Looks like you tumbled to my flowers on the piano question@jason: this is a good example of what I mean with statements that so obviously have no place in a serious discussion that you dont need much expert knowledge to notice it.
General / Off-Topic Is man made climate change real or not? Prove your belief here.
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
Feyerabend was a provocative philosopher, and I certainly don't agree with him on all he said, but I think he has some very interesting points about knowledge and the way we gain it. Basically, Feyerabend said stuff that were meant to start a debate. When he states that looking at astrology can be equally good as astronomy, I don't believe he meant that literally. What he meant was that even though we have to have some set of rules defining how we do scientific work, anything that can gain us knowledge should be accepted. Feyerabend knew that there were such a thing as pseudoscience, but his point was more like he said. Anything goes. As long as it can produce JTB, and astrology can't.
I also don't always agree with Robert Audi, but I like his clinging onto common sense. We cannot prove that the Moon is really there, when it's not being observed by anyone, but honestly it seems highly likely that it is, and for everyday purposes it seems safe to assume that it is. Also I agree with Robert Audi about altruism. It doesn't take much pain to realize that pain is bad, and therefore one shouldn't inflict pain on others.
I came to this thread because I just watched the same show as you
BBC Four - Climategate: Science of a Scandal
What happened when an email hack suggested that climate change caused by humans is a hoax?
I don't really think it matters about what the science is about. It shows how easily information can be distorted by a media that has an agenda. I'm not sure the hacker was evil. He just saw that the Climatic Research Unit was withholding information. The real evil was the Kock Brothers who had done their own studies into the effects of their fossil fuel business, had known the consequences, and decided to cover up the facts in the same way that the tobacco companies covered up the carcinogenic nature of nicotine
So you are one of those people who are passionate about how climate change doesn't exist? I hope you don't mind if I ask you a few questions. What did you think the climatologists were trying to gain by starting a hoax about climate change? Why would they cling to this hoax when the fossil fuel companies would pay them a lot of money for them to change what they are saying? Why are you so passionate yourself about denying the existence of climate change? Do you think they are trying to stop you running about in fast cars? Do you think trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist is going to put too high a strain on an economy that's already suffering because of all the droughts and flood damage caused by incredibly bad weather? Were you happy about how the climatologists were treated by the public? Do you think that the death threats were fair considering the hoax they were perpetrating? What was it that convinced you that climate change was a hoax and that there's nothing wrong with the weather? Was it the Sun newspaper? What's your view on cigarettes? Do you think they cause cancer or was that a hoax by medical science to sell iron lungs?
Less is moeLooks like you tumbled to my flowers on the piano question
It is a form of the Dunning-Kruger effect. A lot of text that when read obviously is non educated guesses. It is ok not to know. But I recommend not pretending to know and also not trying to 'teach' others things that clearly is not true.
I do not think your own concept of 'Trumponium' has anything to do with the fact that the left liberal scene is totally out of their minds, for obvious reasons.
I think this conversation should try to keep on topic: Climate is highly politicized and the issues is very important to the left, and ignored by the right.
As a scientist myself, I only appreciate facts and data that I can test myself and thus know is not pseudo-science or politically pushed agendas.
I fully understand that the environmental issues are fundamentally political in nature, but do you think you could at least not dive into divisive specifics with shot after shot after shot about Trump? Most of us at least have the decency to talk about it in broad generalities, while you on the other hand seem a bit obsessed with the big bad orange man.
So we've been getting a lot of off topic stuff in the Recycle or Die thread, which has led to it being closed twice now, so i decided we needed a more focused thread in which much of that off topic debate can find a clear focus.
I have followed much of the debate and science on the subject over the last few decades and it became an important topic in my life as i started to understand the basic problem of where we are and how we got here and where we are heading in relation to the man made rise in CO2 levels we currently have. In that context i can't dispute the vast majority of the science that has been telling us (for a while now), that this era's fast rise in CO2 levels has been down to man's activities.
So as per the thread title, yes i do think man made climate change is real, and even likely to be civilization threatening if not dealt with asap (like over the next 20-30 years).
I offer a few links to back up why i'm off the opinion i am on the topic:
Evidence - NASA Science
Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end ofclimate.nasa.gov
How can man-made climate change be proven?
If observed climate variables such as temperature or precipitation change over time, it raises the question as to whether human influence plays a role. To investigate this, scientists are applying a method for estimating causal relationships.phys.org
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I offer those three sources as the basic framework that explains why man made climate change (also known as AGW for short) is real, as they cover some of the basic scientific data to support the notion that AGW is indeed a scientific fact. Not a personal opinion or distorted truth, but a real genuine fact and one much of the rational world is starting to take note off in earnest.
