What's Your Favorite Climate Change Study?
Normally I like to avoid the hot topics, but I got triggered by Greta. It really was more about the debate than the messenger though.
The Science Is Settled!
(I wasn't aware that science gets settled)
My question is this... Why should I care what a sobbing 16 year old with no special qualifications has to say about Climate Change?
Whenever I ask why someone will always answer with the word Science.
They never mention any Science though, just the word. "Science".
For the benefit of the argument let's say that there is Scientific Consensus that humans are impacting the climate. Does that mean that whatever legislation they are trying to pass in the name of fixing it has been studied? Is there consensus on that? (The answer is no)
While there maybe a lot of agreement that we have some impact, there is very little agreement on how much and what the solutions might be.
However since I am not an expert on the Climate Change Science and you all are, here are my questions.
- What are a few of your favorite studies on Climate Change?
- Were there any weaknesses in your opinion on the study?
- Who funded the study?
- Who peer reviewed it?
- Where was it published?
If you don't know the answer to any of the questions above should you be screaming about Science?
What is the source of your opinion?
I totally think we should treat the planet better, but no I don't take your crying spokes child seriously.
I don't take the campaign of the Science is Settled seriously, in fact I do want to talk about it and understand.
You will notice in my post I have not once attacked the idea that humans might be impacting Climate Change, but watch in the comments...
I am not saying the media handed lines about the topic and it is likely to trigger both sides. I am supposed to say it is all a lie or that it is all totally true, and no one knows how to deal with an question that doesn't fit into one of those situations.
Climate Change is a political topic not a Earth topic. I do care about our planet and I do want to know what we can do to clean it up. I just don't buy into the way we are having the discussion and who is fueling it.
Let's change the conversation.
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
Greta is a great actor haha... she should get some solid acting roles after this 😳😂
Posted using Partiko iOS
She is even listed of IMBd as a child actress.
Illuminati shill? Jk 😂
Posted using Partiko iOS
I can't figure out for the life of me who thought that was a good idea.
Exactly, "I should be in school, across the oceans" 🤣🤣🤣 sounds like Wizard of OZ.... Science is never set, never... All these paid actors and especially these paid Scientists, um still waiting on that global freeze....
Posted using Partiko Android
Where is alex Jones when we need him 😂
Posted using Partiko iOS
Right... 🤣🤣🤣
Posted using Partiko Android
In the 1700s Thomas Malthus nailed the problem by mentioning overpopulation. Things have only gotten worse and it is now off the agenda for political reasons. Hollywood just introduced usball to Thanos who did something insane to deal with the problem.
It doesn't matter how small our carbon foot print is, if we keep expanding the global population we are done.
I could site the census I guess, but I don't really hear anyone arguing more and nore and more people will solve the problem (well the more people the mpre climate scientists I guess).
The problem is not overpopulation. The biggest part of the pollution on our planet comes from countries with relatively low population grow rates for a long time (Europe and North america).
China and India which pollute a lot mostly do this to produce products which go to these countries as well. And even China and India are not growing as rapidly anymore.
Yes population growth is slowing down. However, it is not happening fast enough.
Do you think the current population and population projections aren't adding to the stress?
Pretty much everyone in the world desires to live by US and European standards hence global migration patterns.
Restrictions against migration and global resource distribution are the only reasons matters aren't already worse.
The chinese and indians dont pollute less and impoet our pollution to export us stuff because they want to. Believe me they want to consume just as much as we do. And they have every right.
So, we have to be the first to show them how great it is to consume decent amounts.
It's not like obesity is a good thing after all.
Population is gonna top out around 9-10 billions anyway, where most additional is just due to the extended live expectancy.
All of us in the north will have to learn how to live with less.
All this plastic stuff, changing phones every year, cars every 5 years. Our economy is based on an ever-growing model.
A German scientist once said it will. There is only one thing that grows consistently in high rates in nature, cancer.
And like I said, this doesn't even have to impact our quality of life, we exchange waste products for reusables, we recycle more, we build products with a longer lifespan, etc.
You mean going back to the days when things like cars 🚘 were built to last not fall apart like the new ones.
Posted using Partiko iOS
The moment our society makes it more "acceptable" to stay with a car for a couple of decades, we can afford a car which is made out of more valuable materials which then will not fall apart like the new ones, yes.
I don't think they will just follow our lead.
We definitely should continue research and strive to waste less. It's just some of the ideas aren't for everyone and environmentalists need to come to terms with this. Meat is a good example.
Population will solve itself. However so will carbon. It's the effects of the cycle I'm concerned about. Humans are fully responsible for human population. This isn't the case for ghg or carbon.
One thing I heavily support is nuclear technology. However it was the environmentalists who said no. Fossils kill many more people a year than nuclear. Deaths from fukushima are 0 (we are uncertain 9f canver but it is also much lower than cancer from fossils), but its all we hear about. Then we get people offering unrealistic solutions like solar and wind. If research into nuclear wasn't thwarted who knows where we would be at?
So, I agree that leaving Nuclear behind was a bit rushed and resulted in a higher usage of fossils, if that had been planned better the result would be much more sustainable too.
But I disagree that they will follow our lead, the entire world follows the lead what the European and northern american cultures dictate them. Starting with music, clothes, lifestyle, etc.
Hey have you seen this?
It's AMAZING. Not sure if it is "fast enough", but it really is interesting and well presented.
I will take a look at this video later. I think I may have seen it.
I thought it looked familiar and I've seen this video, but it has been a couple of years. I'm quite familiar with this topic.
His development theory is correct (for the most part) and just a branch of modernization theory which has been studied and applied since the early 1960s and has its roots in the ideas of Max Weber.
However there are a few problems:
Don't forget those who need to act as if we have huge problems so they can sell us expensive solutions.
Malthusian theory has been shown to lack a basic understanding of economics and demographics. For example, "Human populations, once they reach a certain size and complexity, always develop specialized orders, of priests, doctors, soldiers. To the members of these orders sexual abstinence, either permanent or periodic, or in "business hours" (so to speak), is typically prescribed. Here, then, is [a] fact about our species which is contrary to what one would expect on the principle that population always increases when, and as fast as, the amount of food available permits." (David Stove)
Malthus also failed to take innovation into account; he was applying current agricultural methods against future populations. "Any numbskull can find statistics to show that if the resource base stays the same and population increases then all hell will break loose. This is the Malthusian mirage." (Ben Marks) With population increase you also have an increase in production. Increased production increases wealth (that includes food) and efficiency (that includes carrying capacity or storage space).
Population increases solve themselves via increased production; in fact, a decreasing birth rate often concerns communities and societies because that means a decrease in production, as well.
the tags 🤣
serious climate change studies are those studies written by climate science scientists about climate change.
97% of the studies that check those boxes find that there is human caused climate change.
everything else is crap.
here you can find a list of that crap with the explanation why it is crap:
https://skepticalscience.com/
and Greta knows probably more than 99% of all those people who are giving their 5 cents on TV or on social networks...
so my 5 cents: people should stop bullying her for trying to save our world.
and here is a nice little story about why and how we fucked up:
https://steemit.com/nature/@solarwarrior/losing-earth-the-decade-we-almost-stopped-climate-change
have a great day
You too. lol, did you test her and the others on that 99% thing you said. That doesn't seem very scientific at all.
what are you talking about?
I actually read und study those studies, books and IPCC reports for more than a decade now.. so probably I know a bit about what's written in there..
but I never would say I can contribute something from a science standpoint.. I leave that to the scientists..
and Greta just voices what the climate scientists are actually demanding.
Check it.. you are clever and have internet access...
having not done that and still attacking Greta like that doesn't look good in my eyes...
Oh, I've read the propaganda on both sides.
I also survived the Ozone Layer Scare which was caused by my hairspray.
I don't think it looks good to bring a child to a political event and have her scream and glare. Nor is it compelling.
sorry.. I really do not know what I should reply to that..
I beg you to read at the two links I posted or at least whats written on wikipedia.. also about the Ozon whole...
I will read them.
Thank you!
Don't waste your time... Anti-climate change is the same as flat-earthers and anti vaxxer.
No matter how perfect the proof is, if it doesn't fit their narrative they say its a lie, fabricated, propaganda, etc etc...
Posted using Partiko Android
Except I didn't say any of those things and Solar is actually providing information.
You are the one who is just repeating the MSM lines in a thoughtless manner.
...back at discussing religion. That's the sad thing...
If climate change was caused by anything else then greenhouse emissions, we would never find out, as it is not allowed to talk about it. But we would have consumed a lot of 'emission-friendly' consumers' articles.
That's why I don't trust this movement.
Lol.Hahaha😂😂😂
Posted using Partiko Android
I was reading an article about her the other day. A person with the form of Aspergers she has tends to fixate on a topic and will dig into it in an all consuming manner. She has studied the topic in depth which is why she's able to speak knowledgeably.
