lead to cancer. Sure, maybe in 100 years humans will develop a cure for all the bad decisions our generation made. But if we have the knowledge now, why wouldn't we do something about it?

 

100 years from now we will all be dead, and nothing will be left of us. What will we leave behind? Will it matter that we turned a short-term profit by using cheaper fossil fuels, if we've ruined the planet in the process?

 

 

[Richard]

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

[leicsmac]

40 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

 

Correct. That's because people don't live that long. However, 100 years in the timeline of humanity is very short. Making changes now  to help humanity in 100 years time is called progress. 

 

It's like a doctor telling humanity that smoking will lead to cancer. Sure, maybe in 100 years humans will develop a cure for all the bad decisions our generation made. But if we have the knowledge now, why wouldn't we do something about it?

 

100 years from now we will all be dead, and nothing will be left of us. What will we leave behind? Will it matter that we turned a short-term profit by using cheaper fossil fuels, if we've ruined the planet in the process?

 

 

This this this.

 

Thing is though, too many people are driven by short term self interest to worry too much about what will happen after they're dead.

[Wymsey]

Some geographical analyst said on the news a while ago that in around 50 years' time, large parts of the UK will be in some level of water due to the increasing sea levels from year-to-year.

 

I agree with him that sea levels will obviously rise due to ice regularly melting in the Antarctic and we're most at risk due to being an isolated island, but feel he's gone over board with the latter part of his comment - same goes with most saying they know the causes of climate change (such as data they recorded etc) but 'fake' future predictions from their initial findings to try and convince people things must change 'now' to stop this from happening.

Edited 17 February 2017 by Wymeswold fox

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

This this this.

 

Thing is though, too many people are driven by short term self interest to worry too much about what will happen after they're dead.

 

1 hour ago, Detroit Blues said:

 

Correct. That's because people don't live that long. However, 100 years in the timeline of humanity is very short. Making changes now  to help humanity in 100 years time is called progress. 

 

It's like a doctor telling humanity that smoking will lead to cancer. Sure, maybe in 100 years humans will develop a cure for all the bad decisions our generation made. But if we have the knowledge now, why wouldn't we do something about it?

 

100 years from now we will all be dead, and nothing will be left of us. What will we leave behind? Will it matter that we turned a short-term profit by using cheaper fossil fuels, if we've ruined the planet in the process?

The problem that we have is not trying to convince the general public of the scientific consensus on the facts.

 

The problem is that the people in power don't care about the facts. The Paris deal was a big move forward but then one of the major players - America - went and elected a man who not only doesn't believe that climate change, global warming and greenhouse gasses/co2 emissions etc is real; he genuinely believes that it's a hoax by the Chinese.

 

Worse, they gave the Republican party power over both houses - a party full of ultra right-wing conservative Christians - people who typically are looking forward to the afterlife. If -- sorry -- when Trump is impeached, Mike Pence will replace him - this guy is a fully grown adult who not only doesn't believe in climate change either, he also doesn't believe in evolution (despite you know, facts); he also believes that the planet he lives on is only 6,000 years old (which means that God created the heavens and the Earth, shortly after humans cultivated the banana) - these people don't care about the truth, they believe what they believe and no facts can ever change that. And they're in power. The lunatics are running the asylum.

 

Watch this video:

 

https://youtu.be/IBIET-uEbXA

 

A climatologist is given 15 seconds by a congressman to explain complex climate science data to a man whose understanding of science is based on his high school education 30 years prior.

 

The truth:

They. Don't. Care. About. It.

Edited 17 February 2017 by urban.spaceman

[SpacedX]

22 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Some geographical analyst said on the news a while ago that in around 50 years' time, large parts of the UK will be in some level of water due to the increasing sea levels from year-to-year.