We now have Exxon-mobile in court over it's role in covering up what their own scientific studies into man made climate change had revealed to them over 50 years ago; the short story is that many of the big oil corporations knew their products (derived from burning fossil fuel) would lead to a global rise in CO2 levels and chose to bury that info, and worse create a narrative to confuse the global understanding on the issue, which is where the majority of man made climate change denial comes from.
We have the leading financial markets and business people start to want to divest from fossil fuels, and some are even issuing stark warnings about the need to totally remove fossil fuel from our lives (as to para-quote the CEO of Morgan Stanley, "what use is an economy when there is no world to have it in")
We have a growing student and social movement that is seeing people prepared to go to prison to force governments to respond to the threats of AGW to our socities.
We have the 'scientific consensus' as given in that wiki link to describe the basic common agreement across most of the scientific disciplines in relation to the acceptance that AGW is real and a real danger to all our lives.
We now need the action, from ourselves and our governments and corporations, to ensure that this historic CO2 rise in earths history is not going to be the symbol of our future extinction.
So this thread is 100% about what side of the argument you fall into and why, it is upto to each of us to prove our opinion on the subject. Can you?
Edit: a couple more links to explain the subject:
1. Global Warming & Climate Change Myths
2. Climate warnings from the distant past
Climate warning from the distant past
We looked at sea levels 125,000 years ago. The results are terrifying.cosmosmagazine.com
In 1916 we were 1.6 billion people on earth and in 1968 we were 3.6 billion and today we are 8 billion if it continues like this we are 16 billion people on earth by 2070 and all these people must have food, water, energy, jobs and etc. .
The only clean energy is from the sun, which we do not manage to store properly yet but maybe in the future who knows.
but the only way I can see saving the earth today is to have a balance between people and energy
Her entourage has been flying back and forth. I'm not sure how she's getting back to Spain, though.
So the facilitation of a zero carbon footprint for 1 results in a larger carbon footprint for many. She's bummed a ride on a youtuber's pleasure sailboat that has nifty "carbon neutral" features. The news is very quiet on how she got across the US to the boat, and very quiet about whether or not her entourage will join her on her Atlantic hitch-hiker boating adventure.
She's an icon of climate change science, and an icon of hipocrisy for those that would reject climate change science. It would be best if the scientific community and it's political advocates shed itself of these huxters and entertainment industry scolds if they want people to believe the research.
Well, that's not going to happen. Her advocates will be the first to tell you that she bears no responsibility for her crew's conduct or impact, and I'm sure they'll be more than happy to say that even if she does fly, the importance of her mission outweighs such trivial concerns. If I've learned one thing from the CCC (Climate Crisis Community) it's that it's only considered egregiously wasteful if someone who isn't woke does it.
For a psychiatrist you strike me as being very naive about people. Yes, there are indeed hucksters who play fast and loose with the numbers in the roofing industry, as well as those who lack ethics and many who are just plain terrible at their jobs/businesses. Enough that you wouldn't say it was "just a few bad apples" but more like "how the hell do I find a good contractor???" This is true across the entire gamut of the industry, not just roofers, of course, and it wouldn't even phase me to have you point this out. In fact, I'd heartily agree with you. You clinging to the notion that just because someone works in the sciences in some capacity it ensures their intellectual purity, moral rectitude or even basic competence is somewhat boggling to my mind, and it runs contrary to my entire span of nearly 50 years dealing with people at all different levels. Are you 100% sure that you really were a psychiatrist and not just saying that to gain forum cred?
Well, no, that's clearly not what I said and attempting to interpret in the way you do proves my point.
1. Yes, and?
2. What evidence? Nothing has yet been put forward to evidence the theoretical stance by those that claim its a man made phenomena (global warming). Statistics and charts have been produced but its noticeable the not one scientist has solidified the theory and moved on toward the validity stage for such theories. This is basic 101 science.
3. I didn't say that, in fact I said the opposite with a remark also mentioning warm periods. Misquoting or attempting to twist phrasing is not uncommon in this arena.
4. I didn't say that. in fact I clearly stated a simple scientific fact, a theory is just a suggestion. The hard part is proving the theory through intensive testing and validation.
An argument is not science per se and I'm surprised you would use this as a basis for constructing support for a theory yet to be validated. As for the phrase the theory is undeniable, I suggest you widen your reading, especially what is being espoused in the MSM by climate change believers. You cannot, by extension, invalidate my observations towards my theory just because it clashes with your theory, that is not scientific. You can attempt to disprove my theory by all means but just saying your theory is louder than mine doesn't make it any more valid.