I am informed by reading the various articles posted to EurekAlert, phys.org, Livescience, and others which do present a large number of actual studies. It provides a fairly well balanced look at the various topics and proves the science is never settled. There is ALWAYS a new study or new data being presented.
Personally I have seen a glacier in Canada, the Athabasca Glacier in the Columbia ice-field, lose a noticeable amount of it's tongue. The first image I took in Sept 2012 and the second in Sept 2018. There is a distinct difference in the amount of ice. Is this human caused climate change at fault?
Really... Who the fuck knows?!
And even if we did agree it is human caused, and it very well might be...
What is the solution?
Exactly. The only absolute way is to have every human on the same page and working to reduce the overall pollution emitted.
Yeah....
Right. Fat chance.
It takes true global scale, immediate danger or imminent death that will MAYBE rally humanity to a concerted singular action or direction. We are all to selfish to really work together.
too selfish to realize the earth is not endangered (because it will always be able to heal itself), but the modern human way of life (and inherently humanity and some of earth's fauna) is.
I disagree with you bro. The rate at which the earth heals itself is slower compared to the amount of greenhouse gases and pollutants sent into the environment.
Are you from a tropical country? You should have noticed the rise in temperature in these places during the hottest time of the year.
I hope earth won't end up like planet Venus soon.
Posted using Partiko Android
Let's agree to disagree.
Posted using Partiko Android
Lol. Hehehe😂😂
Posted using Partiko Android
Funny thing is, pollution is often characterized as a "free market failure" but the reality is, in a truly free market there is no tragedy of the commons. In a free market, someone's private property rights were violated by pollution of someone else, and there would be market pressure to address it.
I think we could make great strides in protecting the planet if there was some moral method of enforcing private property rights. If my neighbor is burning his trash and it messes up the air quality for me, it's understandable for me to complain. I'd probably win in some kind of adjudicational venue.
I don't even think I'd need too much science to win. "What my neighbor is doing smells really bad." Enter that as evidence. Case closed.
But this notion isn't very scalable under the current system. Meaning, if my neighborhood attempts to complain about a nearby factory, just doing the same thing as the previous example, there's a lot more of a process that protects the factory.
Then try to scale that up even further to regions and continents, it's just impossible, even with all the scientific evidence in the world.
In attempting to address this, government institutions call this process "tort reform" and "privatization". I'm not convinced they actually want to reform or privatize anything. That's why I'd be keen on a decentralized analogs to tort reform and privatization. But looking at the current state of crypto, that's still 200 years away.
Therefore, the moral way to fix the environment is centuries away, regardless of any scientific assertions.
It all has to do w/ money. Politicians want to squeeze every last cent of every human being. I look at the people in congress do they look like they care about Climate change? lol ...
Some look like they've been hogging out at the trough of McDonalds.
I just want to see if one of these outraged people can actually speak intelligently to a study that they have studied. :)
That would be nice. Maybe they're signing up right now!!
you understand that no one ever invites scientists to speak to the UN.
there are too many people who make too much money on Oil and Gas, to ever listen to Climate Scientists.
As a result, it's easy to invite Great, and then, pick on her for speaking to the issue.
I'm just saying, I raised 5 kids, 4 girls. Good kids too, kids who received scholarships in both athletics and academics.
I know a spoiled teen having a fit when I see one. :) Her sad lost childhood is not compelling to me. I think it was divisive.
It did however start a conversation. Just not about the topic. I did however over react, I was triggered by using a 16 teen year old dressed as a 12 year old trying to give people a lecture. If some found it moving in some way... that's nice.
So, here you have it. I over reacted and I should have just done what I do with most political topics and ignored it.
I am very interested in treating Earth in a more respectable manner and I am really concerned about our rivers, lakes and oceans. So, I will just focus on those topics and leave the hysterical crying to teen girls. :)
you are bang on with your description...
if a production factor is not priced correct or not priced at all, capitalism does not work
I got triggered pretty hard by Greta.
But, even if the "science" is true. Why the hell would I listen to a 16 yr. old on anything ??
Well... If you don't know if the "science" is true you don't know how science works.
So, yeah... You should listen to that 16 year old.
Posted using Partiko Android
Basically, no. She doesn't know anything just like most climate change "experts".
For the record "climate change" is a hoax.
So, are you an expert?
Then you know more than the thousands of scientists, that did real studies with real data, and published scientific papers describing their methods of study, how they acquired the data, how they processed the data, what is the margin of error of the data, their conclusions on the data, allowing anyone who wants to make the same study and will probably reach the similar conclusion?
You are an amazing guy then...
Posted using Partiko Android
You realize 1,000 scientists thought the earth was flat too there is nothing that matters but the scientific data not the # of people who have fallen for this scam.
I am an amazing guy thank you.
So, you just proved my point?
Posted using Partiko Android
you had a point?
oh, 1,000 scientist with bad data that point
?
Please, there were no scientists which thought the earth was flat. Religion said the earth was flat, and who wouldn't believe it was killed....
There was plenty who said the earth was flat who were proclaimed scientists.
Also, there is a list of scientist who disagree so it isn't "settled science" which is another bold face lie.
List here.
@steemitqa. Do you live in a tropical country?🤔
No.
Clap for yourself.😌🙄🙄🙄
Posted using Partiko Android
?
If you live in the tropics, you won't say climate change is a hoax
Posted using Partiko Android
This is the most ridiculest argument I've ever heard for why it isn't a hoax.
Is this Greta?
For me, it's not so much studies, nor who has peer reviewed them. It's the facts that the climate is changing. The facts which are readily available and reported on. I am not a big fan of the whole Greta debacle but the facts that are out there are quite stark. The ice caps are melting. CO² levels are rising. There are studies aplenty out there but on the internet, there is little point in citing them.
at one pole yes the other pole they have seen it grow thicker. Climate always changes. Most of North America were ice fields humans did not cause that ice to melt, the climate warmed up and ice fields melted.
Thats because the poles are actually different. One has a land mass under it and the other doesn't. Because of that they are not readily comparible.
Importantly though, I am not claiming who or what is causing Climate change :OD
Well the paper I was reading did just that and it is not the first time it has been done.
Posted using Partiko iOS
I know, but one has land ice and sea ice and the other is just sea ice. It means that unless you compare the sea ice and state that is increasing in the south compared to the decrease in the north then the comparison. imho is not that valid
The thing is that one of the poles is losing much much much more than what the other pole is gaining additionally.
The big question now is:
Is this "meesterboom" account advanced AI or just another moronic CIA contractor writing this shit?
I would definitely say CIA. Some kind of Black Ops/psi ops misinformation shit kind of shill.
I discount advanced AI because he mentions penises and vaginas a lot.
Whatever, his sort must be hunted down and killed.
AI can do penises pretty well
In that case humanity is already lost!
And are you for or against that?
Lady Gaga? I wouldn't say no when she was skinny. But I am not known for being particularly choosy. I am off the kind she isn't a tranny right enough :0)
Sounds like you totally dig those hot trannies
Only my fellow CIA trannies, we have tranny parties in which we all dress as old fashioned clocks which have stopped and there are prizes for the ones who have the best time to stop at.
How much is two plus two?
Twelveteen
Has it happened yet?
Twelveteen? I have been watching but so far nothing. That is not to say it hasn't happened.
Could be dark web
@meesterboom upvoted me at least once. Definitely not CIA. They don't like me, nor I them. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Cia Carona e Teatro de Quinta
Holy shit, an upvote? That proves it then...
"How dare you make a meme"
and
"I got triggered by Greta"
Has me rolling.....Thanks for making me laugh and spit out my coffee lol
Taxes.
Posted using Partiko Android
Who funded the study? A most pertinent question. As Eisenhower warned, when the state monopolises the support of science, the state calls the shots.
There are 2 Irish scientists doing some interesting, self-funded work
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/
Martin Armstrong (and his Socrates computer) is also an interesting, and I'd say unbiased, source of information both on the science itself and the likely effects of the climate change agenda on society and the world economy.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/tag/climate-change/
Martin Armstrong... LOL!! seriously?
Yes, seriously. I've been reading Martin's blog for years and find his forecasts amazingly accurate.
yeah... me, too.. I watch also his movie and met him in person.. what was his last prediction? total economic crash 4 years ago?world war 3? I might have missed something..
he might be an economist... that gives him credibility in economics.. but I was not aware that he is a climate scientist or wrote peer reviewed papers about climate change..
pi pi everywhere!
That has not been my experience. Over the years I have seen him correctly forecast anything from elections to earthquakes.
Are we not in the midst of an economic collapse? Are the world's governments not broke and engaged in an insane hunt for taxes? Don't we have negative interest rates, something never seen before, and pension funds turning to dust?
while I certainly agree with some of your observations I have to say also, that nothing Armstrong predicted is visible to me yet, especially not in regards to timing, and everyone betting on the financial markets using his predictions is probably broke by now...
No me m'dear, not me!
I think the fossil fuel lobby and countries depending on fossil fuel would have had enough money to invest into this research to prove the world otherwise. But, unfortunately, they couldn't.
