Page 6 of 18

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 20:12
by joe92
Strategus wrote:How much did he get paid to come up with that little gem?

Really???

:roll:

Yes, my statement about the petroleum industry corrupting the deniers is certainly conspiracy. Your statement that the scientists in agreement about climate change are corrupted from somewhere is also conspiracy. I guess you think government is corrupting in order to control civilisation or limit freedom, but you haven't stated your reasoning yet so it's all theory on my part. Personally I think your conspiracy is absolutely bloody bonkers whatever the reasoning. The petroleum industry has however been found to have corrupted climate science in order to spread doubt about it, presumably to keep sales high. So my conspiracy is founded on something, although it's probably a bit steep to say all deniers have ties to the petroleum industry.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 20:13
by joe92
Also, well dodged on my question, just focusing on one small snippet which you could reasonably highlight as questionable.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 20:42
by schocker
joe92 wrote:
Strategus wrote:How much did he get paid to come up with that little gem?

Really???

:roll:

Yes, my statement about the petroleum industry corrupting the deniers is certainly conspiracy. Your statement that the scientists in agreement about climate change are corrupted from somewhere is also conspiracy. I guess you think government is corrupting in order to control civilisation or limit freedom, but you haven't stated your reasoning yet so it's all theory on my part. Personally I think your conspiracy is absolutely bloody bonkers whatever the reasoning. The petroleum industry has however been found to have corrupted climate science in order to spread doubt about it, presumably to keep sales high. So my conspiracy is founded on something, although it's probably a bit steep to say all deniers have ties to the petroleum industry.



JOe92 you are doing the same thing that you accuse me of. See I tend to believe that the scientists are in groupthink and if you leave the plantation you damage your career. According to this thread, 10% of the climate scientist disagree with the current groupthink. That is a large number actually. But, that aside, the models are just plain wrong. Over 30 years, they have never come even close to their predictions.

Now as to my personal view from anecdotal experience, I believe the earth is warming. I believe that probably humans contribute to it. I do not accept the scientific community predictions as they have proven incorrect countless times (If there is a model that is accurate I have never seen it). I could list them for you but there is no point to that but I am still awaiting an actual model that is accurate. If you know of one site it and I go look at it.

The debate section is back and that is great!

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 21:02
by schocker
joe92 wrote:
Strategus wrote:
The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.


@joe92 - this is one person's view. Typical scientist's opinion being taken as fact. Note that he says "likely to have...". And he clearly has a vested interest in his work being ratified. Who are the 99%? I got a list of about 250 climate change scientists on wiki. There are over 10% that don't agree with it. Also, he says that "humans are causing global warming". That's obvious. We emit co2, and co2 is a greenhouse gas, so qed. We contribute. How much did he get paid to come up with that little gem?

I'll admit to having not read the article. I'm tired of reading proof after proof of human influences of climate change. I just took it to be the new figure since last it was at 97%.

However, I just find it so ludicrous that you say "How much did he get paid to come up with that little gem?" You say that phrase in all sincerity while the deniers of climate change range from the largest figure I've ever heard being 10% (which you just said, I've not heard it anywhere else) to below 1%. What on earth is happening that you can look at the 90-99% and declare they are the corrupted ones, and not the super minority of 1-10%? (that 1-10% having a lot of ties to the petroleum industry too).

I read the article and it has the primary author making that claim but does not site who the author is or how he came to that conclusion.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 21:41
by Strategus
joe92 wrote:
Strategus wrote:How much did he get paid to come up with that little gem?

Really???

:roll:

Yes, my statement about the petroleum industry corrupting the deniers is certainly conspiracy. Your statement that the scientists in agreement about climate change are corrupted from somewhere is also conspiracy. I guess you think government is corrupting in order to control civilisation or limit freedom, but you haven't stated your reasoning yet so it's all theory on my part. Personally I think your conspiracy is absolutely bloody bonkers whatever the reasoning. The petroleum industry has however been found to have corrupted climate science in order to spread doubt about it, presumably to keep sales high. So my conspiracy is founded on something, although it's probably a bit steep to say all deniers have ties to the petroleum industry.

I don't think anybody is trying to corrupt anything. Where did I say that. I just don't accept the current railroading of thought. And I think we are concentrating on the wrong thing. I.e. Trying to stop the tidal wave. The world needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 14 Aug 2019, 07:28
by beowulf7
Strategus: "Doomed! Doomed! We are all doomed! (so let's not even try to reduce the impact)"
Shocker: "It does not matter what the bulk of the scientific community says, they're obviously wrong as they a) cannot provide a model 100% verifiable within a tiny period to explain changes that happen over eons b) disagree with me."
And don't let V near the Infinity Stones!

I'm probably done here as there reaches a point where debate impinges upon faith. Science should be about reviewing the data and drawing conclusions from it but some things expressed here seem to be about having starting positions and seeking data to match. This should not be about "winning" a debate nor is a wager where we have only to choose one course of action.

Time will make things clearer - if it turns out that "doing something" was a waste of time I'll happy to feel a little foolish but be proud of my intentions. If it turns out that CO2 does need to be curbed than the likes of Trump and his coal buddies will be judged harshly by history.

Personally I remain in favour of at least trying to reduce my beef consumption to stave off the need to massacre half of the world's population or build floating cities :) As a member of the only species on the planet to be capable of looking after the planet then its tough to see why this is a bad idea.

However, I'm done, so long and thanks for all the fish

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 14 Aug 2019, 09:09
by Strategus
Preserving our resources is a good thing regardless. Eating less beef is a waste of good beef. More for me I guess. Like the idea of floating cities. Then we can dump plastic straight in tbe ocean and leave the rivers alone.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 14 Aug 2019, 14:45
by schocker
Strategus wrote:Preserving our resources is a good thing regardless. Eating less beef is a waste of good beef. More for me I guess. Like the idea of floating cities. Then we can dump plastic straight in tbe ocean and leave the rivers alone.


Exactly and independent thought is a good thing also. I don't know about floating cities.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 14 Aug 2019, 14:49
by schocker
beowulf7 wrote:Strategus: "Doomed! Doomed! We are all doomed! (so let's not even try to reduce the impact)"
Shocker: "It does not matter what the bulk of the scientific community says, they're obviously wrong as they a) cannot provide a model 100% verifiable within a tiny period to explain changes that happen over eons b) disagree with me."
And don't let V near the Infinity Stones!

I'm probably done here as there reaches a point where debate impinges upon faith. Science should be about reviewing the data and drawing conclusions from it but some things expressed here seem to be about having starting positions and seeking data to match. This should not be about "winning" a debate nor is a wager where we have only to choose one course of action.

Time will make things clearer - if it turns out that "doing something" was a waste of time I'll happy to feel a little foolish but be proud of my intentions. If it turns out that CO2 does need to be curbed than the likes of Trump and his coal buddies will be judged harshly by history.

Personally I remain in favour of at least trying to reduce my beef consumption to stave off the need to massacre half of the world's population or build floating cities :) As a member of the only species on the planet to be capable of looking after the planet then its tough to see why this is a bad idea.




However, I'm done, so long and thanks for all the fish




Actually, I agree with much of what you have said above. Faith in science means that you have to accept that science is not being corrupted by desired outcomes. This is where I question. In addition, you state above that there are models which have been accurate. Name them, please. I will start reading them.

Cheers

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 15 Aug 2019, 23:29
by WHSeward
Strategus wrote:From my perspective, I believe the global temperature is set to rise to average 22 degrees, where it is stable. We are currently emerging from an ice age, and the planet has its own self regulatory system. We can't stop it. We didn't start it. It's gonna hapoen. So the plans should be to prepare for it. Trying to stop it is wasted effort. Saying we all do our bit will help is like saying, when faced with a tidal wave heading your way "if we all get a cup of water it will help".


@Strategus,

You don't explain what your perspective/belief is based on, but I assume it is from looking at the graph you posted in the OP. I imagine a thought process like this:
you see long blue lines around 22C;
you therefore assume that 22C is the planet's long-term trend line to which it must return;
you further conclude that any warming we observe is just that return to 22C.

There are a lot of problems with that simplistic level of "analysis", but I'll play along for a post or two and see if I can't urge you to think a little harder about the data we have and your perspective/beliefs.

Please, look at the X-axis on the chart again. It is measured in hundreds of millions of years; 100,000,000 years between dashes. It is absolutely correct that the world has spent a lot of time around 22C, but to move from 12C to 22C has taken on the order of multiple millions of years to occur.

What we are experiencing today is very different. We are on pace to move the earth's temperature 10C in just 600 years. That is more than 10,000X faster than the geological record suggests. So perhaps rather than being complacent and taking the perspective/believing something akin to "nothing to see here, the planet is just going back to its stable temperature" you might look a little harder and read a little more, and see if something else might explain the rapid change in temperature we are currently observing.