Umm. Its worth researching what is going to happen to the earth's population of humans over the next 100 years. The research is very good, factually based and takes into account the fertility levels of various population groups in differing areas of the world. The human population is already plateauing or decreasing in the West and Japan / China and as a whole set to start to decrease from 2050. This will have major economic and social impacts across the world. Well worth looking up.
Not passionate, just lacking any empirical proof.
Climatologists need money, therefore create a cause, demand government funds for research, keep suggesting an end of times without empirical proof, apply media pressure through released reports (whilst suppressing alterative view) and problem solved.
I'm not passionate about denying climate change, I clearly stated it has been happening for 4 billion years.
Modes of transport. I am a firm believer in cleaner modes of transport and the use of future technologies to cut waste and improve transport infrastructure. I never mentioned fast cars though.
What incredibly bad weather? The weather is normal, nothing to see here. If you want abnormal go medieval and check out the Somerset lows.
Climatologists were not treated in any way by the public, the MSM did that. Death threats are easy for keyboard warriors its the internet that allows such behaviour. Besides, I'm not here to defend other peoples attitudes.
I never said climate change was a hoax.
Don't conflate the argument, stay on the subject. Next thing you know you'll be comparing so called "deniers" to Hitler.....
"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two [or more] opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Most organisms have two basic modes of operation; Eat, drink and procreate or, run away from danger. Active chemistry in the system enhances performance in one state or the other, which comes in handy for immediate survival but the 'fight or flight' mechanism is not as useful for long term problem solving.
Stop! Take half a dozen deep breaths while exhaling is still free. Resist the urge to polarize in-formation.
[Edit: To illustrate, please enjoy a brief, musical interlude...]
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLYdFSaE4tk
Most organisms have two basic modes of operation; Eat, drink and procreate or, run away from danger. Active chemistry in the system enhances performance in one state or the other, which comes in handy for immediate survival but the 'fight or flight' mechanism is not as useful for long term problem solving.
Stop! Take half a dozen deep breaths while exhaling is still free. Resist the urge to polarize in-formation.
[Edit: To illustrate, please enjoy a brief, musical interlude...]
Last edited:
The most efficient way to guarantee you win in competitive sports, is to own both teams. Perceiving bias in any in-formation source you disagree with should hint at a similar polarity existing where you concur, if only due to the basic survival needs of parties with a financial incentive to keep quiet or find a new job.I came to this thread because I just watched the same show as you
BBC Four - Climategate: Science of a Scandal
What happened when an email hack suggested that climate change caused by humans is a hoax?www.bbc.co.uk
I don't really think it matters about what the science is about. It shows how easily information can be distorted by a media that has an agenda. I'm not sure the hacker was evil. He just saw that the Climatic Research Unit was withholding information. The real evil was the Kock Brothers who had done their own studies into the effects of their fossil fuel business, had known the consequences, and decided to cover up the facts in the same way that the tobacco companies covered up the carcinogenic nature of nicotine
So you are one of those people who are passionate about how climate change doesn't exist? I hope you don't mind if I ask you a few questions. What did you think the climatologists were trying to gain by starting a hoax about climate change? Why would they cling to this hoax when the fossil fuel companies would pay them a lot of money for them to change what they are saying? Why are you so passionate yourself about denying the existence of climate change? Do you think they are trying to stop you running about in fast cars? Do you think trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist is going to put too high a strain on an economy that's already suffering because of all the droughts and flood damage caused by incredibly bad weather? Were you happy about how the climatologists were treated by the public? Do you think that the death threats were fair considering the hoax they were perpetrating? What was it that convinced you that climate change was a hoax and that there's nothing wrong with the weather? Was it the Sun newspaper? What's your view on cigarettes? Do you think they cause cancer or was that a hoax by medical science to sell iron lungs?
Big Oil may be funding denial to maintain turnover and creating artificial scarcity to justify higher price.
Last edited:
This phenomena where roughly 20% of entities produce 80% of the results and thus, reap the rewards...
Is it fear-mongering to usher in a tax on breathing out (carbon tax)? Will people step up and change their lives if the evidence is that overwhelming? You can't blame the consumer for purchasing products that are spammed at us through media ad nauseam. The blame rests with the producers of the products and the so-called governing bodies that are supposed to oversee the standards of practice.
Man is not cancer on the Earth, corporations are. I don't buy the fear myself. Being a vegan since '97 my opinion surprises people. I don't trust the science on either side. There is an agenda and distraction is part of it.
Man is not cancer on the Earth, corporations are. I don't buy the fear myself. Being a vegan since '97 my opinion surprises people. I don't trust the science on either side. There is an agenda and distraction is part of it.
There's a term for that: "planned obsolescence", while innovation is lacking in the versatility of Carbon.
Yes but no individualism. Public transport only to avoid to soil the roads with horse dung.
- Status