I think you'll find that the majority of countries are dependent on fossil fuels and renewables don't even come close to providing sufficient energy. Good luck to all of us when the power grids start shutting down.
I don't believe that there is anything like the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming that we're led to believe. The research you refer to already exists but is discounted as it doesn't fit the narrative.
If you want to really understand climate change I invite you to check out the videos of potholer: https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/videos
He is actually a journalist which makes these videos in his free time, he bases all his videos on scientific facts and cites all used articles in the description.
(You can find a vast number of videos of his debunking the pseudo science of anyone which does not believe in man made climate change, until now, there was no one which could prove him wrong, and he was able to debunk all arguments of anyone trying to debunk him)
One of the things I like about his videos is that he does all these videos completely free of polemic and exaggerations. He bases all them on the scientific evidence and criticizes both sides of the political debate.
Short TL;DR:
I disagree that climate change is political. The first people talking about climate change were conservatives all over the world. The same people which now deny it ever existed because it would cost them some money during their livetime.
Thanks for a calm rational suggestion. I appreciate it.
Does potholer consider the theories of the electric universe proponents?
Remember a fellow named President Nixon? Although a late supporter of the conservation movement; in 1970 he formed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It may have been for political reasons, or maybe just concern. Not a mind reader so I don't know. Never met the man.
Even earlier there was a fellow, President Theodore Roosevelt, who was a lifelong conservationist, according to the history we have written of his life.
For those that are concerned about the political overtones of the climate change conversation, both the Presidents mentioned above were members of the Republican Party. Given, the Republican Party line was much different during the Administrations of these two Presidents.
In the past the conservatives were all over the world concerned about the environment. This changes more recently when conservatives became neo-liberalists.
Thank you for adding to my vocabulary, I will now go and check out a number of dictionaries and encyclopedia to see if their is consensus as to the proper definition of neo-liberalist.
It is so difficult now-a-days to give a thoughtful, politically correct, non-ambiguous, reply. So I will just say, thank you for replying.
Fuck Greta. We have 30 to 50 cm snowfall forecast for Sunday here in Alberta.
These Climate Urgency Summit/March organizers have a bad sense of timing. Not a very good idea trying to convince us there is warming going on when Canada enters cold seasons. Lol
I have a feeling we'll have as much a harsh winter as we had last year.
Get your snowblower ready, my friend. Summer is over.
Hey Fellow Southern Albertans! @oldtimer @heroic15397 Nice to cross your paths! Hopefully it chinooks early next week so the snow does not last too long. Not at all ready for winter in September! but, we have had snow storms in Early Oct for the past two years if i remember correctly.
Where do you live if we're southern Albertans?
North pole?
LOL i am in southern AB, east of Cowgary. But looks like south is getting more white stuff than we are!
Actually that's something which is also expected, climate change causes a warmer climate and not necessarily warmer weather (climate != weather).
Warmer earth temperatures lead to a more unstable climate and thus cause more extreme weather events.
I know that, but that's going on all the time regardless of the human race and please don't say we causing climate changes. We have zero impact. Zero.
Do you really think that these enormous quantities of fossil fuels we're burning which the earth incorporated for millions of years, the enormous quantities of forest we're cutting and burning down, also releasing tons and tons of Co2. Do you really think that has no impact on our climate?
There is natural climate change, mostly caused by either sun cycles (which usually come with a lagging co2 cycle too) and there are extreme events like super Vulcanos etc which in the past caused some extreme changes in the earths atmosphere causing a drastic change in climate too.
This time, us, human beings, burning enormous quantities of fossil fuels for decades are part of it. We have a slightly decreasing sun activity but an increasing earth temperature.
I mean, the path of destruction we leave on this planet is so enormous, someone must be really ignorant to believe that this has no impact on our planet and climate at all.
well lets see till Al Gore decided the world was coming to and end we were going into a mini ice age but then he decided we were going to melt everything and anyone who disagreed with him was either fired and brow beaten into saying global warming. What the truth is that the climate does change all the time, humans add to it yes, are they the only cause NO. After the last ice age which North America was covered in ice fields. You have to remember Al Gore said we would be flooded out by the year 2000 from rising seas hmmm now the alarms are for the next 10 to 12 years. Science is not 100% of anything and when they say it is a decided issue run in the other direction as they do not know what they are talking about. Its like this straw business replacing plastic straws that can be recycled with paper ones with a special coating that cannot be recycled. Real smart for the dummies.
While I think there is some compelling data, I also think the conclusions are not anywhere near as clear.
The cato institute has some good research, but its funded by Charles Koch, so even though its supposed to be unbiased, Im sure there is some biased to it.
Working in industry I can see the harm and favoritism it causes. One company was proactive in cutting there co2 before mandates went into effect. Once the mandates went into effect they didnt qualify for the tax incentive because the improvement was already completed.
Put companies out of business in the US and the same production moves to another country with less strict environmental regulations and more pollution per pound of product.
What is interesting is ArcelorMittal the largest steel company and one of the largest polluters (steel inherently is an energy intensive and dirty industry even in the cleanest of steel mills) how they are going to volluntary work to reduce their carbon footprint. Im sure i can find it if you like.
Im all for pushing companies to reduce their pollution and carbon foot print, but government regulation is rarely pure or doesnt hand pick winners and losers.
Also with 2 young kids who bite straws it drives me crazy whoever was the kid that did that "research paper" on how plastic straws were killing the environment. Ive learned to now ask waiters for 10 - 20 straws as soon as we sit down because my kids chew the ends close and then spill theyre drinks all over them because they cant drink out of the straw anymore.
Finally, you want me to take you seriously about how were destroying the earth. Move into a mud hut that doesnt use electricity and dont use steel, plastic, fossil fuels, or eat meat. Maybe thats a little extreme statement but telling me my industry is killing the environment while driving a car (including tesla because they still buy steel to make cars) that is made from steel is a little ironic if you ask me.
Thoughtful. I like it.
I've read some arguments on both sides and to be honest it can be hard to figure out what is factual and what isn't.
But the conclusions are hilarious on both sides.
Yeah i agree climate is changing and on average its getting warmer. That companies should cintinuosly improve to be more efficient while polluting less. Its interesting to see companies take interest recently not from government mandates, but because its an important issue to more and more people.
A lot of car manufacures are becoming iso 50001 certified and going to start requiring that of there customers and suppliers to have less of an impact on the environment at least in the US.
https://www.energy.gov/ISO50001
No need to worry too much, as long as we send more money it'll all work out.
#carbontax
87.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot! o.0
Here is my guy.
He seems to know what he is talking about.
What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change - Funded by Google and published by IEEE. No idea who peer reviewed it.
The main weakness I see is that they hand-waved away their main conclusion with some vague talk about disruptive innovation.
Bottom line: There's no way to reverse climate change with existing or foreseeable technology. So it really doesn't matter if it's man made or natural. We should follow Google's example and stop wasting money on it. Let's all just start getting along with each other again and focus on global prosperity so that we can adapt to whatever changes come our way.
Unfortunately, most of the public debate is of a political and pseudo-religious nature, so the science doesn't really matter. Virtually no one will be persuaded - either way - by scientific arguments.
Well, we started a discussion.
Translation... The shit storm of a fight broke out. :)
lol. Guess that's why mom always told me not to talk about politics or religion. ; -)
No one is talking about reversing climate change. Scientists are talking about limiting climate change to a certain degree to make it decently livable for our future offsprings on this planets.
For short term thinkers, we should really not spend money on this and let the future generations solve this. I think we should've done this always during the history of mankind. Like, when we had acid rain, what's the problem, they shouldn't have cared about it.
Long term thinkers have the humility to realize that they cannot know all the different problems that will be faced by future generations, and that money that's wasted on one problem can't be used to solve another. So the long term thinkers don't waste resources trying to solve an unsolvable problem. Instead, they try to create as many resources as possible, and position those resources for flexibility so that future generations can solve any of the potential problems that they might encounter, one of which might include adapting to a changing climate (with or without man's influence).
Is it an unsolvable problem reducing emissions? Reducing garbage culture? I don't think so. Switching to renewable energies is something which on the mid term already brings positive financial returns. Switching cars, planes and ships to Hydrogen based fuel or similar engines also doesn't require such big investments to make it have a positive return on the long term.
There is no money wasted on this.
Money is wasted on a new phone each year, on a new car every 5 years and money is wasted if anyone thinks that we have infinite economic growth.
Actually, the authors of the paper I cited were talking about reversing climate change. And they shut down their program when they realized it was impossible.
I meant in terms of the overall public, people don't want to reverse it at the moment, people want to limit it.
Peer-reviewed climatologists were correct right up until Koch Industries cut me a nice fat check.
I'm confused by this answer.
