Page 6 of 7 [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

MrsPeel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Oct 2017
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 688
Location: Australia

09 Aug 2018, 6:31 am

Magna wrote:
MrsPeel wrote:
....most of us are just trying to find a way forward that is going to cause minimum pain all round............

...........getting people to accept the short-term pain needed is HARD.


Here we go again.

I gave some theoretical examples of what the "painful" solutions might be.

Please give me some examples of what believe to be real solutions. Later today I'll re-read my post where I asked for details on the kinds of solutions any of you think would solve the problem of climate change because perhaps the post was unintelligible?


I don't have any solutions that I know will work. Do you? Does anyone?
But why does that make concerns about climate change some kind of conspiracy?



MrsPeel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Oct 2017
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 688
Location: Australia

09 Aug 2018, 6:34 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
There's several problems with telling the public, "GO FIND THE DATA YOURSELF".
1. It's evasive, and it causes "red flags and alarm bells" to go off in people's mind.


Yet when scientists interpret the data for you, you don't believe them.
You can't have it both ways. Either you trust the scientists or you go find the data and analyse it yourself.



Spiderpig
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,893

09 Aug 2018, 7:04 am

Honest taxpayers absolutely can "have it both ways", because what it means is that they're sick of being robbed, regardless of what those supported with the robbery do. The only truly acceptable thing for publicly funded scientists to do is to cease to exist.


_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 61,671
Location: Queens, NYC

09 Aug 2018, 7:11 am

When that happens, the whole world will go to pot—revert back to the days when alchemy was seen as the cutting-edge science. And “bleeding” was seen as the cure-all for disease.

I don’t believe in the politicalization of climate change...but it is evident that this is occurring. What I wonder about is its causation.

Man-made, or normal geological variation.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,770
Location: USA

09 Aug 2018, 7:37 am

MrsPeel wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
There's several problems with telling the public, "GO FIND THE DATA YOURSELF".
1. It's evasive, and it causes "red flags and alarm bells" to go off in people's mind.


Yet when scientists interpret the data for you, you don't believe them.
You can't have it both ways. Either you trust the scientists or you go find the data and analyse it yourself.

Or we can ask GW scientists to make their data accessible to the public, especially since GW science is mostly publicly funded jobs.

In the US, census workers report their data collection, the Federal Reserve reports its economic survey data collection, why is it that simple temperature-takers can't report their data collection?


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,166
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

09 Aug 2018, 7:08 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
You just need to do some simple googling to find climate change raw data.
https://data.worldbank.org/topic/climate-change
Apparently, the elephant in the room isn't so visible to many.
and raw temp data per country 1901-2016
http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateport ... historical

There's no measurement data in the links you cited, only very limited statistical data.

Global warming scientists admit they hide their data. I heard one say "we don't want the public to misunderstand", or maybe they don't want their critics to "have ammunition" to use against them. If they published their data, then skeptics could go out and verify the data.

Regardless, Global Warming scientists are like Bernie Madoff ("I can't show you my data, but look at my charts").

As far as I recall scientists working on global warming begun to release their data years ago; though I guess it could have changed since then.
Anyway, temperatures are not the only proofs of climate changes, as it's consequences are observed in a lot of phenomemons: the melting of glaciers, sea rises, erosion of litorals, the north migration of some species in the north hemisphere, the shrinking of the banquise, the difficult new conditions for outside ice rinks in some cities like Montreal, and so on.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,233
Location: Adelaide, Australia

09 Aug 2018, 7:23 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
There was an interesting video I watched on this topic on Independent Man's page back in July of 2017 called 'Coming out as a Lukewarmer on Climate Change' where he addresses his disagreements with both climate-change apocalypse prophets and wholesale climate change deniers. One could try saying that he's just showing a central tendency bias which doesn't count as actually grappling with the data and he included an excerpt from a guy called potholer54 who does his best to wring the politics out of the topic and keep it to brass tacks.

Among a lot of useful information in the video he made the CO2 comparison only, held it up against the planetary temperature graph and - no match. He then held up increased heat from the sun over 500 million years - again, no match. Multiply the two together, ie. solar output and CO2 levels, you get a much more convincing match.



Unless someone has scientific journal articles falsifying the claim that CO2 traps reflected heat and that scientists now know they were doing that simple laboratory experiment all wrong it sounds like the fundamental principle - ie. that heightened CO2 retains heat - stays intact. If we know that it's multivariate, ie. that there are several causes, that just means there are several causes. To say that one cause on its own isn't causing the whole thing is both entirely correct in isolation and utterly misleading if we're asked to follow that up with some notion that because it's not the whole phenomena then it's having no effect. The later sounds a bit like gender wage gap logic.


Yes I also agree with your video.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,233
Location: Adelaide, Australia

09 Aug 2018, 8:29 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
When that happens, the whole world will go to pot—revert back to the days when alchemy was seen as the cutting-edge science. And “bleeding” was seen as the cure-all for disease.

I don’t believe in the politicalization of climate change...but it is evident that this is occurring. What I wonder about is its causation.

Man-made, or normal geological variation.


I think the cause of the politicisation of climate change is probably man made because geological variation doesn't normally politise anything.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 30,250
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

10 Aug 2018, 1:07 am

Spiderpig wrote:
Honest taxpayers absolutely can "have it both ways", because what it means is that they're sick of being robbed, regardless of what those supported with the robbery do. The only truly acceptable thing for publicly funded scientists to do is to cease to exist.


That's ridiculous, we need freaking science....I am no scientist myself but I trust freaking scientists, they do all the studies and experiments to make sure we don't all kill ourselves or put excessive toxins into the planet and such...they are trying to help us live. Who in their right mind is like 'f**k scientists ahhh they don't know what they're talking about, screw science." well apparently our current GOP but who can say they are in their right minds?


_________________
Welcome to hell, this is the end.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 30,250
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

10 Aug 2018, 1:16 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
When that happens, the whole world will go to pot—revert back to the days when alchemy was seen as the cutting-edge science. And “bleeding” was seen as the cure-all for disease.

I don’t believe in the politicalization of climate change...but it is evident that this is occurring. What I wonder about is its causation.

Man-made, or normal geological variation.


I think the cause of the politicisation of climate change is probably man made because geological variation doesn't normally politise anything.


Well there are studies that show that we've increased the greenhouse gasses, and the worst part is there is still time to start reversing some of this...but not too many people really want to take it serious and really jump on it. Like there have been posts about some pretty grim climate senerios and posts like that on reddit get like 58 upvotes, I mean we need more people to care about this. I mean a lot of scientists are now saying if the global temperature raises 2 more degrees...then it may be too late to reverse anything and it will set off a chain reaction of problems. And with the amount of people who care now which doesnt seem very many...well how are we going to stop this, a lot of people probably don't even believe the two degrees will make a difference. I mean "it still snows in the winter so obviously global warming is fake." The stupidity of some people makes me just want to cry and scream. In fact I wish I lived in a rural area so I could just go out into the forest an scream, but if I did that here in my apartment I am sure cops might be called.


_________________
Welcome to hell, this is the end.


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,622
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

10 Aug 2018, 3:04 am

It's purely political now the way I see it, in this thread for example it's obvious that all anti-trump are GW believers while pro-Trump are GW deniers.



Spiderpig
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,893

10 Aug 2018, 12:12 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
That's ridiculous, we need freaking science....


If people feel the need for anything, they'll pay for it on their own; noöne has to force them. But, at any rate, cavemen did quite well without science.

Sweetleaf wrote:
I am no scientist myself but I trust freaking scientists, they do all the studies and experiments


I like science, too. In fact, I've always wanted to be a scientist. But this is no excuse to shove science down the throats of people who reject it and prefer their own irrational worldviews; and much less to force them to pay others to do science they don't want. I don't know if science has much of a chance to survive without governments robbing their peoples to fund it, but if it can't, it has no moral right to exist, period, regardless of how much we'd miss it.

Sweetleaf wrote:
to make sure we don't all kill ourselves or put excessive toxins into the planet and such...they are trying to help us live.


Everyone is responsible for their self-defence, so noöne has any business telling others whether they can kill one another. And the right amount of toxins to put into every piece of the planet should be solely decided by its owner.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Who in their right mind is like 'f**k scientists ahhh they don't know what they're talking about, screw science." well apparently our current GOP but who can say they are in their right minds?


It's not that they don't know what they're talking about; it's that you don't need to care, let alone pay them to lecture you on what you don't want to hear.


_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.


Peacesells
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2014
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,915
Location: Anzio, Italy

10 Aug 2018, 12:44 pm

Spiderpig wrote:
I like science, too. In fact, I've always wanted to be a scientist. But this is no excuse to shove science down the throats of people who reject it and prefer their own irrational worldviews; and much less to force them to pay others to do science they don't want. I don't know if science has much of a chance to survive without governments robbing their peoples to fund it, but if it can't, it has no moral right to exist, period, regardless of how much we'd miss it.

Yes they should be forced to pay and contribue to society's advancement because they live in a society and are part of it. We are even too kind to them, we should make them pay an extra as a form of taxation of their stupidity and their tendency to make other sane people suffer it. Otherwise go live in a cave and stop annoying us all.



XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,247
Location: The Oort Cloud

10 Aug 2018, 1:13 pm

Peacesells wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
I like science, too. In fact, I've always wanted to be a scientist. But this is no excuse to shove science down the throats of people who reject it and prefer their own irrational worldviews; and much less to force them to pay others to do science they don't want. I don't know if science has much of a chance to survive without governments robbing their peoples to fund it, but if it can't, it has no moral right to exist, period, regardless of how much we'd miss it.

Yes they should be forced to pay and contribue to society's advancement because they live in a society and are part of it. We are even too kind to them, we should make them pay an extra as a form of taxation of their stupidity and their tendency to make other sane people suffer it. Otherwise go live in a cave and stop annoying us all.


Don't want to contribute to society, go live in the woods and eat bugs.

I fail to see how forcing anarchy on people is somehow more "free" than taxation. Most sane people have no interest in existing in chaos.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (moderator)


Peacesells
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2014
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,915
Location: Anzio, Italy

10 Aug 2018, 2:57 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Don't want to contribute to society, go live in the woods and eat bugs.

I fail to see how forcing anarchy on people is somehow more "free" than taxation. Most sane people have no interest in existing in chaos.

I don't intend to force anarchy on them, they can go and establish a flat Earth community in the desert and out of my sight, for all I care.

Or do you mean that they want to force anarchy on us?