Climate change apathy Ragnarok thread - The Bear and Badger

cockbeard

I gave hot space the cocko seal of approval ages ago, vela also said it coincided with two previous extinctions

Skerret

Funkstain wrote:

Well this went down a different road

Brooks

Right I'm popping out to the all-night mart to check the damage on a bag of shrimp. If I have to resort to frozen goods, it's off the table figuratively and literally.

cockbeard

NASA say yes linky
I guess thinking about your own impact is no bad thing and realistically the only change any one person can make

Outlaw

Lord_Griff wrote:

It takes 230 million years to orbit the centre of the galaxy which does coincide with a previous temp spike. Seriously guys, i am on to a winner:

I like that this is what griff's been up to all afternoon, searching about hot space.

Yossarian

dynamiteReady wrote:

Well... Google have endorsed a side now.

Lets all go home... And put up solar panels.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/google-will-stop-supporting-climate-change-science-deniers-calls-them-liars/

I posted a link to that story on the Guardian about two pages ago.

Serious question, are you ignoring all of my links in this thread? All of the evidence points to yes. If you are, why?

GooberTheHat

I missed out. Here is my chart.
Its the oceans what's causing it.
Evidence_of_global_warming_-_time_series_of_seasonal_(red_dots)_and_annual_average_(black_line)_of_global_upper_ocean_heat_content_for_the_0-700m_layer_between_1955-2008.gif

Evidence_of_global_warming_-_time_series_of_seasonal_(red_dots)_and_annual_average_(black_line)_of_global_upper_ocean_heat_content_for_the_0-700m_layer_between_1955-2008.gif

Yossarian

I'm still catching up here.

cockbeard wrote:

Welcome to the future, daily nutritional needs met by a pill, eat prawn crackers rest of day, or other empty food with holes

But life on earth still viable and humanity not wiped out of existence.

Brooks

Existence vs. actually living is really the crux of the entire problem.

If you think about any project in terms of expected vast inefficiency to generate a slim margin of real worth, which seems to be a human standard.

dynamiteReady

Yossarian wrote:

Well... Google have endorsed a side now. Lets all go home... And put up solar panels. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/google-will-stop-supporting-climate-change-science-deniers-calls-them-liars/

I posted a link to that story on the Guardian about two pages ago. Serious question, are you ignoring all of my links in this thread? All of the evidence points to yes. If you are, why?

Not really. I've answered you the most dude. Read back.

I have to admit though, Vela's been the only dude to provide some proper detail on the case for AGW, without browbeating, goading, or rubbing my nose in propaganda.

You don't hear stupid headlines like "THE DEBATE ON THE CURE FOR THE COMMON COLD", But you do hear about "THE DEBATE ON CLIMATE CHANGE".

Why?

Because one is a clear cut open and shut fucking case, and the other one is conjecture. That's why.

Just super advanced conjecture though...

A hypothesis. That's the scientific term right?
Possibly testable, quite likely, but fallible. Or at least too difficult to measure with any degree of accuracy*.

Ok, fair enough, people are keen on re-examining the correlation. That's good.
But at least admit that there some unanswered questions on both sides of the argument, and that examining them is a good idea.

How many times have I replied to you with that argument?

*Now that is indisputably true.

Brooks

Anyway, let's see how viable this comestible scheme of mine really is. We'll go for Skuzbo's pea protein thing because it's the most efficient case on all fronts, on paper. I do the IF thing as a rule, so can just do it all as a big batch.

Pea protein powder, several bags of salad, oil (I like sesame oil), a slim portion of some kind of carb, let's say 100g of cooked rice, and then whatever fluids.

Minimal effort required, reasonably inexpensive.

If I can't stick at it for like a week on satiety grounds, which of course would be a massive distraction from getting anything actually useful done, the species is fucking doomed proper.

dynamiteReady

Brooks wrote:

Anyway, let's see how viable this comestible scheme of mine really is. We'll go for Skuzbo's pea protein thing because it's the most efficient case on all fronts, on paper. I do the IF thing as a rule, so can just do it all as a big batch. Pea protein powder, several bags of salad, oil (I like sesame oil), a slim portion of some kind of carb, let's say 100g of cooked rice, and then whatever fluids. Minimal effort required, reasonably inexpensive. If I can't stick at it for like a week, the species is fucking doomed proper.

Hold... What are you trying to prove over there?

Tempy

Brooks wrote:

If I can't stick at it for like a week on satiety grounds, which of course would be a massive distraction from getting anything actually useful done, the species is fucking doomed proper.