It’s not as if there’s a real debate about manmade global warming. One side has peer-reviewed science, the other has money and pseudoscience. Koch Industries has been funding denialist groups for decades.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Denialists wrap themselves in pseudoscience, and their latest shtick is to deny warming altogether and instead claim that we’re headed for an ice age because of an upcoming “Grand Solar Minimum”, but they never seem to explain why the Little Ice Age started before the Maunder Minimum.
Care or don’t, your choice. But why would Greta’s youth be any kind of a disqualifier? She was invited to speak at the United Nations, with or without special qualifications. Lots of people wanted to hear what she had to say. Many senior government officials showed up to listen, some didn’t. Trump for instance went to a “religious freedom” conference instead and pretended he cared about religious freedom, fresh from kissing Saudi keister.
Really??? It sure seems to me that it’s very much both of those.
There obviously is real debate. Just watch the topic anywhere.
The denialists say the same about the "warmers"
It's not just her youth, it's her lack of education or real information and basically just emotional vomit.
I think maybe we should consider relocating or renovating some of our coastal cities to handle the changes.
Morons and liars say lots of things. Doesn’t mean we should give them any credence.
So, quick question: who would benefit from the narrative that there is no climate change?
Us, poor mortals that have small influence on the grand scheme of things, or the multibilionaires industries that are the main catalyst of these environmental changes?
Also, do you know how the scientific method works? (Not sarcastic or agressive question. Just curious)
I did not ever suggest there is no climate change. Nor did I suggest that it isn't man made. You can't break out of the narrative you've been handed long enough to read or engage.
It's not a "narrative" it's scientific studies led by real scientists using the scientific method.
I am not a climate scientist, but I know how science works.
If there is some conspiracy I would bet all my money on the industries conglomerates wanting to create doubts about about climate changes to keep on doing their cheap and highly pollution production methods to keep their profits high.
Posted using Partiko Android
I have no idea who you are talking to... You are just screaming your lines.
I see that you have them so well memorized that you can not engage in the conversation that is happening here.
Yeah whatever...
Like I said, there is no point "engaging" a discussion with the new conspiracy theorists.
It's just a waste of time.
Posted using Partiko Android
Everyone who liked to wake up, can watch this video from George Carlin:
The first minute alone is full of ignorant statements.
Posted using Partiko iOS
in 2012 they said it is the end of the world! guess what? you are still here typing this comment!
in 2018 they said my country Iran is going to become a desert with no water!! we could see it in the media, it was bold, and they wanted us to believe that we will have no water sooner! and we have to run out of here!! guess what? my country became rainy everyday! and most of Iran was full of flood!
I ask you to first know this man, he is not a stupid! he only don't like to accept every single thing they ask us to accept, he make challenges about things like that, you know? about Religion about Government, about politicians, he talk about all these stuffs, and only if he once talked against the things you wouldn't feel good about, you call him Ignorant. this way you only read a book from its title.
If in the first minute of a video a man claims that the extinctions that we KNOW we caused were natural occurrences, you can have a high amount of confidence that the man is full of shit.
If you follow Carlin more closely you'd get it. Actually he is not arguing against climate change at all. In a bunch of videos he talks about this topic and his man point usually is:
What he doesn't like is people being hypocrites about this topic.
As in, people complaining about these things but actually actively contributing to all this kind of stuff. That's probably why he had given up on our species quite a long time ago already.
you are watching the small picture, he was showing you the big picture.
he also told you everything in that first minute. which I can see it is so clear. you just don't like him and it is okay. I understand.
You are watching the
Small picture, he was showing
You the big picture.
- davidfar
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
There is some CLEAR CONSENSUS on Climate change. 97% of Climate Scientists agree.
There is some clear consensus on the cause... INCREASED CO2.
AND, humans are now the major cause of increased CO2 in the past Century.
As well, the big issue facing us going forward:
40% of the world's population lives within 100KM of the coast. MOST of the WORLD's goods are moved at some point via oceans.
It's going to impact the world economy. Right now, it hits Miami, LA, and NYC monthly. Within the next few decades, the oceans will rise enough that major populations will have to MOVE.
So, my question is, why deny what is agreed upon by the world's scientists?
AND, why get upset when someone like Great calls out the heavily funded Deniers?
Deniers are funded by Major Oil and Gas Corporations and Investors.
How many scientists are there.. (I just stole that line)
Sounds like we are in for a wet ride.
Greta is a child, she isn't even educated yet. It's hilarious.Not sad, not guilt provoking, not thought provoking.
Also, if there is agreement and yes, I think there is some... is there agreement on the solution?
:)
The consensus on Cause is settled.
That's the neat thing about fact... you don't have to agree with it, for it to be true. - I stole that line!
Tens of thousands of scientists
Dozens of Countries
Dozens of major scientific organizations
The consensus on the cause is settled.
The range of solutions are from, it's too late, to stop using oil, to cut back, to switch to solar, nuclear, wind, and hydro.
Is there consensus on a solution?> not as long as Big Oil and Gas money keeps pouring in to US Policy.
The irony is, China,m which used to be the biggest stumbling block, is on board. The US, which was a leader, and a global architect of Solar Power, is now out of the top 10 producers, and manufacturers. We lost the lead, and now, we're buying Chinese made product, since the man in office has slapped huge taxes on US companies making solar AND cut taxes on Oil and Gas.
As for Greta's age? Doesn't matter. The message is right on.
We're ignoring the future.
I see it personally in the shore lines, marshes and fields where I shoot my photos.
I see the migrating species patterns changed, because of how the warming of oceans has affected marine life. Same with how the climate has changed the patterns of the birds, and plants.
A non-scientific emotional temper tantrum is right?
lol.. How dare you Bluefin! How dare you.
Totally kidding, I got over it. I'm not voting for any carbon tax deals until there is some science to support it
And that's a fact. :) (no tone here)
First I don't have a favorite study. As you said there is no consensus on a solution, so the solution might be found in a combination of methods. I also note that quite a number of the links and comments to this post do not actually attempt to answer your questions.
I don't believe there's a "what if" when we speak of global climate change. Yes there are new studies all the time giving us additional data, but for the most part scientists have been saying that this phenomena exists. The only thing that has changed are the theoretical models for when where and how much.
Not that I have any credentials to be an expert, but I did major in international environmental policy at school and attended a work study in Bonn Germany, an global climate study agency which is now part of a scientific research and policy study center for the United Nations. I know a bit about the history of climate change policy.
Before I point out a few studies, I'd like to drop this link.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
NASA guys. the people who put man on the moon. chock full of scientists who study things on the behalf of US taxpayers. So unless you are flat earthers, these guys have creds. who supports Nasa? The US Government. Who has been suppressing climate change statistics for years? The US Government. Why? because it would hurt business and the economy. The Center in Bonn knew this over thirty years ago, when the US refused to sign the first UN Treaty for Climate Change
https://time.com/5677474/americans-disapprove-trump-climate-change-views/
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/climate-change.html
Sure, those are shitty news references. But they do give credence to the fact that there is a schism in the government between scientists and politicians.
down the bottom of that first link are 15 citations/references for where Nasa derives their facts. One of those is from the NOAA, another federally funded govt agency that Trump did not want to fund, yet was forced to in order to get what he wanted.
Now here is where we stop and query.. if the US scientists and the scientists in the UN both believe that climate change is a thing, why would government leaders want you to believe that its not? money. what kind of legislation are they proposing to combat climate change? Things that make the government money. Self interest.
Here are two other studies that talk about possible solutions to climate change. The first is a European study from Crowther Labs, funded by a grant from the Dutch foundation DOB Ecology, (which funds long-term research projects into climate change and forest restoration). If you look at their partners, its basically scientists supporting other scientists. You cant read the actual study unless you are a member - some scientists are snooty AF. But you can read the abstract and get a synopsis here. If you read this link you can see a short comment from people who probably peer reviewed it. Just a point: it's difficult (for me at least) to find out who peer reviewed something unless you can go to the library and spend time looking at scientific journals
The studies lead person is a Belgian ecologist who has done years of work in the field. Here is a list of some of his scientific studies.
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/climate-change-solutions/
https://riskcenter.wharton.upenn.edu/climate-risk-solutions/
This is getting really long so Im just gonna link the second study, which talks about various proposals to help deal with climate change. IMho some are interesting, others ridiculous. But the idea is to get the ball rolling about talking about solutions, and circumventing the current government, who doesn't want to deal with the issue at all.
I know I'll probably get some trolls on this who are anti climate change. thats fine. I'm entitled to my opinion. And I did actually link scientific data from known scientists.
If you don't get trolled on Steem you are playing to safely.
I appreciate the you actually read the post and responded to it, instead of just leaping into the same old argument and in response I will read your links.
@torico: THX a lot!
Another case of Simpsons did it
.
Case closed. If Simpsons predicted it, it means it's true.
It is funny because it is true! The Simpsons, the 20th and 21st Centuries' Nostradamus, and we don't have to wait hundreds of years for the predictions to come true!
I know right! Some are a little disturbing tbh.
