Global warming ‘isn’t the great threat we were told’

[mysiteguy]

Can we stop to appreciate something. Take note:

It's funny how no one ever disagrees with a simple mathematics equation, e.g. x + y = y + x (where x,y ∈ ℝ), but when it comes to things like climate change, we get varying opinions.

Unlike mathematical axioms, science is open to interpretation. In this case, given that there are legitimate studies that show evidence for and against it, neither side is actually right about climate change. AND, because it isn't as grounded as say, a simple mathematics equation, we shouldn't be building policy around something that could literally be refuted the very next day.

You're throwing in a falsehood, then basing your argument upon it.

The overwelming majority of legitimate studies show evidence for global warming and scientific consensus is nearly 100%.

 

[Nev_Dull]

Evidence during Senate investigations found that Fauci told the WHO what to say about Covid 19 to cover up the 'Gain of Function' testing that was going on.

I have to bow to your greater knowledge of senate investigations. I find it difficult to accept, however, that the WHO was told what to say by Dr. Fauci. Certainly, the WHO consulted experts around the world as they gathered all the information they could on the virus. It is less likely that organization was somehow controlled by a single indiviual's viewpoint.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Can we stop to appreciate something. Take note:

It's funny how no one ever disagrees with a simple mathematics equation, e.g. x + y = y + x (where x,y ∈ ℝ), but when it comes to things like climate change, we get varying opinions.

Unlike mathematical axioms, science is open to interpretation. In this case, given that there are legitimate studies that show evidence for and against it, neither side is actually right about climate change. AND, because it isn't as grounded as say, a simple mathematics equation, we shouldn't be building policy around something that could literally be refuted the very next day.

There is no debate inside of science over if the climate is changing.

The debate is over:

1. How fast it is happening
2. What can we do about it

Because of how big the world is and the number of variables that go into things, predicting a certain temperature for a certain year is impossible. That does not mean that the trendline cannot be predicted within a margin of error.

And you seem to think that if there is any error at all, then we should just throw out the whole thing and ignore it. If a scientist predicted a 3c rise in temperatures by 2035 and we only got a 2.4c rise in temperatures by 2037, climate deniers will jump around saying "SEE!?! SEE?! THEY WERE WRONG!!! WE WERE RIGHT!!!" Ignoring the fact that a 2.4c rise in temperature will still be fairly catastrophic.

Here's what we KNOW for a FACT:
1. The Earth's temperature has been rising in a steady and accelerated fishing since the 1950s.
Via NASA:


2. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas and excessive amounts of it will trap heat in the atmosphere
3. Some Carbon Dioxide is absorbed by the world's oceans making them more acidic and less capable of supporting life, sometimes killing all life in a given area.
4. Humans emit several thousand times more CO2 than volcanos and other natural phenomena. Moreover, human carbon emissions are relatively constant while volcanos are sporadic.
5. We are already seeing changes in weather patterns. Things like more frequent bomb cyclones that happen due to disturbances in the jet stream.
6. We are already seeing crop failure causing human migration.
7. We are already seeing flooding problems in cities and rising sea levels.
8. We have removed a significant amount of rainforest which is one of the largest land-based carbon sinks available
9. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades if not centuries.

Even with zero other evidence, one can easily draw the conclusion that we cannot continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere at the current rate without catastrophic effects.

 

[Nev_Dull]

Unlike mathematical axioms, science is open to interpretation. In this case, given that there are legitimate studies that show evidence for and against it, neither side is actually right about climate change. AND, because it isn't as grounded as say, a simple mathematics equation, we shouldn't be building policy around something that could literally be refuted the very next day.

You can get all the maths right and still be wrong. Einstein, Hoyle, and other brilliant scientists supported the Steady State theory of cosmology for years. Their calculations worked fine. The Big Bang theory just proved to be a more accurate explanation for the observed evidence of the universe.

But your point is taken. Science isn't perfect. I don't think anyone claimed it was. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers or to be infallible. That said, it is still the best method for finding the right answers. The very fact that science never declares something final and irrevocable, that it is always open to accepting new evidence and is willing to go wherever that evidence takes it, demonstrates this.

While there are some studies that counter some of the claims of climate change, the overwhelming body of science supports the models and the concept as a whole. Until we see new evidence that changes that, it is still the most likely answer and we should continue to work towards changing the outcomes climate change predicts.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

I have to bow to your greater knowledge of senate investigations. I find it difficult to accept, however, that the WHO was told what to say by Dr. Fauci. Certainly, the WHO consulted experts around the world as they gathered all the information they could on the virus. It is less likely that organization was somehow controlled by a single indiviual's viewpoint.