 

I agree with him that sea levels will obviously rise due to ice regularly melting in the Antarctic and we're most at risk due to being an isolated island, but feel he's gone over board with the latter part of his comment - same goes with most saying they know the causes of climate change (such as data they recorded etc) but 'fake' future predictions from their initial findings to try and convince people things must change 'now' to stop this from happening.

Well you've seen some of the predictions which indicate precisely that - immediate change is required now to avert catastrophe. I can link you to additional models that support this contention. Please feel free to likewise highlight any data that you regard as spurious, perhaps commencing with this thread. 

Edited 17 February 2017 by Line-X

[leicsmac]

@Line-X You're doing sterling work in this thread btw - just wanted to say that.

[SpacedX]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

@Line-X You're doing sterling work in this thread btw - just wanted to say that.

Thanks - but really, it's the objective science that speaks for itself the facts are simply axiomatic for those that seek them. Anyone that doubts the veracity of anthropogenic climate change is either ignorant of the scientific evidence, chooses to ignore it or seeks to subvert the empirical evidence through opinion and anecdote. As Detroit Blues said, you can either confront the evidence or choose to remain woefully ignorant. In the case of the latter, I would suggest it's preferable not to voice an opinion because I find comments such as this astonishing...

 

The climate has been changing since the dawn of time, I'm not convinced we have anything to do with it. Ice age anyone?

 

The I'm so pleased Urban Spaceman mentioned and posted from the Potholer54 series because he articulates this in a far more lucid and succinct way than I ever could. And in respect of this legitimate question asked earlier...

 

The climate changes and is changing, this is a fact. But with regards to all of this talk of scientific consensus on the reasons behind this change I have a question; If a respected climatologist from one of the UK's top universities published a model today that shows how humans contributed far less to climate change than the consensus has decreed...

 

a) How quickly does his department lose vast swathes of its funding regardless of how credible his work?

b) To what extent is he immediately written off as a climate change denier? 

 

Please don't answer these questions by suggesting that science doesn't work that way because scientists are all saints and are desperate for their hypotheses to be proved wrong.

 

  

 - this is perhaps the best response:

 

 

[Claridge]

Since the release of the news that last year was the hottest on record, the following 40 days have been the coldest on record worldwide.

 Gutted,as I was enjoying all the big words in this thread

[SpacedX]

6 minutes ago, Claridge said:

Since the release of the news that last year was the hottest on record, the following 40 days have been the coldest on record worldwide.

 Gutted,as I was enjoying all the big words in this thread

You needn't be, 16 of the 17 years on record have occurred this millennia, so no reason to end any discussion.

 

Better still, the claimed 40 days being the 'coldest on record worldwide' comes from internet US climate sceptics and don't despair...their freezing winter owes to more big words. Even better, the variability of anomalous wave activity preceding polar vortex extremes in the Northern Hemisphere could actually be tracked via ERA-Interim reanalysis data!!!! But then, that would be a discussion about the weather and not necessarily man made climate change directly.

 

Which also isn't a bad thing for you...

 

 

 

[Claridge]

35 minutes ago, Line-X said:

You needn't be, 16 of the 17 years on record have occurred this millennia, so no reason to end any discussion.

 

Better still, the claimed 40 days being the 'coldest on record worldwide' comes from internet US climate sceptics and don't despair...their freezing winter owes to more big words. Even better, the variability of anomalous wave activity preceding polar vortex extremes in the Northern Hemisphere could actually be tracked via ERA-Interim reanalysis data!!!! But then, that would be a discussion about the weather and not necessarily man made climate change directly.

 

Which also isn't a bad thing for you...

 

 

 

 You my friend are a wordsmith of the highest order. I wish I had paid more attention at school in science,well every subject really ,except history , only subject I got

[Strokes]

I've watched as much of those videos as I can take right now and I still remain sceptical. like I've said in previous threads, I do have a tendency to romance over conspiracy and I maybe this is just another example of it.

[leicsmac]

16 hours ago, Strokes said:

I've watched as much of those videos as I can take right now and I still remain sceptical. like I've said in previous threads, I do have a tendency to romance over conspiracy and I maybe this is just another example of it.

I also like a good conspiracy as much as the next man, however at the centre of each of those is people looking to gain a lot of power, that's the general idea of a conspiracy. How would scientists acting in the way they are now regarding informing the public about climate change do that for them? I don't see it.

Edited 18 February 2017 by leicsmac

[Charl91]

2 hours ago, Claridge said:

Since the release of the news that last year was the hottest on record, the following 40 days have been the coldest on record worldwide.

 Gutted,as I was enjoying all the big words in this thread

 

Wow. The How Can There Be Global Warming When It was Cold Last Week argument.

 

That's up there with If We Evolved From Monkeys, How Come There Are Still Monkeys Around?

 

I love it when people say things like that. It's the tried and tested litmus test for revealing idiots.

[Jattdogg]

9 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Some geographical analyst said on the news a while ago that in around 50 years' time, large parts of the UK will be in some level of water due to the increasing sea levels from year-to-year.

 

I agree with him that sea levels will obviously rise due to ice regularly melting in the Antarctic and we're most at risk due to being an isolated island, but feel he's gone over board with the latter part of his comment - same goes with most saying they know the causes of climate change (such as data they recorded etc) but 'fake' future predictions from their initial findings to try and convince people things must change 'now' to stop this from happening.

Thats why england conquered other countries and keep them in the commonwealth.....so when this happens they can all just move  here to canada.

[leicsmac]

 

[Jon the Hat]

On 17/02/2017 at 14:59, Detroit Blues said:

What you're trying to get at is called peer review. In the case of medicine, you usually have a government entity that tests the science behind medicine. For example, we have the FDA (food and drug administration) in the states that tests the claims that medicine makes.

 

This same process is done throughout the world in the scientific community, on almost every topic. If you were the devils advocate, and climate change was scientifically unproven, it would be very easy to re-create the experiments that were done in the thousands of papers written on the subject, and come up with the results that challenge the original claim (that the earth is getting warmer, or that human activity raises the CO2 level of the planet).

I'm not disputing either of those points.  I'm stating that predicting what they mean for the future is a hell of a lot harder than agreeing on what happened up to now, and peer review in forecasting and is effectively groupthink.

[Benguin]

Climate change is real but we humans attribute far too much credit to ourselves, unless science was lying about all the evidence of major changes in the climate before we came along. I do not make any effort whatsoever to combat it though, I'm perfectly happy smoking, leaving lights on, driving an old car that emits more than just c02, eating whatever I want and not caring about the 'greenness' of anything I buy. If anyone challenges that fact, I tell them to go fuk themselves.

[leicsmac]

38 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Climate change is real but we humans attribute far too much credit to ourselves, unless science was lying about all the evidence of major changes in the climate before we came along. I do not make any effort whatsoever to combat it though, I'm perfectly happy smoking, leaving lights on, driving an old car that emits more than just c02, eating whatever I want and not caring about the 'greenness' of anything I buy. If anyone challenges that fact, I tell them to go fuk themselves.

Well, your honesty is laudable, at least. No hypocrisy.

 

Most self interested folks prepared to sell the future of humanity down the river for the sake of their own short term pleasure like window dressing it in their own fashion.

[Benguin]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Well, your honesty is laudable, at least. No hypocrisy.

 

Most self interested folks prepared to sell the future of humanity down the river for the sake of their own short term pleasure like window dressing it in their own fashion.

I'll window dress it a little for you just for clarity of exactly how self interested I am. I'm an atheist which by extension means that I believe once I'm dead the state of the earth would not matter to me in the slightest as nothing can matter if I don't exist. Given this worldview it follows logically to have my attitude towards climate change as to have a differing view would mean altering my lifestyle for the benefit of people who, so far as I'm concerned, will not exist. There is of course the nonsensical argument about empathising with future relatives but I think it's safe to assume that at some point in the future, even if battling climate change was everyone's number one political agenda, some natural disaster will cause the end of Earth and therefore this argument is telling me that I should care more for my Great Great Great Grandkids than I do for my nth power grandkids who exist at such a time that Earth ceases to be. Nonsensical.