Too bad the creator went woke. Hate when that happens to an otherwise good show. 😞
Heres she is! A pic with her Grandpa George Sorros, who organizes world wide cabal rallies. Ohh I think orange is the new black. Gitmobound!!
Posted using Partiko Android
I guess it depends what side you are on whether or hate Koch or Sorros.
They both seem creepy as hell to me.
Which one is fake? Both? (I guess)
Posted using Partiko Android
I would guess both also
The force is (Maurice) Strong with this one.
Posted using Partiko Android
Excellent post.. Lets take the emotion out of a factual debate. But then there wouldn't be an hysterical rush to just "do something".
I couldn’t disagree more that climate change is political. You have climate deniers leading both America and Australia and yet the public is calling out for change given that so many of us recognise the urgent need for change.
And as a scientist, I can see very clearly that the science does indeed stack up.
I don’t feel the need to quote studies or authors. Very simply, it’s illogical to think that digging up and pumping millions of tonnes of ancient carbon into the atmosphere while clearing more than 50% of our planets remnant vegetation won’t have some type of impact on our climate.
And people claiming that we should take a “do nothing” approach are the most dangerous people in power right now.
Posted using Partiko iOS
I walked out of my nice warm living room this morning and went outside. Outside was fken freezing cold. So yeah, climate change is real, felt it myself. :)
Hi, @whatsup!
You just got a 0.29% upvote from SteemPlus!
To get higher upvotes, earn more SteemPlus Points (SPP). On your Steemit wallet, check your SPP balance and click on "How to earn SPP?" to find out all the ways to earn.
If you're not using SteemPlus yet, please check our last posts in here to see the many ways in which SteemPlus can improve your Steem experience on Steemit and Busy.
How many people in this forum know about AND can explain the existence of meltwater pulses 1A (14700 years before present (yBP)- 13500 yBP), 1B (11600 yBP - 11300 yBP), 1C (8200 yBP-7600 yBP)? Just to give you a hint, there was no industrial human activity in those days and the population of humans was about 1 million.
Bitcoin hash rate mysteriously dropped 40% after Greta's appearance in the UN? Then, it's followed by massive sell off. Coincidence? I think not!
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-network-hash-rate-mysteriously-flash-crashes-by-40
All of you should be outraged. Science or not. She just made you all poorer.
/s
Here is a funny argument pointing to the idea that "smart money" doesn't believe in sea levels rising up. If banks thought coastlines would drowned in the short or medium term, they wouldn't be massively investing in beach condos.
(voice is Dan Pena; video is South Park)
Posted using Partiko Android
Great point. Except for one thing: Remember how banks are too big to fail? If climate change is the existential threat as described and they lose $1 Trillion by ignoring the threat, they know they will get bailed out. There's no reason to consider it. That's text-book malinvestment.
Besides that, there is plenty of money to earn from these investments until its too late to sell them. So on the short term its definitely worth it.
Good point. I hadn't tought about banks maybe being too big to sink yet again.
Posted using Partiko Android
Cool. I shared a video from this guy on @drakos post as well concerning this topic of climate change. This is my favorite climate change study/commentary. The video I shared is very non-partisan and not filled with a great load of academic speak or political overtones. It presents facts.
I have read a great many of the comments and information shared. Some are very thoughtful comments and I have learned a great deal. Some comments have been just mean and insulting, contributing very little to the conversation; I guess due to frustration and preconceived notions.
The climate is changing and has been changing for billions, millions, thousands and hundreds of years. I have seen the climate change in my short time on earth as has everyone else. The bottom line is, weather patterns have been changing, period.
The whole CO2 (carbon dioxide) thing, which many commentators kept posting about on @drakos post? Most of us get it, as does any 11 year old child that has been paying attention in science class.
CO2 is good for plant growth. It is an essential ingredient in the process of photosynthesis (how organisms, like plants and algae, make food for themselves using sunlight and H20 [water]). Then these organisms fart oxygen (O). Thank you plants and algae for flatulating, we appreciate it!
Now CO (carbon monoxide)? Not good. Don't believe me? Put a car in a confined space and run the engine with the windows down for a couple of hours and let me know how that works out for you. I remember smog (smoke and fog), which was still a problem back in the early '80s, when I was stationed in California with the military. I also experienced a type of smog when I served in the Middle East during the Persian Gulf War as the oil fields were set on fire. Part of my lung is calcified. This is a common malady experienced by a number of Persian Gulf Veterans. No worries, it is not serious the VA tells me.
Long before modern medicine, there were terrible diseases that killed children. Polio, scarlet fever, black plague, malaria, measles, small pox, etc. Due to medical (scientific) intervention, these diseases have been fought with a great deal of success. Should we not look to preserve human life the same way with the changes in the climate? As the fellow who hosts Answers with Joe summarizes in the video I shared,
I, for one, am not going to help that process speed along.
Hi @whatsup, thank you very much for this post!
As you expected, all the arguments of Greta supporters boil down to this:
Soooo, you're not a climate scientist, but you know how science works? XD
Of course, because all those decades of studying people invested in order to be able to even understand complex and difficult phenomenon can be actually replaced with couple of hours/days of internet surfing. Especially when you have the right sources ;)
I'm a molecular biologist with a PhD and several years of working experience in scientific research, so I know very well what I'm talking about.
Nowadays, everyone thinks that they can think scientifically, not being aware that scientific thinking is a extremely difficult way of thinking for humans, since it's in collision with our nature to see the world through biases.
Even most of the scientists are having an extremely hard time to learn how to think scientifically (yes, it's something you learn for years how to do), and to remove all personal biases from the experimental method. What do you think, what percentage of scientific papers get rejected from good journals? Way more than it gets accepted! :)
And I'm sure all of you people actually read those studies, and assessed them critically, using your highly developed scientific way of thinking, since you cannot name a single one of them :)
In best case scenario, those who decided to really dig into it, they will refer to certain article or video made by some journalist, who understands science the same way they do :)
The same goes for this one - which scientists, what are their scientific background, how many references and citations they have, etc?
Again, I'm sure all of you people know everything about scientific methods, and what represents high quality scientific method. Because after 7 years of working as a scientific researcher and training my brain to think scientifically, I still have struggles determining what is a good scientific method for the hypothesis I want to test.
But I'm probably just dumb, unlike all of you, shiny, spotless minds :)
In the end, when they fail to provide an answer to any of the reasonable questions, and when you don't swallow the "convincing story" they gave you, the conclusion is always the same:
Rhetorical and psychological manipulation of complete devaluation of a person asking questions, to the point where that person is nothing but a dumb, crazy "science denier" and one shouldn't even try engaging in a dialog with such person.
It's useful as engaging in a dialog with a cockroach, for crying out loud! XD
Really appreciate your post and your willingness to jump into the boiling water and get burned!
Resteemed for visibility!
That's why there is peer review of scientists of this particular area and not a quorum of random people deciding if they believe this study or not. While I think peer review is certainly not perfect.
The number of studies which could not be published in a well reviewed journal and later on were proven right after all is relatively low (There are some studies on that).
In the current climate debate we can see a number of things though:
a) Most deniers use either studies which were never published anywhere
b) Or they wrongly interpret existing studies
c) Or they do some wacky experiments and claim they work fine
If you don't believe in climate change I advice you to check out the videos of Potholer I linked above, he has a very scientific stance on the things but he pretty much shows clearly which side in this discussion is currently far ahead.
I am not saying that it is impossible that one day some smart guy finds out we were wrong all along, but for the time being man made climate change is the state of the art and until now no one had enough scientific proof to prove it otherwise.
I didn't deny climate change, and I didn't even deny man made climate change. Which is what is funny here.
The politics are... Science has determined this thing is real... (I'm still in agreement)
Now that we have identified a problem we are going to save you... just send money...
But there is no consensus on the solution. I am not sure why that is so hard to grasp.
Oh, my response was to the author above and not to you to be honest.
I believe there is no consensus to a solution yet because it is two fold:
And most people like to choose #2 =D
I find it really sweet and amusing that a person who obviously has no scientific experience, and who obviously didn't even bother to read what I wrote in my comment, comes to conclusion that I, a PhD scientist, don't believe in climate change and even gives me a suggestion on how to educate myself properly on the topic :)
But never mind, I have already stated in couple of comments that I'm not falling for scare-mongering, and for the fear of “reductio ad Hitlerium” :)
However, more than of curiosity than of the respect for the author of the comment, I actually went and checked out the video of the mentioned journalist (not scientist) Potholer, named How accurate are scientific predictions about climate?, in hope I would really find real scientific papers cited, but instead I found nothing but links to certain websites and to mainstream media news.
