Climate change apathy Ragnarok thread
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    All I see there is an argument for Obamacare.
    Don't prepare for appointment.
  • People can be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that practically an entire field of academia got the wrong end of the stick. Typically, it would be maverick geniuses like Edward Jenner and Albert Einstein that would shake things up. I can't see Jeremy Clarkson playing the same role.

    Anyway, again, probably about 90% of climate change policy is best practice for running the world anyway. Meaning debates about the science behind it are completely irrelevant. If it's wrong so what? We'll have followed the best scientific advice available instead of just winging it, we'll have invested heavily in cheap and infinite sources of energy, aligned progress and expansion to our ability to support them, the list goes on.
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    Well, considering how hard people have been trying to pull this apart so far, their utter failure to do so speaks volumes.
    Don't prepare for appointment.
  • dynamiteReady
    Show networks
    Steam
    dynamiteready

    Send message
    Yossarian wrote:
    All I see there is an argument for Obamacare.

    So there's an issue with CFC's. 

    Undoubtedly. I can see the science there.

    There's an interesting aside to how, where, and when the 'damage' occurred, but seeing as I'm being hounded out of a reasonable perspective on this subject, I won't push it.

    So a ban was called for, and it's done some good, but what have we replaced CFC's with now?
    A substance so dangerous, that the medical science community are resisting it's use?

    So you see, when I see people flocking to an 'obvious' answer, I cross my fingers, and pray that some dick doesn't make a snap call that will find us reacting with another snap call in another 20 years.

    And if this thread merely finds us talking about how good it is to recycle, and walk for two fucking bus stops, then I really don't see the point. Seeing as we now do have a vast library of information at our finger tips, instead of just looking at pretty pictures of dolphins, and bears, why not examine the facts surrounding the topic? 

    I can't understand why people are trying to make me look stupid for drawing attention to related facts that others have not yet posted.

    I wish the international media would make more of an effort to draw attention to both sides of those stories with a strong scientific bent... Because that would be a fucking valuable service to the world at large.
    "I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
    Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996
  • dynamiteReady
    Show networks
    Steam
    dynamiteready

    Send message
    monkey wrote:
    Anyway, again, probably about 90% of climate change policy is best practice for running the world anyway.
     
    Yes.

    monkey wrote:
    Meaning debates about the science behind it are completely irrelevant. If it's wrong so what?...

    I'm going back to the games section...
    "I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
    Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    You claim to be being sceptical and considering things, but in fact you're just repeating oil company designed talking points which are meant to throw enough doubt on the science of climate change to allow them to continue raking in massive profits.

    Sorry dude, but you've been suckered.
    Don't prepare for appointment.
  • I wish the international media would make more of an effort to draw attention to both sides of those stories with a strong scientific bent... Because that would be a fucking valuable service to the world at large.

    Whereas I really wish they would stop. There are already far too many media outlets / PR shills that satisfy a sceptic's desires. As it happens, there are very rarely "two sides" to stories with a strong scientific bent. There are the theories that match the evidence, and there are the lies that don't. Climate Science is notoriously complex with myriad factors blended chaotically into no-doubt-not-massively-accurate predicto-models.

    However, the empirical measurements that have been made show that humans are warming the planet very quickly, and most of the predicto-models are forecasting serious consequences.

    Tell me: what alternative do you posit? This "other side of the science story": who's propagating it? Who, from a serious climate science background, is providing the plausible theories that match the evidence, that would seem to go directly against everything that every other climate scientist is publishing?

    You talk about things being rammed down your throat, as if you don't like the taste of them. It's a violent metaphor. Why use that kind of language? Isn't it a case of: "shit guys there's a lot of evidence about this" and you read it, don't like it, and choose to react against it?

    As for the Einstein "sudden leap forward" thing... It's merely insulting to other scientists. They all, every one, stand on the shoulders of giants, and build up the knowledge. Yes, some can reach further than others, but it's hardly as if the scientific community at large was hostile to Einstein's ideas, they just said "OK now we need some of those experimental guys to show whether yore right or not". Let us not forget that he was never supportive of the single most successful scientific theory ever devised: quantum theory.

    Even stuff like the periodic table, which was laughed out of one conference, gained significant traction well before it was "proven" correct through later observation.

    Where was I. Oh yes - "artificial" climate change is happening right now and is most likely to have dire consequences. I'm afraid that recycling some tins is not really going to help now.
  • dynamiteReady
    Show networks
    Steam
    dynamiteready

    Send message
    Yossarian wrote:
    You claim to be being sceptical and considering things, but in fact you're just repeating oil company designed talking points which are meant to throw enough doubt on the science of climate change to allow them to continue raking in massive profits. Sorry dude, but you've been suckered.

    Whatever.

    I give up.

    I just hope that some bellend doesn't try to make a sweeping change based on the findings of the first two boffins to book an appointment.

    And that goes for all arguments on either side.
    "I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
    Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996
  • b0r1s
    Show networks
    Xbox
    b0r1s
    PSN
    ib0r1s
    Steam
    ib0r1s

    Send message
    Regardless of the view of climate changes scientific accuracy, I see it as pure common sense that we need to develop more sustainable energy and food technologies. It is also extremely short sighted that governments have cut back on space exploration. Not to find ET, but to gather more resources to support the growing population.

  • I just hope that some bellend doesn't try to make a sweeping change based on the findings of the first two 1,000+ boffins to book an appointment. And that goes for all arguments on either side just the one side, since there are no reputable boffins on the other side.
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    First two? Ninety-seven percent!
    Don't prepare for appointment.
  • dynamiteReady
    Show networks
    Steam
    dynamiteready

    Send message
    Funkstain wrote:
    I just hope that some bellend doesn't try to make a sweeping change based on the findings of the first two 1,000+ boffins to book an appointment. And that goes for all arguments on either side just the one side, since there are no reputable boffins on the other side.

    Awful.

    "Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: 'Is climate changing and in what direction?' 'Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?' And: 'Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?' The most fundamental question is: 'Can humans manipulate climate predictably?' Or, more scientifically: 'Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?' The answer is 'No'. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma." 

    This is a simple question, and it's the one that sticks in my mind the most.

    But again, that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to burn plastic and eat petrol. No. 

    But that "97%" (IPCC members, aren't they? A political body with a specific focus, apparently.) of whatever body of scientists should be able to come up with a satisfying refutation to such an elementary question.
    "I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
    Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    Philip Stott is a biogeographer. I presume next time you need a second opinion on a medical issue, you'll consult an aerospace engineer.
    Don't prepare for appointment.
  • dynamiteReady
    Show networks
    Steam
    dynamiteready

    Send message
    Yossarian wrote:
    Philip Stott is a biogeographer. I presume next time you need a second opinion on a medical issue, you'll consult an aerospace engineer.

    Yes.

    A scientist who closely studies the environmental impact on the organisms that inhabit it. Probably one of the first people worth speaking to, actually.
    "I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
    Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    That's not what wiki claims a biogeographer does.

    And where are you getting this '97% of the members of the IPCC' from? Because it sounds greatly like it's being pulled out of thin air, especially considering the fact that the IPCC simply collates all peer-reviewed literature it can get its hands on, the research isn't performed by its members.
    Don't prepare for appointment.
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    Heh. From the wiki page on Philip Stott:
    Stott regards himself as a Humeian 'mitigated sceptic' [12] on the subject of global warming. He has not published scholarly articles in the field of climate change, although he has published books on the subject.

    Emphasis mine.

    So he gets to say whatever he likes without the bother of having it peer reviewed. Yes, you should definitely listen to him.
    Don't prepare for appointment.
  • He's probably more informed that the likes of Abbott, but less so than actual climate change scientists, who are conducting work in the field.
  • dynamiteReady
    Show networks
    Steam
    dynamiteready

    Send message
    Yossarian wrote:
    And where are you getting this '97% of the members of the IPCC' from? Because it sounds greatly like it's being pulled out of thin air, especially considering the fact that the IPCC simply collates all peer-reviewed literature it can get its hands on, the research isn't performed by its members.

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/
    "I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
    Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996
  • dynamiteReady
    Show networks
    Steam
    dynamiteready

    Send message
    I wrote:
    Philip Stott is a biogeographer. I presume next time you need a second opinion on a medical issue, you'll consult an aerospace engineer.
    Yes. A scientist who closely studies the environmental impact on the organisms that inhabit it. Probably one of the first people worth speaking to, actually.

    In reply...

    Yossarian wrote:
    That's not what wiki claims a biogeographer does

    Hmm...

    about.com wrote:
    Biogeography is a branch of geography that studies the past and present distribution of the world's many species. It is usually considered to be a part of physical geography as it often relates to the examination of the physical environment and how it affects species and shaped their distribution across space. As such it studies the world's biomes and taxonomy - the naming of species. In addition, biogeography has strong ties to biology, ecology, evolution studies, climatology, and soil science.
    "I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
    Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996
  • dynamiteReady
    Show networks
    Steam
    dynamiteready

    Send message
    To be fair to you Yoss, the IPCC article does have a political taint to it.
    But that '97%' figure also has a political taint to it, so it warrants examination...
    "I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
    Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996
  • Jesus Christ dynamite. Teach the controversy.

    Find a guy in a white coat to tell you lead poisoning isn't a problem.

    Fund some scientists to do research on health problems to cloud the fact that smoking is deadly.

    Depressing.
    I'm still great and you still love it.
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    The 97% figure isn't from the IPCC. Try checking your sources before attempting to rubbish them, failiure to do even the minimum of fact checking does rather lend credence to your lack of rigour on this issue.

    Furthermore:

    Emphasis mine.

    Not only that, he's had more than one opportunity to dispute this claim and he's failed to do so.

    Dyno, as nice a guy as you are, there are snakes with more legs to stand on than you on this issue.
    Don't prepare for appointment.
  • No it doesn't. It is the simple result of a meta-study of all papers on climate change over a decade. And followed up by a survey of the authors of any paper on climate change over a decade.

    It is that simple.

    I'm not a conspiracy theorist - I tend to look for simple explanations for straightforward phenomena.

    In response to your quote: it is exactly that type of obfuscatory pseudo-science speak that infuriates me. I'll stop berating you since it's doing neither of us any good, but leave you with this, to try and answer Stott's questions:

    1) Climate is changing. In most places it is hotter now than at any point since reliable primary recordings began. This has different effects in different parts of the world due to complex interactions. These differing effects are often used by sceptics as an "aha! it's raining, where's your global warming NOW so-called scientist!" thing. But overall, we're warmer now than for a long time.

    2) Humans are influencing this change. The rate of change is unprecedented in ANY available records, barring sudden cataclysmic events such as asteroid hits. So we're influencing, and in a big way.

    So far, so easy. Even he doesn't seem to argue these points?

    3) This question is very deliberately not like the others, which were simple and unarguable given current evidence base and analysis. Let's break it down.

    a) First, he uses the word "predictably". Given afore-mentioned complexity of climate models, I think it is unlikely that anything we do will have locally / micro predictable effects. So this is impossible to answer, but also doesn't seem very relevant.

    b) He goes on to mention "one or two" factors out of "thousands". This is an attempt to lessen the importance of greenhouse gas emissions, by reducing them to one or two factors out of thousands. However, increased greenhouse gas emissions are clearly and unequivocally the main factor behind our impact on climate. What are these thousands of other effects, and how much of a role do they play in climate change?

    c) He repeats himself next.

    d) He then poses a question with a particularly narrow set of conditions, to which the answer is an obvious no. OH NOES HES WONE! But what's this? It turns out that due to the narrowness of the question's conditions, he's actually not asking a useful question! Let's see: at the margin. Does he mean not cutting them by much? Linear predictable change. Well, depends on how far out you look at it, but it's not going to happen that one year of 10% cutting will lead to one year of -1degree and so on. This is obvious, surely, to a child. And again with the "it's too complex for this one factor to make such a difference". But what factor is more important? And complexity does NOT translate to ineffectiveness or lack of change in a predictable manner (i.e.: lowering CO2 = lowering risk of increased temperatures in a complex system is an OK statement, regardless of how complex that system is and how the lowered risk is measured).

    The REAL question is: if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, will humans have a significant impact on climate change? The answer to which, agreed with by almost all climate scientists, is a resounding yes.

    DR, in a thread that is discussing a scientific subject, quoting empty rhetoric and claiming it as the "healthy sceptic's" position will not go down well.
  • So how bout that Flood Wall Street huh.
  • beano
    Show networks
    Wii
    all the way home.

    Send message
    "Better than a tech demo. But mostly a tech demo for now. Exactly what we expected, crashes less and less. No multiplayer."
    - BnB NMS review, PS4, PC
  • <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Polar bear arrested <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FloodWallStreet?src=hash">#FloodWallStreet</a> <a href="http://t.co/dVCSPpMP2Z">pic.twitter.com/dVCSPpMP2Z</a></p>— Christopher Robbins (@ChristRobbins) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChristRobbins/status/514192873471098883">September 22, 2014</a></blockquote>
    <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
  • Why doesn't that autoconvert. Goddamit Peter Hughes
  • cockbeard
    Show networks
    Facebook
    ben.usaf
    Twitter
    @cockbeard
    PSN
    c_ckbeard
    Steam
    cockbeard

    Send message
    html not bbcode?
    "I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B
  • Nevertheless
  • dynamiteReady
    Show networks
    Steam
    dynamiteready

    Send message
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ 

    Look man. If I can find more than one news source challenging an idea that I'm being forced to swallow, then I'll swap the fork for the menu.

    Funkstain wrote:
    DR, in a thread that is discussing a scientific subject, quoting empty rhetoric and claiming it as the "healthy sceptic's" position will not go down well.

    The same goes for this. It's not healthy skepticism, it's about examining the arguments put in front of me. Bless Yoss for bringing up the strawman arguments against Professor Philip Stott, but when I started writing ITT, I asked this question...

    I wrote:
    Has the Earth's climate ever been higher than it is at present?

    Just me musing... 

    No one took it seriously though, but I suspect it's a big deal to the people who pick up grant checks for research projects...

    So you know, it's a subject that I have some interest in (as marginal as that interest is), and there's a lot of passion here, so I dig a little, find Professor Phil here, and come across this...

    "Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: 'Is climate changing and in what direction?' 'Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?' And: 'Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?' The most fundamental question is: 'Can humans manipulate climate predictably?' Or, more scientifically: 'Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?' The answer is 'No'. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma."

    And you know, there are three rock solid questions there.
    I respect your attempt to answer those questions Funk, but I really would like a little more detail in return, so I kept reading after Professor Phil...

    So far, doing so has led me to this:

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/09/the-physics-of-global-warming-is-complicated-barry-moore/

    And now I'm starting to find some reason here.
    I mean, we're talking about a force that we may never have any hope controlling...

    Even accidentally.

    Much food for thought there...
    The comments section is especially lively.

    edit - Man, I make so many grandma mistakes on my first attempts at writing a post. :[ 
    "I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
    Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!