 

I find it odd that people are willing to change their lifestyles in order to protect the earth for a time after their deaths and also do not believe in God.

[Jon the Hat]

Wow.  OK.

I am rather the opposite. I don't believe the doomsayers predictions, and I also think there is a lot of politics flying around in the land of forecasting.  Not to say those who do buy it are wrong, but the degree of confidence which with they proclaim stuff is frankly crazy.

That said, I do strongly believe we shouldn't be polluting the world when we don't have to, that we should be using a mix of energy sources, and investing in more efficient use of our natural resources.  Why wouldn't you?  

[Bobby Hundreds]

Shame I will be dead when humans wipe themselves out in a few hundred years or so. Wouldn't have minded watching the end game with #cans and #snacks.

[leicsmac]

11 hours ago, Benguin said:

I'll window dress it a little for you just for clarity of exactly how self interested I am. I'm an atheist which by extension means that I believe once I'm dead the state of the earth would not matter to me in the slightest as nothing can matter if I don't exist. Given this worldview it follows logically to have my attitude towards climate change as to have a differing view would mean altering my lifestyle for the benefit of people who, so far as I'm concerned, will not exist. There is of course the nonsensical argument about empathising with future relatives but I think it's safe to assume that at some point in the future, even if battling climate change was everyone's number one political agenda, some natural disaster will cause the end of Earth and therefore this argument is telling me that I should care more for my Great Great Great Grandkids than I do for my nth power grandkids who exist at such a time that Earth ceases to be. Nonsensical.

 

I find it odd that people are willing to change their lifestyles in order to protect the earth for a time after their deaths and also do not believe in God.

So solipsism edging towards a style of nihilism then? Interesting, thank you.

 

I can see why that worldview would be appealing to a certain mindset, even though I really disagree with it. Being something of an optimist I think that humanity has the potential to, in time, render themselves pretty much extinction proof through careful application of technology. Perhaps you would consider this mode of thought a little absurd, but beyond myself and my own death I really want to see humanity succeed in the future as we have so much potential as a species. Hence my stance here - I really think humanity as a whole (no group, no nation, just the species as a whole) is more important than any one life, and that attitude would be how we would survive when the going gets tough. Of course, self interest and helping out others doesn't have to be mutually exclusive, either.

 

Regarding your last paragraph, I don't think it's odd at all. Altering your lifestyle to help humanity after your death is something you can do just for the sake of the species, not because some cosmic entity will reward you/punish you after death etc or because you'll get to see it thanks to that entity.

[Bobby Hundreds]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

So solipsism edging towards a style of nihilism then? Interesting, thank you.

 

I can see why that worldview would be appealing to a certain mindset, even though I really disagree with it. Being something of an optimist I think that humanity has the potential to, in time, render themselves pretty much extinction proof through careful application of technology. Perhaps you would consider this mode of thought a little absurd, but beyond myself and my own death I really want to see humanity succeed in the future as we have so much potential as a species. Hence my stance here - I really think humanity as a whole (no group, no nation, just the species as a whole) is more important than any one life, and that attitude would be how we would survive when the going gets tough. Of course, self interest and helping out others doesn't have to be mutually exclusive, either.

 

Regarding your last paragraph, I don't think it's odd at all. Altering your lifestyle to help humanity after your death is something you can do just for the sake of the species, not because some cosmic entity will reward you/punish you after death etc or because you'll get to see it thanks to that entity.

 

But then i remember the universe will cease to exist from expansion and heat death and i think "meh".

Edited 20 February 2017 by Bobby Hundreds