Since @raycoms said:
I assume that you read bunch of papers backing up the claims of your prophet Greta as well, so would really like to kindly ask you to provide me with links to the peer-reviewed scientific papers (not links to websites, and certainly not links to Youtube videos) stating/proving the following things:
Climate change is man-made, and to what percent;
How much will the average global temperature rise, if we continue burning fossil fuels in the way we do now, and for how much time we can expect that to happen;
What sorts of consequences will man-kind face (in details) and why, if the temperature rises for insert the number from the paper cited in 2 degrees;
What are the CO2 emissions per capita by the country (USA, China, India...) currently, and what sort of trend do those emissions exhibit during the past say, 50 years for each country;
What kind of lifestyle changes should people adopt, to what extent, in which countries, what would be the cost of those changes (strictly economically speaking) and how exactly countries plan to pay for it;
If countries from 5 manage to achieve Utopian, best case scenario, in which countries from 5 manage to decrease CO2 emissions by the planned amount, what would be the actual influence on the global temperature cited in 2?
Only when you and/or other people who think exactly like you that they know everything they should know about the man made climate change, provide answers to all these questions, only then you can consider that you know what you're talking about, and only then, you can have a normal, rational, science-based discussion with me.
Sorry miss " PhD scientist", I of course wanted to say "man made climate change denier" and not just climate change denier. So yes, I read your comment.
No reason to get personal in this discussion either, I'm a P.h.D student myself. If you want to have a scientific argument, leave personal attacks out of it. You should know that.
The video you ended up clicking on was him debunking the claims of someone else (Usually possible even only using the materials the person provided themselves). If you want a video with more scientific papers:
In terms of "Prophet Greta", those are your words and not mine, I'm interested in our climate and our environment for a long time and not only since Greta, for me she is just one of the people who are taking this interest mainstream, not more and not less.
Before I get all the work to search out papers (especially for 1 and 2) for all these things. Can we agree on Co2 and the Sun being the two main drivers of climate change. Or do I have to send Papers proving the influence of Co2 on the climate too?
3: Research that yourself, the list of scientific papers on this is quite exhaustive. Ranging from more extreme weather events including droughts, raising desertification, etc.
4: Why do I have to send this to you, if you actually want to know the truth you should dig this out yourself.
5: Is not only important in terms of climate change but in terms of pollution in general. Air pollution, drink water pollution, sea pollution and with that our food and body gets polluted as well.
In these terms, what countries don't pay for right now, they will have to pay extra later to clean up the pollution they cause.
There is no free lunch, all those resources we're spending are not infinite. There is not infinite clean water, not infinite fossil fuels, no infinite metals and no infinite clean air. All these are finite resources. One way or another we have to pay for it eventually. And I'm responsible enough to pay my part of the bill right now and not leave it to my grandchildren or later.
That's great, and very amazing to see that people (including yourself) are interested in climate and our environment. I couldn't agree more.
But you haven't provided me with any of the scientific papers I asked you from 1 - 6 (only videos which are not scientific evidence), which should be nothing but the piece of cake for you, since you're claiming you know everything you need to know about the topic. I would expect that you have a folder on your desktop with all these papers, all read and critically analyzed. I would expect nothing less from a person who is making such claims, and is a PhD student. Again, I think that's absolutely amazing that so many young people know so much about this very complex issue, but without citing scientific papers (with DOI please, so I can find them), your claims are unsupported, which of course, you should know, as a PhD student :)
If you read carefully my questions from 1 - 6, you should note that I never asked for papers on Co2 and the Sun being the drivers of climate change.
Yes please, and I think it would be a very good exercise for you as a PhD student (may I know what are you studying?), I always ask my PhD students to search for relevant scientific publications by themselves.
So - data, numbers, models, plots, etc.
As a PhD student I'm sure you know that every claim should be backed up with a reference of a scientific paper, and when a reviewer asks of you to provide a reference for certain claim in your paper, do you tell him - look it up yourself? This is not how science is done, the famous science you hold on to so much.
So please, as a PhD student and a future scientist, provide references for all your claims, and for the claims of the people you support (because I'm sure they already provided them for you, otherwise, you wouldn't listen to them, right?), because otherwise, all those claims are just empty words, and have no weight.
I thought you informed yourself a bit about this issue already.
The narrative is the following:
Co2 and Sun influence the climate mainly (other drivers exist too but those didn't change significantly in the last decades)
We produce a lot of Co2
Hence the temperature rises.
Man made climate change deniers in this sense can be grouped in a couple of groups:
Deniers that Co2 increases the temperature
(People who deny the greenhouse effect, etc)
Deniers who think that the quantity of Co2 we emitted is not significant enough to make a difference.
In order to give you the right papers, I will need to know in which of these groups you fit.
Again, come back to the first comment, and provide papers to the questions I asked. They are pretty well defined and precisely asked.
If you can, of course, because based on your moderately skillful deflecting and avoiding the answer by asking me questions so that you can give the answer that you want, and not the ones I asked, it becomes more evident that you can't ;)
I hope in the next comment you'll prove me wrong and demonstrate your proficiency and knowledge about the topic, with scientific papers providing answers to the precisely asked questions, which I'll copy-paste for you so that you don't have to bother:
Climate change is man-made, and to what percent?
How much will the average global temperature rise, if we continue burning fossil fuels in the way we do now, and for how much time we can expect that to happen;
What sorts of consequences will man-kind face (in details) and why, if the temperature rises for insert the number from the paper cited in 2 degrees;
What are the CO2 emissions per capita by the country (USA, China, India...) currently, and what sort of trend do those emissions exhibit during the past say, 50 years for each country;
What kind of lifestyle changes should people adopt, to what extent, in which countries, what would be the cost of those changes (strictly economically speaking) and how exactly countries plan to pay for it;
If countries from 5 manage to achieve Utopian, best case scenario, in which countries from 5 manage to decrease CO2 emissions by the planned amount, what would be the actual influence on the global temperature cited in 2?
1: This took longer than I wanted it to, because I have to find the papers about increase in temperature, increase in carbon and the correlation then (That's why I wanted to restrict it)
Increase in temperature:
doi:10.1029/2018JD029522
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1228026
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0606291103
Increase in carbon:
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702737104
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.07.001
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812721106
https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo689
Is it the sun?
doi: 10.1029/2002JA009753
https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009753
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/014006
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2007.0348
For even more information there are these too (these are from the video):
These are mostly on the correlation of co2 and temperature
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2005.11.031
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/enviropol/EnviroPhilo/Phanerozoic.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1994)022<0295:BAIEFA>2.3.CO;2
https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD02521
https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1997)025<0447:AAPCTF>2.3.CO;2
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-0182(99)00046-2
https://doi.org/10.1130/G21219.1
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560...19U
How much is man made:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<3721:CONAAF>2.0.CO;2
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3966.1
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107
On scientific consensus in the topic (if climate change is mainly man made):
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Now, how much percent exactly climate change is man made varies from paper to paper. But most of them agree that the majority of it is man made.
I give you time to respond to this while I work on 2 and 3.
Again for 5 and 6.
This is not so easy to assess, since we can barely forecast how the economy would behave even without climate change, co2 taxes or similar. There are too many variables in this.
But, as I will show in 3) The cost of not doing anything, on the long term will be always lower than the cost of doing something.
In the best case scenario we will not decrease, we will stabelize the temperature (I will give a paper for that thing with 2).
@scienceangle:
let me compare it to your field of studies:
its like someone writing an article that this whole theory about genes and how they work is a complete hoax of the pharma industry, so that all gore and their clan can mange our economy, and that the science debate is not yet settled.
And while 97% of all biology / biotech researcher have no doubt that genes work as they work, I will show you youtube videos of some random guys being no biology scientists claiming that it is all a hoax and I demand from you that you value it the same and take them seriously as the stuff you learned in your biology university studies.
You are making a completely false analogy.
Right analogy:
I don t agree with your analogy
and there is no need to bring greta in.. if you want to bring greta in, its like this:
97% of all scientists agree that smoking can cause lung cancer..
greta screams: prohibit or tax smoking
others are screeming: get this communist bitch of m back.. thats all a hoax.. cancer has been there since birth of humankind.. its all just to destroy the land of the free...
and taxes? forget tax increases.. we are taxed enough.. we need a price for carbon so that it is priced in.. if the revenues of that go to the government by tax or fees or whatever the government should drop other taxes to offset..
if governments do not get it right this does not mean carbon needs no price.. that just means that our political elite is utterly stupid
You are as naive as your child prophet.
Would you take a gun and attack China for pollution?
Would you take a gun and kill Indian cows maybe?
Would you lake a walk to Saudi Arabia and make them polute less?
I know, I know, you are a keyboard warrior pussy
Even if they decide to cut the emissions, tell me:
Bonus questions: Oncle the blody Arctic melts down, tell me:
interesting.. civilized discussion until this point... and now you enter...
I will not discuss and interact with someone as rude as you are!
this is STEEM and not fucking FB!
over and out
At least, I'm not ideologically possessed moron as you are
And as you provided 0 answers to my simple questions - you are a moron
are you aware that you call someone publicly out a moron and a pussy with whom you in the past already had some constructive and interesting discussions with and that frequently upvoted your content?
congrats! great accomplishment!