I am interested in the results of this experiment as a lazy 5/2 veggie type

Brooks

Whether doing literally The Best Thing as an individual consumer is psychologically viable for even a single person. My suspicion is that it absolutely isn't, and we only do as well as we do because we ride on a fucking massive tide of waste.

Funkstain

dynamiteReady wrote:

A hypothesis. That's the scientific term right? Testable, likely, but fallible.

. But at least admit that there some unanswered questions on both sides of the argument, and that examining them is a good idea.

See it's this bit, that you've used so many times, that drives me crazy. I should ignore it. Again. But it's such a thorough non-understanding of the scientific method, such a wilful misrepresentation of the science on climate, that I can't let it lie. I COULDN"T LET IT LIE

Yes all scientific theories must be falsifiable, that is a premise of modern science. SO WHAT?

Yes there are unanswered questions on the AGW side (and a hell of a lot on the other side). SO WHAT?

Do you really truly not understand the difference between those obvious facts, and what is being said about climate change science?

The overwhelming weight of the evidence and analysis of that evidence is in favour of AGW. FACT, motherfucking fact, undeniable unless you are a liar or an idiot. This does not mean there aren't more holes in the knowledge to fill. FUCK ME the fossil record has a few gaps, want to start a fucking intelligent design thread? Please tell me you don't post in the God thread.

The absolute best evidence, I will say it again, the absolute best evidence and analysis of that evidence points to AGW being a real thing. There is NOTHING, NOTHING from the "other side" (who the fuck are they anyway, they're sure as shit not climate scientists) to argue with that from a evidence-based position.

Does that mean AGW is an absolute reality without possibility of being wrong? No. But in the same way that the fossil record (amongst lots of other evidence) provides a very solid foundation for natural selection and evolutionary processes, without being absolutely provable, the climate research provides a very solid foundation for AGW.

Do you understand the difference now? You ask me not to be insulting but fuck me you make it hard.

dynamiteReady

GooberTheHat wrote:

I missed out. Here is my chart. Its the oceans what's causing it.

Hold on... What do you mean?

GooberTheHat

Dunno, I just liked the colour scheme.

cockbeard

The years that the earth was cooler the seas were getting warmer instead. The seas are acting as a storage heater for the extra heat, So that graph of last 100 years with the flat spot is explained above, although I'll go hunting for data on sea temperatures historically

Yossarian

dynamiteReady wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

Well... Google have endorsed a side now. Lets all go home... And put up solar panels. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/google-will-stop-supporting-climate-change-science-deniers-calls-them-liars/

I posted a link to that story on the Guardian about two pages ago. Serious question, are you ignoring all of my links in this thread? All of the evidence points to yes. If you are, why?

Not really. I've answered you the most dude. Read back.

I have to admit though, Vela's been the only dude to provide some proper detail on the case for AGW, without browbeating, goading, or rubbing my nose in propaganda.

You don't hear stupid headlines like "THE DEBATE ON THE CURE FOR THE COMMON COLD"
But you do hear about "THE DEBATE ON CLIMATE CHANGE".

Why?

Because one is a clear cut open and shut fucking case, and the other on is conjecture.
That's why.

Or because one of them has a huge, rich, powerful and well-connected industry pumping silly money into trying to undermine the pretty incontrovertible evidence that its product is killing the planet.

Ok, fair enough, people are keen on re-examining the correlates. That's good.
But at least admit that there some unanswered questions on both sides of the argument, and that examining them is a good idea.

How many times have I replied to you with that argument?

You're asking me to admit an equivalence between the two sides which doesn't exist. I asked you, I don't know how many pages ago, to provide some actual climatologists who disagree with this, instead you produced someone who believes in dowsing. I'm still waiting for someone with any credibility on your side of the debate.

So, yes, I will admit that there are unanswered questions for the scientists that believe in AGW, this is an incredibly complex field and no one claims to have all the answers. There is only one pertinent question for those you have provided to offer the other side of the 'debate'; why do you keep making such confident pronouncements about something that isn't your field of study and which you do not appear to understand?

dynamiteReady

Funkstain wrote:

A hypothesis. That's the scientific term right? Testable, likely, but fallible. . But at least admit that there some unanswered questions on both sides of the argument, and that examining them is a good idea.

See it's this bit, that you've used so many times, that drives me crazy. I should ignore it. Again. But it's such a thorough non-understanding of the scientific method, such a wilful misrepresentation of the science on climate, that I can't let it lie. I COULDN"T LET IT LIE Yes all scientific theories must be falsifiable, that is a premise of modern science. SO WHAT? Yes there are unanswered questions on the AGW side (and a hell of a lot on the other side). SO WHAT?

"THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW!", perhaps?

Eugh!

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm pretty sure that a practicing scientist would not use 'SO WHAT!!?' as an answer to any of the questions that we have started to pose in here (though those questions are getting lost in the noise).

Like I say, plenty of other good, solid cases for doing the stuff that would help to assuage our collective first world guilt. And yes, we should have been doing them since yesterday. So perhaps this propaganda campaign is a good thing.

But it's also fair to say, that at present, unlike that rather churlish common cold example that I just cited, the 'facts' are currently a component of a propaganda campaign.

Sure, it's a subject worth paying close attention to. But people are currently saying that this is all clear cut.

FOR FUCK SAKE.

We don't even know what's at the bottom of our oceans.
And that's a finite physical body.

How much less might we know about the astronomical forces upon which our weather system is based?

dynamiteReady

Yossarian wrote:

why do you keep making such confident pronouncements about something that isn't your field of study and which you do not appear to understand?

This is why I know you're trolling.
It's obvious that I'm calling for, and searching for answers here.

What I'm doing right now, is challenging your surety. Not perfectly mind you, but that 97%/12000 to %40ish/12000 papers thing was in itself, worth the grief.

Brooks

I'm not prepared to take the risk that our influence is negligible, that's why 'so what'.

Yossarian

dynamiteReady wrote:

"THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW!", perhaps?

Eugh!

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm pretty sure that a practicing scientist would not use 'SO WHAT!!?' as an answer to any of the questions that we have started to pose in here (though those questions are getting lost in the noise).

I'm sorry, I'm not sure you can start getting on your high horse about what practising scientist would do when your primary sources are newspaper articles and denialist websites.

But it's also fair to say, that at present, unlike that rather churlish common cold example that I just cited, the 'facts' are currently a component of a propaganda campaign.

They are? What propaganda campaign? By whom? To what end? You've been offered at least one article talking about the propaganda campaign from the oil industry which you've bought into, what propaganda campaign is the other side?

Sure, it's a subject worth paying close attention to. But people are currently saying that this is all clear cut.

FOR FUCK SAKE.

To the best of our scientific knowledge, IT IS.

Yossarian

dynamiteReady wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

why do you keep making such confident pronouncements about something that isn't your field of study and which you do not appear to understand?

This is why I know you're trolling.
It's obvious that I'm calling for, and searching for answers here.

What I'm doing right now, is challenging your surety. Not perfectly mind you, but that 97%/12000 to %40ish/12000 papers thing was in itself, worth the grief.

Seriously? I forgot to add the words 'which expressed any opinion as to the cause' and you somehow feel vindicated by that?

But the fact is, you keep on claiming to be searching for answers, yet repeatedly refuse to look in the huge body of evidence that overwhelmingly outweighs your view, preferring to cite people who do not work in the field.

That's not looking for answers, it's looking for confirmation.

dynamiteReady

Like I say, Yoss The %97 to %30 thing is enough for me to take away for now.
I did suspect as much.

And apart from Climate4you.com, and Professor Phil, I'm not prepared to stand by any of the other stuff I've posted, though the Scandinavian dude, does have some credentials, don't you agree?

cockbeard

Brooks wrote:

I'm not prepared to take the risk that our influence is negligible, that's why 'so what'.

I'd have thought that being as you can only influence 0.0000000016% of potential human impact on global warming, you'd be praying that our influence was merely 'neglible'

Yossarian

Who was the Scandinavian dude?

dynamiteReady

Yossarian wrote:

Who was the Scandinavian dude?

The Geographer in the Telegraph who measured sea levels.

Yossarian

dynamiteReady wrote:

Like I say, Yoss The %97 to %30 thing is enough for me to take away for now.
I did suspect as much.

And you do seem to be misunderstanding this. This doesn't mean that 70% of scientists don't know what's causing climate change, it does not mean that 70% of papers are agnostic about whether AGW exists or not, all it means is that nothing was mentioned in the paper about the causes. This could be because 70% of papers were written by people who can't say one way the other, but, what's more likely, is that a large number of that 70% were focused on the effects of climate change rather than the cause.

Yossarian

dynamiteReady wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Who was the Scandinavian dude?

The Geographer in the Telegraph who measured sea levels.

Oh, you mean the Deceiver of the Year 1995? The man who claimed to be able to provide a theoretical basis for dowsing, sold courses based on this, but refused the chance to put his theories to the test under controlled conditions in exchange for a million dollars? Him?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories