Page 6 of 6 [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,548
Location: Twin Peaks

22 Feb 2019, 3:54 am

magz wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I don't have much to say against climate scientists at this point in time. It's the laypeople going around proclaiming we're all going to die in a few years.

I also very much distrust journalists using phrase "scientists say".

I don't really know who the "climate scientists" are. Not really my field. I do have some personal and professional connections to atmosphere physics researchers - I guess this is close enough. They are mostly working on figuring out what factors play key roles in observed phenomenons. The whole atmosphere with lithosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere together is way too complex system, no one knows everything on this, no one can conclusively simulate it when simulations of even a single cloud need serious simplifications to be possible.

I don't say we shouldn't try our best to protect the environment. We should. But most likely we are not doomed, as humans are incredibly adaptive species, think of ot, an African ape to colonize High Arctic.
Wars and brutal regimes are still a bigger threat for humans than climate change.


It seems fairly simple to me; look up who's considered foremost in climate science, both pro and con, and read or listen to what they have to say. Probably the truth lies somewhere in the muddy middle between pro and con.

I agree, both humans and nature are very adaptive.



magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,886
Location: Poland

22 Feb 2019, 4:14 am

EzraS wrote:
magz wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I don't have much to say against climate scientists at this point in time. It's the laypeople going around proclaiming we're all going to die in a few years.

I also very much distrust journalists using phrase "scientists say".

I don't really know who the "climate scientists" are. Not really my field. I do have some personal and professional connections to atmosphere physics researchers - I guess this is close enough. They are mostly working on figuring out what factors play key roles in observed phenomenons. The whole atmosphere with lithosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere together is way too complex system, no one knows everything on this, no one can conclusively simulate it when simulations of even a single cloud need serious simplifications to be possible.

I don't say we shouldn't try our best to protect the environment. We should. But most likely we are not doomed, as humans are incredibly adaptive species, think of ot, an African ape to colonize High Arctic.
Wars and brutal regimes are still a bigger threat for humans than climate change.


It seems fairly simple to me; look up who's considered foremost in climate science, both pro and con, and read or listen to what they have to say. Probably the truth lies somewhere in the muddy middle between pro and con.

I agree, both humans and nature are very adaptive.

You are right. I looked up your link. Their (real researchers) disagreement seems to be mostly on errorbars - how sure is what we know. I'm not surprised.


_________________
Keep calm and choose your battles carefully.


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,236
Location: Palestine

22 Feb 2019, 1:00 pm

Tollorin wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
What I'm saying is that if one is going to argue a scientific theory, they're not going to have much credibility when they're arguing it with someone who appears to know more about it than they do. I think if someone is going to talk about what climate change scientists say, they should at least know who some of the most well known climate scientists are. If they don't, it seems pretty obvious that they haven't actually read or listened to anything they have to say. It seems more likely they've just skimmed a few magazine articles written by non-scientist journalists.

Then there's the part where you seemed to discredit a scientist because he had a degree in physics rather than climate science, when it turns out some of those recognized as the top climate scientists also have a degree in physics and other non climate science related fields. It all points to, you don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to climate science.

In addition to going a little extra step in learning a little bit about who some of the most well known consensus climate change scientists are, you should also be a little bit familiar with who the some of the most well known skeptical climate change scientists are, so that you can have at least a basic understanding of the spectrum of that science. Those scientists are also on that list.

And that list isn't exclusive to that source I linked. It's actually pretty common knowledge to those who actually know something about climate science. Just like the names of the most well know political figures are known to those who discuss politics. Can you imagine someone arguing politics without even knowing the names of any politicians?


:roll:

I didn't discredit him, I simply pointed out he hasn't published anything on climate science in any reputable peer reviewed journals so you can't assume he is knowledgeable about climate science just because he has a degree in another (unrelated--superconductivity has nothing to do with climate science and no application therein, as far as I am aware) science field.

I don't care to learn about climate deniers and there is no reason for me to research them when they are such a tiny minority. I'll go with what the experts have a consensus on. You can keep making up arguments that don't make any sense if you like just to keep nattering at me, but I'm done proving you wrong now.

Considering that he pretend to be able to forecast weather months in advance, I certainly wouldn't give credit to him.


The warmists predict weather YEARS in advance. They get it horribly wrong too. Corbyn is right like 80% of the time.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 30,430
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Feb 2019, 1:09 pm

Well science was right about led being bad for you, even in the face of loads of opposition from companies who profit from led. Why would they be wrong on climate change in the face of fossil fuel companies and the politicians they have in their pocket who'd prefer we ignore climate change? Maybe they don't have every detail exactly correct but its not that hard to see climate change in action. If climate change 'doesn't exist' why is the polar habitat the polar bears depend on melting? for instance...Ice doesn't just melt for no reason.

I'm going to trust the scientists on this one.


_________________
Who started the fire?...well, it certainly wasn't the millenials.


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,236
Location: Palestine

22 Feb 2019, 2:10 pm

Exon Mobile also fund the green lobby groups. You are being played. You think Al Gore and Hillary Clinton care about the environment? Science can be right or wrong. One person can be right.

The planet had around 1.5 billion people in 1900 and now has well over 7 billion. That's what's destroying the planet. Mass immigration into countries and building over everything at an insane rate. But the people crowing about ''climate change" support all that.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,412

22 Feb 2019, 3:34 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
The planet had around 1.5 billion people in 1900 and now has well over 7 billion. That's what's destroying the planet. Mass immigration into countries and building over everything at an insane rate. But the people crowing about ''climate change" support all that.


I think you are half right here. Back in the 60s the environmental movement led by the Erlich's predicted something called the "population time bomb". They of course couldn't predict that technology would compensate for pollution and food production which kept up as the earth's population ballooned to close to 8 billion people today.

However the early environmental movement are partially correct that demand for goods linked to fossil fuel and industrialisation is also linked to population growth and that has ultimately contributed to the environmental destruction we see today.

Mass immigration to western countries will lead to greater regional environmental pressure and in this specific area I do agree with the right wing nutjobs that maintaining our lifestyle and conserving the natural environment is (in the end) more important than becoming a sink for the poor from developing countries. What's the point in stressing the last pristine environments left on earth with more people?

I think the simplest solution is to drastically reduce the earth's population by employing China's one child policy globally but there would have to be some type of international agreement.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,548
Location: Twin Peaks

22 Feb 2019, 9:26 pm

What about the zillions of miles of unpopulated areas. If you take a road trip across the united states, most of the time you're going to be "in the middle of nowhere". Vast stretches of virtually zero population for hours. You'll see a road sign saying 80 miles to the next gas station. Which is located in a speck on the map.

I remember when the size of a national park was reduced and all the hysteria over that. Like it was the last remaining natural area there. Then I look at it from satellite imagery and see that there are several hundred square miles of wilderness surrounding it.

I know of highways that go through vast stretches where I'll see a sign that says "natural area" or "natural habitat" and it doesn't seem to make much sense because there's "endless" miles of the same natural unpopulated typography along that stretch. And I can't help but notice these "natural areas" and "natural habitats" are conveniently located right off the highway.



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,320
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

23 Feb 2019, 4:11 pm

EzraS wrote:
What about the zillions of miles of unpopulated areas. If you take a road trip across the united states, most of the time you're going to be "in the middle of nowhere". Vast stretches of virtually zero population for hours. You'll see a road sign saying 80 miles to the next gas station. Which is located in a speck on the map.

I remember when the size of a national park was reduced and all the hysteria over that. Like it was the last remaining natural area there. Then I look at it from satellite imagery and see that there are several hundred square miles of wilderness surrounding it.

I know of highways that go through vast stretches where I'll see a sign that says "natural area" or "natural habitat" and it doesn't seem to make much sense because there's "endless" miles of the same natural unpopulated typography along that stretch. And I can't help but notice these "natural areas" and "natural habitats" are conveniently located right off the highway.


What about those areas? Many of them are open to development for mining, oil and gas, forestry & other resource extraction. National parks and monuments are protected areas - from commercial activity, as well as for natural habitat for all of the creatures that live there.

They're "conveniently located right off the highway," likely because these areas were discovered due to people travelling through the area, building roads etc, and they noticed that protected species live there. Highways were likely also built intentionally to be able to visit parks and other protected areas because they're beautiful places. They often feature some sort of natural landmark that's considered attractive, whether a mountain, waterfall, forest, cliff formation, river, lake etc - something of natural beauty that's worth preserving for all to see. These lands also tend to hold spiritual significance to indigenous peoples, not that that's likely often a reason to declare them protected park spaces, but it still rings true.

There's plenty of barren "ugly," land across the nation that can be dug up and raped for minerals, oil, gas, lumber etc - why destroy the most beautiful tracts of land for no good reason? :? We all need MORE protected land areas (whether parks, or monuments, or indigenous reservations or w/e) not fewer. IMO.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,548
Location: Twin Peaks

23 Feb 2019, 10:23 pm

Most of those areas aren't an oasis in a sea of industrialization the way they're described by some people. Most of them are in a sea of the same wilderness they're a part of. The "natural areas" and "nature preserves" see far more human activity than the vast areas around them that can't be reached easily. I'm wondering if these off highway higher human traffic spots are where species counts are being performed.



magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,886
Location: Poland

24 Feb 2019, 5:16 am

EzraS wrote:
Most of those areas aren't an oasis in a sea of industrialization the way they're described by some people. Most of them are in a sea of the same wilderness they're a part of. The "natural areas" and "nature preserves" see far more human activity than the vast areas around them that can't be reached easily. I'm wondering if these off highway higher human traffic spots are where species counts are being performed.

Maybe in the Northwest... definitely not here.


_________________
Keep calm and choose your battles carefully.


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,236
Location: Palestine

24 Feb 2019, 12:06 pm

cyberdad wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
The planet had around 1.5 billion people in 1900 and now has well over 7 billion. That's what's destroying the planet. Mass immigration into countries and building over everything at an insane rate. But the people crowing about ''climate change" support all that.


I think you are half right here. Back in the 60s the environmental movement led by the Erlich's predicted something called the "population time bomb". They of course couldn't predict that technology would compensate for pollution and food production which kept up as the earth's population ballooned to close to 8 billion people today.

However the early environmental movement are partially correct that demand for goods linked to fossil fuel and industrialisation is also linked to population growth and that has ultimately contributed to the environmental destruction we see today.

Mass immigration to western countries will lead to greater regional environmental pressure and in this specific area I do agree with the right wing nutjobs that maintaining our lifestyle and conserving the natural environment is (in the end) more important than becoming a sink for the poor from developing countries. What's the point in stressing the last pristine environments left on earth with more people?

I think the simplest solution is to drastically reduce the earth's population by employing China's one child policy globally but there would have to be some type of international agreement.


I think it's too late to be honest.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,236
Location: Palestine

24 Feb 2019, 12:08 pm

EzraS wrote:
What about the zillions of miles of unpopulated areas. If you take a road trip across the united states, most of the time you're going to be "in the middle of nowhere". Vast stretches of virtually zero population for hours. You'll see a road sign saying 80 miles to the next gas station. Which is located in a speck on the map.

I remember when the size of a national park was reduced and all the hysteria over that. Like it was the last remaining natural area there. Then I look at it from satellite imagery and see that there are several hundred square miles of wilderness surrounding it.

I know of highways that go through vast stretches where I'll see a sign that says "natural area" or "natural habitat" and it doesn't seem to make much sense because there's "endless" miles of the same natural unpopulated typography along that stretch. And I can't help but notice these "natural areas" and "natural habitats" are conveniently located right off the highway.


People say the same thing in the UK. A lot of space is farmland that gets sprayed regularly with chemicals. Enough damage is done by the big cities.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,412

25 Feb 2019, 1:01 am

JohnPowell wrote:
People say the same thing in the UK. A lot of space is farmland that gets sprayed regularly with chemicals. Enough damage is done by the big cities.

The Israelis managed to make the "desert bloom". The arable land in Israel around 1948 was actually pretty devoid of topsoil due to over farming. If they can do it I don't see why entrepreneurial communities can't set up similar kibbutz type settlements in deserts around the world (assuming access to underground water),



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,548
Location: Twin Peaks

25 Feb 2019, 1:40 am

There are natural wetlands areas near Las Vegas. Lots of trees and reeds and other greenery. Lots of waterfowl.