I’m really sorry I missed this comment of yours in the rewarding period, @scienceangel. But I will make a post dedicated to your brilliant answer, Bravo! :)
A couple of Irish scientists (father and son) did some brilliant work on the earths atmosphere a few years ago but it was never really covered by the MSM and I only found it recently. I've read through the summary of thier work (linked below) and have downloaded and printed out all three of the papers they published (only read the first one so far). What they appear to have done is disprove the 'greenhouse effect theory' which underpins the entire global warming narrative. (Is it true that one of Greta's relatives was the author of the greenhouse effect theory, I'm sure I read it somewhere recenty).
Since the man made global warming theory is dependent on the greenhouse effect theory being true, by disproving the greenhouse effect theory they have in effect disproven the man made global warming theory. When I read the summary initially I couldn't believe it and expected to find it had been debunked or something but as far as I can tell is has just been ignored. The data they used is available to the public, their calculations and formulas are available to the public and the experiments they did are repeatable.
I'm not a scientists so I am open to the idea that this could be another distraction but if these guys are for real and their experiments and data is to be believed, man made global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.
Anyway, here's a link to the summary which also links to the papers which can be downloaded. The comments are worth reading too as it's worth noting that the authors consistently reply and defend their conclusions in a polite and scientific way.
I'll be interested to know what people think of this.
One thing I know for sure. The science is not settled because science is never settled so Greta is lying when she claims it is.
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/
Jim
Edited to add the summary & conclusion for those too lazy/busy to read the entire thing as it's a bit of a long read.
Science is settled until proven otherwise, there are numerous attempts "proving" the current model wrong. Unfortunately, these either don't pass peer review or are not even submitted for peer review, or can be easily proven wrong themselves.
How could the science have ever been settled if at some point in the future it is proven to be wrong? The idea of consensus in science or that science is settled is ridiculous. The great thing about the study I linked is that anybody, should they have the time or inclination can download the publically available weather balloon data along with the formulas and calculations used in the study and check for themselves. They can also repeat the experiements. The greenhouse effect is a theory which has never been proven experimentally and it appears that it has been proven wrong by the Connelly's.
The man made global warming theory depends on the greenhouse effect theory being correct. If it is not, then the entire thing collapses.
That is why this study is so important.
Also, the peer review process and climate science in general is so corrupt it is a joke.
So, I'll ask you a little question. Who has more powerful interest in this, the fossil fuel lobby or everyone else? One of the most powerful lobbies in the history of mankind or everyone else?
The man made global warming theory depends on Co2 affecting temperature or not, but this has been proven numerous times. Empirically, through the history of our planet it has been doing that. Sometimes lagging warming caused by sun and causing a little extra before reaching equilibrium sometimes caused by extreme events.
Check out the videos of Potholes I linked in a comment above. I read a bunch of papers against global warming today and did my homework. Now you do the same and check out some of the global warming videos of potholer.
Btw, about the "study" of the two "scientists" which published this in their own journal, couldn't even get a conservative journal to accept it.
https://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2014/02/global-warming-solved-in-open-peer.html
Where are you getting your information about it being proven that CO2 drives temperatures? It has not been proven and in fact appears to be disproven by historic data. There are many problems with the man made warming theory, not least of which is the fact that every single prediction (theory) they come up with is not born out by actual observations/data which leads me to believe their models are wrong but rather than admit this they just change the parameters of their model and run it again in the hope it will tell them what they want to hear (all the models depend on Co2 driving temps being true and that the greenhouse effect theory is true)
If you did your homework you wouldn't be claiming the science is settled or claiming that CO2 drives temperatures.
I'll watch the videos but why don't you read the study I sent to because it appears to prove the very basis of the man made warming theory wrong. If you can point out where they made a mistake or how they are wrong I will be very interested (genuinely)
The science definately isn't settled and it doesn't really matter who has a interest in it. The truth is eternal and what is being claimed by the IPCC is either right or wrong and based on the levels of fraud and data manipulation that has already been uncovered along with the fact that my coastal city is still at the same level above sea level as it was 20 years ago, I suggest they are wrong.
I read parts of it, then I wondered where they published and noticed they created their own peer review journal to publish it. This means probably the scientific community rejected it.
Thus, it probably means that their results are skewed.
I'm not a climate scientists neither am I investing significant amount of time in becoming one (Actually I'm getting a P.h.D in computer science) so it is easy to write a paper where you come to a different conclusion. It is difficult to write such a paper with enough evidence to convince the current scientific community.
Current IPCC climate science is based mainly on modelling and this modelling is done with two basic assumptions built into the model. The first being that the greenhouse effect theory is true and the second being that CO2 drives temperatures. If either of those two assumptions are incorrect the whole MMGW theory falls down.
It is easy to dismiss something based on the idea that because it hasn't been peer reviewed by mainstream journals it isn't worth reading but when you look into the peer review process or how corrupt the scientific establishment is you realise this is a mistake. You use the word 'probably' a couple of times as a reason to dismiss what is presented and this is what most people do. They have a religious like belief in 'science' and 'scientists' which is why we hear Greta constantly banging on about how we should trust the science and how it is settled when we cannot and it is not.
Here are a couple of videos explaining how bad things are
https://www.corbettreport.com/how-bad-global-warming-science-hurts-the-environmental-movement/
https://www.corbettreport.com/the-crisis-of-science/
Were you aware of how many experiments included in peer reviewed papers were unrepeatable? Once you start looking into this stuff it's pretty shocking.
Good luck with your PhD. At least computer science is logical (I assume). I like it when things are either true or false and there are no bones about it.
Thanks for taking the time to engage.
Future predictions are based on models, the effect off co2 on climate is mostly based on empiric data about the ice sheets and co2 levels in the past.
This coupled with models of the sun activity (also from empiric data and physics) results in a pretty strong relationship between these.
I do know a lot about the problems of peer review and not repeatable experiments. I mean, the reviewers can't simply try to repeat all the experiments before approving it, they simply don't have the time for that, they have to trust the data presented, in most cases its a question of reputation. Like, a professor at a university has a lot to lose when providing invalid data. He might lose his job easily if it comes out.
But not only that, we also have to rely on a system where other scientists after you published your study will try to repeat your experiments to try to "proof" your claims wrong.
I read many scientific studies in fields of my interest outside of computer science (as you said, Computer Science as Maths and big parts of Physics are easier since most things can be proven quite easily) and quite often I read several papers where they tried to repeat the data of another study and were not able to.
A possible way to fix the current system is by encouraging people to do so more often by rewarding this more strongly.
I agree. Since we are all 'peers' as far as humanity goes, more people, especially those not invloved in the scientific community should be encouraged to get involved where possible. For example, although it might be difficult for me to repeat some of the experiments done in the linked study due to lack of equipment/knowledge/skill, there is no reason why I could not find others who have the knowledge/skills/equipment that I lack. Everyone has something they can contribute and the way 'science' and 'scientists' are being portrayed as some sort of religion which cannot be questioned is dangerous. Greta is effectively telling people to not think for themselves or do any research for themselves because 'science' has settled it. This is dangerous in my opinion (and untrue) and even more so in this case because of where I believe the global warming hoax is designed to lead humanity.
For parts this is happening a lot already. Numerous studies get revoked every year because results where either not repeatable or even found incorrect. Especially in nutrition this is happening very strongly at the moment.
I somewhat agree and disagree, I think a lot of these kids are putting "their" scientists as "perfect". But, I agree on a lot of other points. From all the scientific evidence we have, man made climate change is currently the state of the art (and I'm not a specialist of the area to unproof it, but I invite anyone to go into this area, get a degree and do their own research and try to publish it through the process, and try to unproof all other related works).
Nevertheless, where do you think "this hoax" is leading humanity. To a more sustainable lifestyle?
I think it is not a matter of opinion that humans are taking more resources from our planet than our planet can sustain even on the mid term. With increasing industrialization other countries won't allow to be explored for their resources anymore and will want to spend their resources themselves which further intensifies this crisis.
We only have one planet (at least for quite a while) with a somewhat working ecosystem (or what is left from it). If we destroy that, we destroy the future of our species on this planet too.
What is really dangerous is where the fossil fuel lobby is taking us, short term profit thinking is destroying our nature and ecosystems and will make it for future generations very very difficult.
What we spend now, will not be left to spend for future generations.
no no no and no!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
Greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without this atmosphere.Radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) in a planet's atmosphere radiate energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it. The intensity of the downward radiation – that is, the strength of the greenhouse effect – will depend on the atmosphere's temperature and on the amount of greenhouse gases that the atmosphere contains.
Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is critical to supporting life, and initially was a precursor to life moving out of the ocean onto land.
That is a poor reply. The greenhouse effect is a theory which has not been proven and I suggest that the study I linked proves it wrong. Since the greenhouse effect thoery has been around and accepted for a long time I don't need to read it again but maybe you should read the study I linked and see if you feel the same way. The greenhouse effect theory posits that different levels of the earths atmosphere can have different properties but what the data and experiments in the linked study appear to show is that there is equilibrium between all levels. I don't think you realise how damaging the study is to not just the greenhouse effect theory but the entire man made global warming theory if the results/data and experiments are correct.