If basic sniff tests like this were used more often, we wouldn't have the conspiracy theories running rampant that we currently have.

 

[Pete]

There is no debate inside of science over if the climate is changing.

The debate is over:

1. How fast it is happening
2. What can we do about it

Because of how big the world is and the number of variables that go into things, predicting a certain temperature for a certain year is impossible. That does not mean that the trendline cannot be predicted within a margin of error.

And you seem to think that if there is any error at all, then we should just throw out the whole thing and ignore it. If a scientist predicted a 3c rise in temperatures by 2035 and we only got a 2.4c rise in temperatures by 2037, climate deniers will jump around saying "SEE!?! SEE?! THEY WERE WRONG!!! WE WERE RIGHT!!!" Ignoring the fact that a 2.4c rise in temperature will still be fairly catastrophic.

Here's what we KNOW for a FACT:
1. The Earth's temperature has been rising in a steady and accelerated fishing since the 1950s.
Via NASA:
View attachment 55823

2. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas and excessive amounts of it will trap heat in the atmosphere
3. Some Carbon Dioxide is absorbed by the world's oceans making them more acidic and less capable of supporting life, sometimes killing all life in a given area.
4. Humans emit several thousand times more CO2 than volcanos and other natural phenomena. Moreover, human carbon emissions are relatively constant while volcanos are sporadic.
5. We are already seeing changes in weather patterns. Things like more frequent bomb cyclones that happen due to disturbances in the jet stream.
6. We are already seeing crop failure causing human migration.
7. We are already seeing flooding problems in cities and rising sea levels.
8. We have removed a significant amount of rainforest which is one of the largest land-based carbon sinks available
9. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades if not centuries.

Even with zero other evidence, one can easily draw the conclusion that we cannot continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere at the current rate without catastrophic effects.

I would even concede that all of the above *could* be natural climate change that happens without mankind's involvement HOWEVER I refuse to believe it would take place at anywhere near the same pace *without* mankind's involvement.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

I would even concede that all of the above *could* be natural climate change that happens without mankind's involvement HOWEVER I refuse to believe it would take place at anywhere near the same pace *without* mankind's involvement.

Absolutely true. If something like the Yellowstone Caldera were to blow, you're looking at an extinction-level event due to it changing the climate to be much colder. Super-Mega Volcanos, Comets, and Huge Asteroids are the only things out there that will change the climate as fast or faster than we humans have.

I think it gets lost on people just how much carbon we're putting into the atmosphere each day. Each year we put 124.23 times as much carbon into the atmosphere as all yearly volcanic activity combined. It takes 2.7 days of human activity to equal 1 year of volcanic activity.

And unfortunately, it gets worse. As the temperature rises, the permafrost in the northern regions of Russia and Canada starts to melt and release methane gas, which is yet another greenhouse gas, further compounding the problem.

 

[Bionic Rooster]

I would even concede that all of the above *could* be natural climate change that happens without mankind's involvement HOWEVER I refuse to believe it would take place at anywhere near the same pace *without* mankind's involvement.

I would agree that mankind's involvement has a place in the scheme of climate change but lean more towards destruction of the ecosystem than carbon pollution. People think the change is at a faster rate not because it is faster, but because they are becoming increasingly aware of weather pattern changes. Things to also consider to a greater degree is the shift of the magnetic north, the decrease in the earths magnetic field which protects us from the harmful sun rays, recent more active volcanic activity due to the ring of fire reaction to the above causing climate change.
Left Right wing activist would have us all believe differently because it threatens their power control indoctrination. They disclaim differing opinions with 'oh you're anti science', 'our science is right, yours is wrong' etc.
There are objective scientists on different sides of the fence who are neither right nor wrong with the conclusions. Some are just more open minded to their findings.

 

[Pete]

lean more towards destruction of the ecosystem than carbon pollution.

See, I think that's a differentiation that doesn't actually matter. The climate is changing, there's a whole array of factors involved in it, and... guess what? It doesn't matter which one is ultimately "responsible". The weather is still getting progressively messed up compared to how it was, the seas are still going to rise, displacing millions of people, it's going to get harder to grow crops so more people are going to starve.

Does it matter whether you want to chalk it up to 'carbon pollution' or 'destruction of the ecosystem' or 'increased volcanic activity' when enough people deny the whole damn shooting match exists (but still complain about freakish weather) that it's all going to hell anyway at this point? Heck, I wouldn't even be surprised if it ultimately turned out the increased volcanic activity was the result of mankind mining deeper and more aggressively for rarer metals.

power control indoctrination.

Sorry, what? I'm left-leaning and I don't believe this. I believe we're already doomed and there's no point worrying about it any more. But I also believe that those who have to live with the consequences of what we have made should be aware of it.

our science is right, yours is wrong

From my perspective it's frequently those on the right who make such claims. I usually want to bang both sets of heads together because I'm tired of it.

Some are just more open minded to their findings.

Rarely. Most people are more open minded to findings that fit their own internalised biases. No-one likes to be told they're wrong.

 

[Bionic Rooster]

See, I think that's a differentiation that doesn't actually matter. The climate is changing, there's a whole array of factors involved in it, and... guess what? It doesn't matter which one is ultimately "responsible". The weather is still getting progressively messed up compared to how it was, the seas are still going to rise, displacing millions of people, it's going to get harder to grow crops so more people are going to starve.

Contrary to what others would have you believe, I never claimed climate wasn't changing, I just believe that man is the main cause. A culmination of natural events is more significant as many scientist have reported. That's the other side of the coin as I see it. Same findings, different conclusions.

Sorry, what? I'm left-leaning and I don't believe this.

So this wouldn't apply to you and sorry I meant right-wing activist

The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the government.

Left Wing vs Right Wing - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

What's the difference between Left Wing and Right Wing? The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the government. Left-wing beliefs are liberal in that they believe society is best served with an expanded...

www.diffen.com

 

[zappaDPJ]

I believe we're already doomed and there's no point worrying about it any more.

While I think it's entirely possible we are doomed to disappear due to stupidity and greed, I also think if we should survive, time and technical evolution will always provide an answer e.g. what happened to the great eco-pocalyptic ozone hole conundrum?

And anyway our significance as far is mother nature is concerned is still insignificant. Planet earth will easily out-survive all the little meat bags living on its surface. As a wise man once said...

 

[Pete]

I’m still not entirely convinced that covid isn’t actually “Mother Earth” deploying antibodies against the virus attacking it. Lovelock’s Gaia theory does have things to recommend it.

 

[zmih]

I don't believe in this sh*t at all. People have like 1% effect on planet. Volcanos erupt over a million tons of magma during eruption. Where all that magma goes?
Now count number of volcanos and euruptions every day.

Planet has a perfect design.

 

[Pete]

Planet has a perfect design.

Not for the number of people on it. 8 billion people each just breathe out approx 2.3 pounds of CO2 per day when fairly sedentary - so that's 18.4 billion pounds = 9 million US tons of CO2 per day just from breathing. That doesn't talk about industry or other things, *just breathing*.

 

[zmih]

Not for the number of people on it. 8 billion people each just breathe out approx 2.3 pounds of CO2 per day when fairly sedentary - so that's 18.4 billion pounds = 9 million US tons of CO2 per day just from breathing. That doesn't talk about industry or other things, *just breathing*.

Breathing? Really?
And who inhales that CO2?

Do you know that we also need CO2 as much as we need O (oxygen)?

If you Google percentage of gases in the atmosphere, you will see how much CO2 is there.

 

[Bionic Rooster]

Breathing? Really?
And who inhales that CO2?

Do you know that we also need CO2 as much as we need O (oxygen)?

If you Google percentage of gases in the atmosphere, you will see how much CO2 is there.

This is an informative read, thanks for sharing

The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide

Part Two: Satellites from NASA and other space agencies are revealing surprising new insights into atmospheric carbon dioxide, the principal human-produced driver of climate change.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[FTL]

Breathing? Really?
And who inhales that CO2?

CO2 is our waste product. Breathing in too much of it is poisonous. Why do you think the human body "needs it"?

 

[Bionic Rooster]

This is an important fact to remember, as carbon dioxide is a vital part of the environment. The human breathing mechanism actual revolves around CO2, not oxygen. Without carbon dioxide, humans wouldn't be able to breathe.Jul 16, 2019

Is Carbon Dioxide Harmful to People?

Is carbon dioxide harmful to people? In small quantities, CO2 is harmless and necessary, but CO2 can become unhealthy if concentrations increase.

learn.kaiterra.com

 

[FTL]

Is Carbon Dioxide Harmful to People?

Is carbon dioxide harmful to people? In small quantities, CO2 is harmless and necessary, but CO2 can become unhealthy if concentrations increase.

learn.kaiterra.com

That's misrepresenting the argument. The point is to keep the amount of CO2 in the air low as it's a greenhouse gas, not zero, which is impossible and also undesirable.

You keep on trying to deny man made climate change and its disastrous effects, but failing hard, because you're simply wrong.

Good article though.

 

[Bionic Rooster]

According to NASA atmospheric scientist in the above article, CO2 in the earths atmosphere is a mere 0.0407% . It is so low that it's designated a trace gas.
Hardly the main cause of climate change as some governments and politicians would have you believe.