I've read about the greenhouse effect 'theory' and I've also read the linked study that uses experimentation and real data and appears to 'prove' it wrong. Why don't you read the study and come back and show me where they have made a mistake or where they are wrong ? I spent at least an hour reading the commments at the end of the linked study in which many people put forward arguements, all of which (as far as I could tell) were responded too by the scientists involved.
As I've said, everything they have done and all the data they used is available for anyone to check including you. It could all be bullshit of course but if is it let it be proven wrong by checking the data and experiments. The IPCC consistently make claims which are not backed up by observation yet still they continue to make more claims based on the same models which all assume that CO2 drives temps and the greenhouse effect is real. If either of those things are not true the entire house of cards falls down.
I do not have to, because many others did it already:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/the-greenhouse-effect/
look at the comments section ;-)
In general:
I very much support! their attempt to proof basic physics and chemistry and climate science wrong! As this is would be the normal process how mistakes in science are corrected...
BUT! there are some basic principles how that work has to be done and to ensure this there is something called the peer review BEFORE you post it to the public...
.. basically: You find scientists that have a look on your findings and give you feedback if your paper makes sense...
and that's exactly what they did NOT do... and as they claim to reverse basic physics and chemical and climate science knowledge of more than 100 years but had NO one qualified check it, I just refuse to waste my time with that... hence I wrote you the links to where the science is described as it actually is....
.. I already had a similar discussion controversy many years ago... if you claim that all the physics and chemistry books published in the last 50 years are wrong you have to come up with the proof, not the other way around!
They have come up with proof but you said you ’won't waste your time’ looking into it. Is the greenhouse effect a theory or not? Has it been proven? If so point me to where. I've already posted about how the peer review process is corrupt as well as climate science in general. How do you know there are mistakes in their findings if you won't even check? Another weak reply. If they have interpreted the data and experiment results incorrectly you or anyone else including ’climate scientists’ are able to check for yourselves because they have published everything publically.
The fact that they have been attacked yet as far as I am aware nobody had been able to find problems with the data or experiments speaks volumes. The main contributor in the comments section you linked also contributed many times in the comments section of the piece I linked and every one of their queries was responded to by the authors of the study.
no.. I looked into it and my personal belief is, that they have major flaws in their papers...
but as I am not a scientist I will not make that bold claim here... and I will not elaborate about that... because I am not a physics or chemistry MSC
.. which I do not have to as there is a general accepted method of how this has to be done to be accepted as scientific work.. which they have not done..
and by the way.. they worked on papers payed for by the heartland institute defaming greenpeace for example... not what I would call indepent..
just my 5 cents
It makes no difference to me whether you have a PhD, MSC or if you work for the BBC. Your opinion/belief is of interest to me so don't shy away from elaborating on my behalf.
Your final point regarding previous work and funding has no bearing on the papers we are discussing. If there is something wrong with the science/data then let people find it and point it out to the authors.
The balloon data can be checked/verified. The experiments recreated. The equations and physical laws used can be tested/verified.
Bear in mind that the papers being discussed were published in 2013 I would have expected someone to have exposed them by no. I was surprised I only heard about this in the past few months but then I remembered, if it's not published in a trusted science journal it isn't worth discussing 😜, even if peer review can be carried out by anyone in the world with access to the internet where the all the papers, data and methods are published.
Science isn't a religion. We are all scientists.
OK.. my 5 cents:
I believe that their paper/studies actually doesn't proof their conclusion: They seem to agree that there is a GHG effect - just as described by science- but say it is less than what science claims.. and at the end conclude there is no man made global warming.. which neglects some of their prior findings.. that's the first thing I do not get.. so the question is if their experiment really does proof what they think it does... and then the discussion below my link starts in that other blog about exactly that and at the end they/he just did not respond any more at the time it was really getting down to crunch time...
.. and there are other people in that comments section as well who ask them to give their paper to a peer review as this is the best way to get expert feedback.. what they seem not have done since 5 years...
they mention all over their page that they are independent and I just say that if someone is sponsored for a greenpeace defaming paper by the heartland institute I certainly doubt their independence...
not saying this would be a reason for their paper to be wrong
My favourite climate study is the one by Exxon in the 70s that convinced them they had to spread confusion and misinformation about the topic to preserve their business model. It is an 'inconvenient truth' for believers in endless growth on a finite planet. Most of the voices declaring it is a fraud or non-issue seem to have a financial motive. The stalling they have achieved has made it ever harder to counter the effects of business as usual.
A lot of the actions we need to take will be unpopular and most politicians lack the courage to attempt them, but the public mood is changing.
Greta is an icon, but maybe we need a child to guilt politicians into action after they have ignored their own scientific advisors. The Trump efforts to erase any mention of climate change from government literature made their motives clear.
I don't think guilt is going to do the trick. I think it just looked ridiculous.
My usual repsect for you as you were able to read the post and respond to what I said and not just repeat the MSM lines.
Cheers.
I think it is a bit unfair that all the attention is on her, but she has become a figurehead. People say she is being paid, but do they have proof. I did see she won a 'peace prize'. I would expect she is not that interested in the money, but it's up to her what she does with it. We have seen that money does not always solve problems.
When I see people mention 'MSM' I tend to think they have bought into a certain mindset that 'dark forces' encourage. There are parts of the established media that I trust more than others. I am less like to trust a random vlogger or blogger. Just being on the internet does not necessarily make you credible. That goes for me too :)
Our news has become so tangled in politics and corporate money that it is unreliable at this point and there are very few standards of Journalism left, but there are agendas.
I agree that being a blogger does not make you creditable, (or me).. However, you can watch the same "News" here on two different channels and barely recognize the story due to the spin.
That is not dark forces that is just simply the fact that if you follow the ownership of the main media you can clearly find out who owns our "For Profit" news. That's not light and dark that is just money and news and ratings.
It's just business. :)
I do not think you can generalise about journalists. In many places in the world they risk prison or worse for reporting what is going on. Be grateful if you media is actually free to write what they like. Of course money is involved, but so is reputation. If you are caught out lying all the time you lose trust. Meanwhile we have a news source that is known for lying being the main source of news and general info for the most powerful man in the world whilst he condemns others as 'fake news'. Journalists in the USA have been killed at their desks by people influenced by him. You have to consider who has the most to lose from the truth getting out.
Both sides of our mainstream news is ruled by money and power. One can not deny that.
I watch both sides and believe the truth is in the middle. You can't look at the money on one side without looking at it on the other.
When people in the US say MSM we are just acknowledging that most of our media is owned by a small number of people, you could liken it to the whales on Steem.
Are there only two sides? There's a lot more money in oil and other vested interests. In the end it's all imperfect people with their own bias, but you can make some judgement on what that is.
Everyone who is so certain that climate change is something caused by man and can be controlled by man while simultaneously ignoring the primary impact of the sun and electrical forces that organizations such as the Thunderbolts Project reminds me of the western medical doctor who was absolutely certain that there is no validity to acupuncture but stated outright that he has never even investigated it.
Greta said the same thing that Hootie the Owl preaches. Give a hoot. Don’t pollute. She just said it shortsightedly, hatefully and hypocritically.
This might be of interest here. It's my meta look at the entire edifice of trying to use computer models to make climate predictions. I take my background writing a computer simulation of the flow of polymeric liquids and explain how that relates to trying to simulate the entire climate.
▶️ Watch on 3Speak
Let a comedian pick it apart
politicians do not care about climate change. and frankly there is no real good solution to the problem green energy is way to expensive right now in comparison to fossil fuels. No company will make the change if they can’t compete with others. To top it all of china and India are the top carbon emitters and they are not going to stop…..
Yup, let's change the conversation. See my post on the climate conference.
I am part of the generation that grew up trying to find ways to be green. Where does she get off? This is puppet paid for by the globalist George Soros. When you need change without question, put a kid out front. Sad...
So. I'm a somewhat conservative hipster.
Yes. Climate change is real and sucks.
I work at a coffee shop. I look like one of those whiney people who brings up these topics in conversation where it doesn't belong. Because I'm the cute barista in the flannel, they seem to think I harbor notions similar to them. It is saddening how intellectual diversity is discouraged.
Here's an example:
A customer and I were talking about how we're both artists. And she was saying she practices many art forms and that she feels obligated to pick one art form to stick with.
And I brought up Leonardo DaVinci, who engaged in dozens of different categories of artistry activities
She said
Well. He wasn't dealing with climate change.
.-. which suggests that because the Earth is aging and it's hot outside, that she is somehow put upon as a woman and artist.
Mr. DaVinci lived in a time where he was prosecuted for being gay..but at least it was nice outside.
The fuck.
The victimhood in our society is absurd. Some child crying solves nothing and in no way makes a point any more valid or important.
Just my two cents. C: