OtherGround Forums Climate "Experts" 0-41 With Doomsday Predictions!

9/21/19 1:57 PM
11/27/02
Posts: 17919
"Anyone who thinks humans can't affect the climate or the planet in general in other ways obviously doesn't know how the great dust bowl happened."

I don't think anyone thinks humans can't impact the climate or planet. The degrees and the severity in which they do so is debatable. Where the focus should be, what are the most pressing environmental issues, and the best solutions are all highly debatable.
9/21/19 2:02 PM
4/24/07
Posts: 39886
Sebastiaan - 
MattyECB -

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect cancer article... Does this mean cancer doesn't exist?

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect article on the mechanism behind tumor biopsies... Does this mean no one should ever get a cancer biopsy and testing done?

You look at a body of literature, not cherry-picked results. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of publications since your start point, and your handful of posts (most of which are not scientific articles but sensationalist bullshit) is supposed to prove something?

 

You can also avoid labs or people who make extreme predictions and focus on those with a long history of success and accurate predictions. And while we're on the subject of predictions, how about the fact that Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.

Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here. 

Not to mention, you were retarded enough to post real events that occurred but were PREVENTED by human action, e.g. the ozone. How the fuck are you going to claim the ozone was a hoax? Holy shit this site is retarded, between the anti-vaxx, anti-evolution, and anti-GMO sentiment, I guess this isn't even the worst demonstration of ignorance and misunderstanding. I agree scientists can be sensationalist and dip into exaggeration to push funding. Weaker labs fall into that behavior (particularly if speaking extomporaneously and not from a publication), but the body of evidence that humans are a major driver of temperature shifts is just ridiculous at this point, although once again, I'd be blown away if even a fucking FIFTH of the OG has ever actually sat down and downloaded a major review article on modeling and statistical efforts in deducing climate change. 

this man gets it ...


No he really doesn't. Smoking increases your chance of cancer. Not smoking doesn't mean you still won't get cancer. What's being suggested is that if not for "A", "B" would never happen. That's simply not true and there is about 4.6 billion years of history that backs that up. Predicting trends successfully doesn't prove that the culprit is in fact "Climate Change" only that we are very successful at predicting B follows A. 

Before you two go crazy on me, I'm not a climate change denier. I believe in a lot of the same principals, I am just not going to make extrodinary claims without the evidence to back them up. If you want to claim that fossil fuels don't help, I'm on board. Just like smoking doesn't help not get cancer. We should curb our fossil fuels but not just because of climate change. 

We need to stop dividing ourselves into these groups. We need to find things we agree on and work from there. 

9/21/19 8:12 PM
6/22/03
Posts: 6582
ziggystardust - 
Lazarus -
ziggystardust - 
Lazarus -
MattyECB - 

One of your headlines: Only Anti-Science Suckers Believe Climate Change Hysteria. 

As much as I dislike an appeal to authority, it's factual that the scientific community is virtually in universal agreement over anthropogenic global warming so this is just factually incorrect and retarded... Like most of your posts. 

Ironically, there is disagreement of the exten of human contribution and the modeling and degree of severity. There are disagreements and nuance in the community and as an easy mental exercise, you could just cut out all extreme outliers of, "the world is ending," and, "everything is fine" and you'd be left with an incredibly strong body of evidence showing humans are clearly impacting our temperature, and that this needs to be addressed.


As you indicated, the only real consensus is that humans are contributing to climate change. And you agree that there is legitimate debate over how severe the effects will be. It will (probably) be bad in areas like the Middle East, Africa, and the pacific islands. But lots of areas will be totally fine. Cold countries like Canada will probably benefit from it.

Hence, the widespread hysteria doesn't match the scientific consensus in any way. Which is kind of OP's point - fuck the doomsday predictions.

OP's point is that climate change, if it happens at all, is not caused by humans, because Big Industry sponsored articles tells him so and it makes him feel good to have the opposite opinion of liberals. 

You don't think there's need for widespread hysteria because only parts of the world will be fucked? You think you have a refugee problem now? You think there's stagnant economic development now? 

Besides, it's not just the areas you pointed out. Check what other parts of the world are on the same latitude as the Mid East. Then check coastal areas in general, Netherlands specifically, that are threatened as well. The Gulf Stream might not support Northern Europe's climate as much as it does today. When permafrost thaws in Siberia you run the risk of releasing additional greenhouse gases, creating a self generating reaction that humans can't affect.

Basically, we're up for some world altering changes and the Tragedy of the Commons indicates that we won't do enough about it. 


Ahh. The refugee boogie man, economic stagnation AND the runaway greenhouse effect all in one post. Impressive. You could get a job manufacturing hysteria.

Yes, I could. I understand how people like OP works and how you trigger them emotionally. 

But in this instance I'm only posting the logical conclusion of your statement that it will probably be bad in areas like the Mid East, Africa and the Pacifics. (And then I added the runaway greenhouse effect). 

I don't understand how one can make the statement you did and then conclude there's no need to be highly concerned. 

 


If we stick to the statements that I made, we can agree that it will likely be bad for some parts of the world. So yeah, there are global concerns. But we don't know how much concern (that's highly debatable) and we're not the ones who will suffer the most.

If you want to treat this issue as an ultra-priority in the name of saving India and the Middle East, or for reasons of ethics or international relations, then fine. But that's not the goods we are being sold. We are being bombarded with doomsday predictions and descriptions of climate change as an "existentialist threat". It's just not true.
9/21/19 9:20 PM
7/16/17
Posts: 229

Has the thought never occurred to you people that maybe just maybe, some of the environmental protections that have been put in place to prevent these cataclysms, or the incentives companies had to go green, or the breakthroughs in clean energy have all done their job?  Maybe all the states,companies,and countries that put the work in and made the investments in better more environmentally friendly tech did its job?

9/21/19 9:27 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 35195
thehoodedwonder139 - 

Has the thought never occurred to you people that maybe just maybe, some of the environmental protections that have been put in place to prevent these cataclysms, or the incentives companies had to go green, or the breakthroughs in clean energy have all done their job?  Maybe all the states,companies,and countries that put the work in and made the investments in better more environmentally friendly tech did its job?


I used a paper straw a couple weeks back and --from own my perspective-- things in the environment have gotten just a little bit better, since then.

It's small, but it's definitely there; temps seem a little bit more stable and the overall cleanliness of the air seems to be better too.

--Look, I'm not naive, I know there is more work to be done, but it feels like a really good start.



9/21/19 9:37 PM
4/24/07
Posts: 39899
thehoodedwonder139 - 

Has the thought never occurred to you people that maybe just maybe, some of the environmental protections that have been put in place to prevent these cataclysms, or the incentives companies had to go green, or the breakthroughs in clean energy have all done their job?  Maybe all the states,companies,and countries that put the work in and made the investments in better more environmentally friendly tech did its job?


No I never thought of it because they really don't. 

9/21/19 9:51 PM
11/10/18
Posts: 4192
thehoodedwonder139 -

Has the thought never occurred to you people that maybe just maybe, some of the environmental protections that have been put in place to prevent these cataclysms, or the incentives companies had to go green, or the breakthroughs in clean energy have all done their job?  Maybe all the states,companies,and countries that put the work in and made the investments in better more environmentally friendly tech did its job?

Chalk up another liberal victory!!! 

9/22/19 6:07 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 4214
MattyECB - 

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect cancer article... Does this mean cancer doesn't exist?

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect article on the mechanism behind tumor biopsies... Does this mean no one should ever get a cancer biopsy and testing done?

You look at a body of literature, not cherry-picked results. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of publications since your start point, and your handful of posts (most of which are not scientific articles but sensationalist bullshit) is supposed to prove something?

 

You can also avoid labs or people who make extreme predictions and focus on those with a long history of success and accurate predictions. And while we're on the subject of predictions, how about the fact that Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.

Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here. 

Not to mention, you were retarded enough to post real events that occurred but were PREVENTED by human action, e.g. the ozone. How the fuck are you going to claim the ozone was a hoax? Holy shit this site is retarded, between the anti-vaxx, anti-evolution, and anti-GMO sentiment, I guess this isn't even the worst demonstration of ignorance and misunderstanding. I agree scientists can be sensationalist and dip into exaggeration to push funding. Weaker labs fall into that behavior (particularly if speaking extomporaneously and not from a publication), but the body of evidence that humans are a major driver of temperature shifts is just ridiculous at this point, although once again, I'd be blown away if even a fucking FIFTH of the OG has ever actually sat down and downloaded a major review article on modeling and statistical efforts in deducing climate change. 


"Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.

Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here."


I have the “Confidential” Exxon(1982)/Shell(1988) reports in my files - written by the best scientists money can buy.

What they knew is unsettling, and their predictions/projections were eerily accurate.

I get paid to know about federal/state climate developments including pending lawsuits. The U.S. currently has about 700 climate-related lawsuits. Several are from CA cities/counties against big oil – with damages into the billions - testing creative theories of liability including: big oil had knowledge of the potential harm since 1968; they concealed known dangers while promoting ff use; and they engaged in a large PR campaign of climate denial to delay/prevent ghg regulations.

Maybe Exxon and Shell are making up the science in those reports as part of a liberal scheme to get our tax money. It makes sense since big oil is fighting for a carbon tax in exchange for settling the lawsuits...lol
Edited: 9/22/19 10:05 AM
7/4/11
Posts: 13203
David@accu -
Sebastiaan - 
MattyECB -

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect cancer article... Does this mean cancer doesn't exist?

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect article on the mechanism behind tumor biopsies... Does this mean no one should ever get a cancer biopsy and testing done?

You look at a body of literature, not cherry-picked results. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of publications since your start point, and your handful of posts (most of which are not scientific articles but sensationalist bullshit) is supposed to prove something?

 

You can also avoid labs or people who make extreme predictions and focus on those with a long history of success and accurate predictions. And while we're on the subject of predictions, how about the fact that Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.

Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here. 

Not to mention, you were retarded enough to post real events that occurred but were PREVENTED by human action, e.g. the ozone. How the fuck are you going to claim the ozone was a hoax? Holy shit this site is retarded, between the anti-vaxx, anti-evolution, and anti-GMO sentiment, I guess this isn't even the worst demonstration of ignorance and misunderstanding. I agree scientists can be sensationalist and dip into exaggeration to push funding. Weaker labs fall into that behavior (particularly if speaking extomporaneously and not from a publication), but the body of evidence that humans are a major driver of temperature shifts is just ridiculous at this point, although once again, I'd be blown away if even a fucking FIFTH of the OG has ever actually sat down and downloaded a major review article on modeling and statistical efforts in deducing climate change. 

this man gets it ...

 

No he really doesn't. Smoking increases your chance of cancer. Not smoking doesn't mean you still won't get cancer. What's being suggested is that if not for "A", "B" would never happen. That's simply not true and there is about 4.6 billion years of history that backs that up. Predicting trends successfully doesn't prove that the culprit is in fact "Climate Change" only that we are very successful at predicting B follows A. 

Before you two go crazy on me, I'm not a climate change denier. I believe in a lot of the same principals, I am just not going to make extrodinary claims without the evidence to back them up. If you want to claim that fossil fuels don't help, I'm on board. Just like smoking doesn't help not get cancer. We should curb our fossil fuels but not just because of climate change. 

We need to stop dividing ourselves into these groups. We need to find things we agree on and work from there. 

You missed my point entirely. The point I'm makings is how fundamentally flawed the OG's interpretation of science as a singular and mobolithic entity is. The amount of times I've seen someone post, look X exaggerated results or can't be replicated so ALL THE RESEARCH IN THAT FIELD IS WRONG...

 

Well guess what? Pre-clinical oncogenic trials can have replicability rates in the thirties and there have been fraud cases in virtually every area of science (or any field) because surprise surprise, people are shit and need careful oversight (there are also very significant barriers to overcoming bias and poor statistical methods when working across silo'ed resesrch groups but that's a whole other can of worms).

 

You're also horrifically misinterpeting my argument. I'm not saying humans are 100 percent responsible for climate change. Virtually no one is. In fact I've argued time and time again on the OG that there is nuance and shades of dissent in the field, both with timing and degree of variability contributed by humans. In fact I had posted a thread literally called shades of dissent with a series of against-the-grain, c9nservative climate estimates to show that there is disagreement on the matter, but disagreement over the degree and not whether it exists or whether humans have ANY influence.

 

Ironically, if humans have even a middling impact, then the best way to buy us time while we figure out better tech is through environmental policies that delay the current shift we're experiencing. I'm sorry, but you completely misunderstood my point snd then mischaracterized my argument by implying I was suggesting an all or nothing situation.

 

Edit: I made my first sentence a bit less cunty/faggy.

Edited: 9/22/19 10:06 AM
7/4/11
Posts: 13204
bjjdna -
MattyECB - 

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect cancer article... Does this mean cancer doesn't exist?

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect article on the mechanism behind tumor biopsies... Does this mean no one should ever get a cancer biopsy and testing done?

You look at a body of literature, not cherry-picked results. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of publications since your start point, and your handful of posts (most of which are not scientific articles but sensationalist bullshit) is supposed to prove something?

 

You can also avoid labs or people who make extreme predictions and focus on those with a long history of success and accurate predictions. And while we're on the subject of predictions, how about the fact that Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.

Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here. 

Not to mention, you were retarded enough to post real events that occurred but were PREVENTED by human action, e.g. the ozone. How the fuck are you going to claim the ozone was a hoax? Holy shit this site is retarded, between the anti-vaxx, anti-evolution, and anti-GMO sentiment, I guess this isn't even the worst demonstration of ignorance and misunderstanding. I agree scientists can be sensationalist and dip into exaggeration to push funding. Weaker labs fall into that behavior (particularly if speaking extomporaneously and not from a publication), but the body of evidence that humans are a major driver of temperature shifts is just ridiculous at this point, although once again, I'd be blown away if even a fucking FIFTH of the OG has ever actually sat down and downloaded a major review article on modeling and statistical efforts in deducing climate change. 


"Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.

Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here."


I have the “Confidential” Exxon(1982)/Shell(1988) reports in my files - written by the best scientists money can buy.

What they knew is unsettling, and their predictions/projections were eerily accurate.

I get paid to know about federal/state climate developments including pending lawsuits. The U.S. currently has about 700 climate-related lawsuits. Several are from CA cities/counties against big oil – with damages into the billions - testing creative theories of liability including: big oil had knowledge of the potential harm since 1968; they concealed known dangers while promoting ff use; and they engaged in a large PR campaign of climate denial to delay/prevent ghg regulations.

Maybe Exxon and Shell are making up the science in those reports as part of a liberal scheme to get our tax money. It makes sense since big oil is fighting for a carbon tax in exchange for settling the lawsuits...lol

The Exxon reports freaked me out because they were hidden and buried, and yet written at a time before this wasn't even a remotely hot button topic. Very little bias in the motivation of those reports to suggest fuckery.

Edited: 9/22/19 10:11 AM
7/4/11
Posts: 13205
thehoodedwonder139 -

Has the thought never occurred to you people that maybe just maybe, some of the environmental protections that have been put in place to prevent these cataclysms, or the incentives companies had to go green, or the breakthroughs in clean energy have all done their job?  Maybe all the states,companies,and countries that put the work in and made the investments in better more environmentally friendly tech did its job?

This is also why I get frustrated when the OG cites ozone or famine. The ENTIRE reason we've been able to beat famine predictions and beat Malthusian models (that humans grow geometrically but agriculture only grows linearly) is because of incredible advances in environmental and agro science. As I pointed out, the "BS" famine article was literally during the period that Norman Borlaug managed to game change the shit out of third world agriculture by exporting advanced science, and there was very sound reasoning to fear a huge famine.

 

I believe humans can overcome our environmental challenges, but we cant just assume it'll all work out. We need funding for vital renewable energies like nuclear (honestly any green plan is IMPOSSIBLE without nuclear, until we can advance solar wind and other alternative much farther ahead), and we need to reduce emissions and buy time while we work on better tech and strategies to combat any contributions humans have as well as any consequences of climate change (regardless of the granular details of what is driving them).

 

However, there is still great relevance in modeling CO2 impact because it can actually be a low hanging fruit to deal with if tech keeps moving in the right way. A lot of research is currently being poured into organisms that can remove CO2 and ideal set ups to drop emissions through them. 

9/22/19 10:04 AM
7/4/11
Posts: 13206

^^Having said that, I also agree environmentalists can get obnoxiously doomsday. There were at least a few of OPs bullet points I agree with. But again, I see a lot of shitty sciencr everywhere. It's why researchers interpret an article with huge trepidation and only after reading it themselves, looking into the lab, and seeking out independent studies, ideally that employ orthogonal strategies , which is a fancy way of saying very different experimental/analytic approaches.

9/22/19 10:09 AM
4/24/07
Posts: 39909
MattyECB - 
David@accu -
Sebastiaan - 
MattyECB -

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect cancer article... Does this mean cancer doesn't exist?

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect article on the mechanism behind tumor biopsies... Does this mean no one should ever get a cancer biopsy and testing done?

You look at a body of literature, not cherry-picked results. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of publications since your start point, and your handful of posts (most of which are not scientific articles but sensationalist bullshit) is supposed to prove something?

 

You can also avoid labs or people who make extreme predictions and focus on those with a long history of success and accurate predictions. And while we're on the subject of predictions, how about the fact that Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.

Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here. 

Not to mention, you were retarded enough to post real events that occurred but were PREVENTED by human action, e.g. the ozone. How the fuck are you going to claim the ozone was a hoax? Holy shit this site is retarded, between the anti-vaxx, anti-evolution, and anti-GMO sentiment, I guess this isn't even the worst demonstration of ignorance and misunderstanding. I agree scientists can be sensationalist and dip into exaggeration to push funding. Weaker labs fall into that behavior (particularly if speaking extomporaneously and not from a publication), but the body of evidence that humans are a major driver of temperature shifts is just ridiculous at this point, although once again, I'd be blown away if even a fucking FIFTH of the OG has ever actually sat down and downloaded a major review article on modeling and statistical efforts in deducing climate change. 

this man gets it ...

 

No he really doesn't. Smoking increases your chance of cancer. Not smoking doesn't mean you still won't get cancer. What's being suggested is that if not for "A", "B" would never happen. That's simply not true and there is about 4.6 billion years of history that backs that up. Predicting trends successfully doesn't prove that the culprit is in fact "Climate Change" only that we are very successful at predicting B follows A. 

Before you two go crazy on me, I'm not a climate change denier. I believe in a lot of the same principals, I am just not going to make extrodinary claims without the evidence to back them up. If you want to claim that fossil fuels don't help, I'm on board. Just like smoking doesn't help not get cancer. We should curb our fossil fuels but not just because of climate change. 

We need to stop dividing ourselves into these groups. We need to find things we agree on and work from there. 

You missed my point entirely. The point I'm makings is how fundamentally flawed the OG's interpretation of science as a singular and mobolithic entity is. The amount of times I've seen someone post, look X exaggerated results or can't be replicated so ALL THE RESEARCH IN THAT FIELD IS WRONG...

 

Well guess what? Pre-clinical oncogenic trials can have replicability rates in the thirties and there have been fraud cases in virtually every area of science (or any field) because surprise surprise, people are shit and need careful oversight (there are also very significant barriers to overcoming bias and poor statistical methods when working across silo'ed resesrch groups but that's a whole other can of worms).

 

You're also horrifically misinterpeting my argument. I'm not saying humans are 100 percent responsible for climate change. Virtually no one is. In fact I've argued time and time again on the OG that there is nuance and shades of dissent in the field, both with timing and degree of variability contributed by humans. In fact I had posted a thread literally called shades of dissent with a series of against-the-grain, c9nservative climate estimates to show that there is disagreement on the matter, but disagreement over the degree and not whether it exists or whether humans have ANY influence.

 

Ironically, if humans have even a middling impact, then the best way to buy us time while we figure out better tech is through environmental policies that delay the current shift we're experiencing. I'm sorry, but you completely misunderstood my point snd then mischaracterized my argument by implying I was suggesting an all or nothing situation.

 

Edit: I made my first sentence a bit less cunty/faggy.


Oh in that case you can tell me what the impact of climate change would occur without the human element? If your not saying if not for A this should be a very simple question. I never said that you thought man was 100% responsible. My point was is that your argument is that if not for man the imact would be less. My question is how much less? How much of Climate change can't be solved by our intervention? 

9/22/19 10:18 AM
7/4/11
Posts: 13207
David@accu -
MattyECB - 
David@accu -
Sebastiaan - 
MattyECB -

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect cancer article... Does this mean cancer doesn't exist?

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect article on the mechanism behind tumor biopsies... Does this mean no one should ever get a cancer biopsy and testing done?

You look at a body of literature, not cherry-picked results. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of publications since your start point, and your handful of posts (most of which are not scientific articles but sensationalist bullshit) is supposed to prove something?

 

You can also avoid labs or people who make extreme predictions and focus on those with a long history of success and accurate predictions. And while we're on the subject of predictions, how about the fact that Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.

Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here. 

Not to mention, you were retarded enough to post real events that occurred but were PREVENTED by human action, e.g. the ozone. How the fuck are you going to claim the ozone was a hoax? Holy shit this site is retarded, between the anti-vaxx, anti-evolution, and anti-GMO sentiment, I guess this isn't even the worst demonstration of ignorance and misunderstanding. I agree scientists can be sensationalist and dip into exaggeration to push funding. Weaker labs fall into that behavior (particularly if speaking extomporaneously and not from a publication), but the body of evidence that humans are a major driver of temperature shifts is just ridiculous at this point, although once again, I'd be blown away if even a fucking FIFTH of the OG has ever actually sat down and downloaded a major review article on modeling and statistical efforts in deducing climate change. 

this man gets it ...

 

No he really doesn't. Smoking increases your chance of cancer. Not smoking doesn't mean you still won't get cancer. What's being suggested is that if not for "A", "B" would never happen. That's simply not true and there is about 4.6 billion years of history that backs that up. Predicting trends successfully doesn't prove that the culprit is in fact "Climate Change" only that we are very successful at predicting B follows A. 

Before you two go crazy on me, I'm not a climate change denier. I believe in a lot of the same principals, I am just not going to make extrodinary claims without the evidence to back them up. If you want to claim that fossil fuels don't help, I'm on board. Just like smoking doesn't help not get cancer. We should curb our fossil fuels but not just because of climate change. 

We need to stop dividing ourselves into these groups. We need to find things we agree on and work from there. 

You missed my point entirely. The point I'm makings is how fundamentally flawed the OG's interpretation of science as a singular and mobolithic entity is. The amount of times I've seen someone post, look X exaggerated results or can't be replicated so ALL THE RESEARCH IN THAT FIELD IS WRONG...

 

Well guess what? Pre-clinical oncogenic trials can have replicability rates in the thirties and there have been fraud cases in virtually every area of science (or any field) because surprise surprise, people are shit and need careful oversight (there are also very significant barriers to overcoming bias and poor statistical methods when working across silo'ed resesrch groups but that's a whole other can of worms).

 

You're also horrifically misinterpeting my argument. I'm not saying humans are 100 percent responsible for climate change. Virtually no one is. In fact I've argued time and time again on the OG that there is nuance and shades of dissent in the field, both with timing and degree of variability contributed by humans. In fact I had posted a thread literally called shades of dissent with a series of against-the-grain, c9nservative climate estimates to show that there is disagreement on the matter, but disagreement over the degree and not whether it exists or whether humans have ANY influence.

 

Ironically, if humans have even a middling impact, then the best way to buy us time while we figure out better tech is through environmental policies that delay the current shift we're experiencing. I'm sorry, but you completely misunderstood my point snd then mischaracterized my argument by implying I was suggesting an all or nothing situation.

 

Edit: I made my first sentence a bit less cunty/faggy.


Oh in that case you can tell me what the impact of climate change would occur without the human element? If your not saying if not for A this should be a very simple question. I never said that you thought man was 100% responsible. My point was is that your argument is that if not for man the imact would be less. My question is how much less? How much of Climate change can't be solved by our intervention? 

And that question is literally the entire point of modeling and observational efforts. If you're asking for a deep dive into the science genuinely then that's somethind I'd be happy to do when I'm not on my phone killing time at work. I mean I couldn't even copy paste addresses on my mobile the last time I tried, but I'd be happy to share what I think are the more damning papers if you remind me later (espescially if you PM me).

 

I was also pointing out that even if you were to cut out all outliers or any remotely sketchy modeling efforts, youd still be left with a huge wealth of data, all of which suggests humans and CO2 levels have a major impact on climate change. In which case, I think it's less relevant that there are degrees of disagreement over the extent of impact, since it's still clearly a root cause to be snuffed out or mitigated.

 

Honestly, it's fucking impossible to have independent scientists agree to the degree of we see with climate change. ESPECIALLY when theres such a perverse influence from lobbying efforts on the part of oil. I mean fuck, you think Exxon or Shell are the only companies funding private research then quashing it? They were just the only ones leaked. You see the same thing with companies like coke when they contract out private resesrch with NDAs then destroy the data.

 

And even moving beyond all this, YOU're at least asking a fair question. OP was just silly.

Edited: 9/22/19 10:23 AM
7/4/11
Posts: 13208
David@accu -
MattyECB - 
David@accu -
Sebastiaan - 
MattyECB -

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect cancer article... Does this mean cancer doesn't exist?

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect article on the mechanism behind tumor biopsies... Does this mean no one should ever get a cancer biopsy and testing done?

You look at a body of literature, not cherry-picked results. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of publications since your start point, and your handful of posts (most of which are not scientific articles but sensationalist bullshit) is supposed to prove something?

 

You can also avoid labs or people who make extreme predictions and focus on those with a long history of success and accurate predictions. And while we're on the subject of predictions, how about the fact that Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.

Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here. 

Not to mention, you were retarded enough to post real events that occurred but were PREVENTED by human action, e.g. the ozone. How the fuck are you going to claim the ozone was a hoax? Holy shit this site is retarded, between the anti-vaxx, anti-evolution, and anti-GMO sentiment, I guess this isn't even the worst demonstration of ignorance and misunderstanding. I agree scientists can be sensationalist and dip into exaggeration to push funding. Weaker labs fall into that behavior (particularly if speaking extomporaneously and not from a publication), but the body of evidence that humans are a major driver of temperature shifts is just ridiculous at this point, although once again, I'd be blown away if even a fucking FIFTH of the OG has ever actually sat down and downloaded a major review article on modeling and statistical efforts in deducing climate change. 

this man gets it ...

 

No he really doesn't. Smoking increases your chance of cancer. Not smoking doesn't mean you still won't get cancer. What's being suggested is that if not for "A", "B" would never happen. That's simply not true and there is about 4.6 billion years of history that backs that up. Predicting trends successfully doesn't prove that the culprit is in fact "Climate Change" only that we are very successful at predicting B follows A. 

Before you two go crazy on me, I'm not a climate change denier. I believe in a lot of the same principals, I am just not going to make extrodinary claims without the evidence to back them up. If you want to claim that fossil fuels don't help, I'm on board. Just like smoking doesn't help not get cancer. We should curb our fossil fuels but not just because of climate change. 

We need to stop dividing ourselves into these groups. We need to find things we agree on and work from there. 

You missed my point entirely. The point I'm makings is how fundamentally flawed the OG's interpretation of science as a singular and mobolithic entity is. The amount of times I've seen someone post, look X exaggerated results or can't be replicated so ALL THE RESEARCH IN THAT FIELD IS WRONG...

 

Well guess what? Pre-clinical oncogenic trials can have replicability rates in the thirties and there have been fraud cases in virtually every area of science (or any field) because surprise surprise, people are shit and need careful oversight (there are also very significant barriers to overcoming bias and poor statistical methods when working across silo'ed resesrch groups but that's a whole other can of worms).

 

You're also horrifically misinterpeting my argument. I'm not saying humans are 100 percent responsible for climate change. Virtually no one is. In fact I've argued time and time again on the OG that there is nuance and shades of dissent in the field, both with timing and degree of variability contributed by humans. In fact I had posted a thread literally called shades of dissent with a series of against-the-grain, c9nservative climate estimates to show that there is disagreement on the matter, but disagreement over the degree and not whether it exists or whether humans have ANY influence.

 

Ironically, if humans have even a middling impact, then the best way to buy us time while we figure out better tech is through environmental policies that delay the current shift we're experiencing. I'm sorry, but you completely misunderstood my point snd then mischaracterized my argument by implying I was suggesting an all or nothing situation.

 

Edit: I made my first sentence a bit less cunty/faggy.

 

Oh in that case you can tell me what the impact of climate change would occur without the human element? If your not saying if not for A this should be a very simple question. I never said that you thought man was 100% responsible. My point was is that your argument is that if not for man the imact would be less. My question is how much less? How much of Climate change can't be solved by our intervention? 

David, even how flippantly you ask that question -- as though it makes it stupid if there isn't an obvious black and white answer....

Do you think there isn't disagreement over the risk factor levels of certain susceptibility alleles? Different statistical modeling efforts also have levels of dissent over BRCA lifetime risk or adjusted risk for different age cohorts. Same with smoking cigarettes and how those types of risk alter in conjunction with various genotypes or useage schedules...

 

My point is all these "HAHAHA look how sketch climate science is" claims are usually just pointing to difficult aspects to research you'll see in any field attempting to answer ANY fundamental research question, and yet climate change gets treated and examined in a completely different lens because it's become such a politicized issue and people either walk in treating is as holy gospel or complete bullshit.

 

But all this ranting aside, I really am happy to go over the science if you're genuinely interested and not just trying to troll me.

Edited: 9/22/19 10:23 AM
2/4/09
Posts: 5835

Matty you're a science based man. 

 

What are your thoughts on this chart? This is global temperature levels going back 15,000 years.  I guess the only period of interest dor this discussion is the last 2000 years but why does it continue to fluctuate all the way back to 10,000 years?

 

Figure 1. Temperature fluctuations over the past 17,000 years showing the abrupt cooling during the Younger Dryas. The late Pleistocene cold glacial climate that built immense ice sheets terminated suddenly about 14,500 years ago (1), causing glaciers to melt dramatically. About 12,800 years ago, after about 2000 years of fluctuating climate (2-4), temperatures plunged suddenly (5) and remained cool for 1300 years (6). About 11,500 years ago, the climate again warmed suddenly and the Younger Dryas ended (7).

9/22/19 10:36 AM
7/4/11
Posts: 13209
NoNeed4aScreenName -

Matty you're a science based man. 

 

What are your thoughts on this chart? This is global temperature levels going back 15,000 years.  I guess the only period of interest dor this discussion is the last 2000 years but why does it continue to fluctuate all the way back to 10,000 years?

 

Figure 1. Temperature fluctuations over the past 17,000 years showing the abrupt cooling during the Younger Dryas. The late Pleistocene cold glacial climate that built immense ice sheets terminated suddenly about 14,500 years ago (1), causing glaciers to melt dramatically. About 12,800 years ago, after about 2000 years of fluctuating climate (2-4), temperatures plunged suddenly (5) and remained cool for 1300 years (6). About 11,500 years ago, the climate again warmed suddenly and the Younger Dryas ended (7).

Ah man, i didnt want to jump down a rabbit hole of procrastination, but lemme clarify your question then come back to you so it doesn't seem like I'm ignoring you.

 

Are you asking why temperature was so variable in the past? (I mean it fluctuates even more before the 10k year marker)

 

Or how we can make modeling predictions when we have these types of fluctuations?

9/22/19 10:47 AM
7/16/17
Posts: 230
Eskimo -
thehoodedwonder139 -

Has the thought never occurred to you people that maybe just maybe, some of the environmental protections that have been put in place to prevent these cataclysms, or the incentives companies had to go green, or the breakthroughs in clean energy have all done their job?  Maybe all the states,companies,and countries that put the work in and made the investments in better more environmentally friendly tech did its job?

Chalk up another liberal victory!!! 

Not a liberal.  However a healthier environment is a victory for everyone regardless of your political leanings.

9/22/19 11:11 AM
2/4/09
Posts: 5836
MattyECB -
NoNeed4aScreenName -

Matty you're a science based man. 

 

What are your thoughts on this chart? This is global temperature levels going back 15,000 years.  I guess the only period of interest dor this discussion is the last 2000 years but why does it continue to fluctuate all the way back to 10,000 years?

 

Figure 1. Temperature fluctuations over the past 17,000 years showing the abrupt cooling during the Younger Dryas. The late Pleistocene cold glacial climate that built immense ice sheets terminated suddenly about 14,500 years ago (1), causing glaciers to melt dramatically. About 12,800 years ago, after about 2000 years of fluctuating climate (2-4), temperatures plunged suddenly (5) and remained cool for 1300 years (6). About 11,500 years ago, the climate again warmed suddenly and the Younger Dryas ended (7).

Ah man, i didnt want to jump down a rabbit hole of procrastination, but lemme clarify your question then come back to you so it doesn't seem like I'm ignoring you.

 

Are you asking why temperature was so variable in the past? (I mean it fluctuates even more before the 10k year marker)

 

Or how we can make modeling predictions when we have these types of fluctuations?

I mean both are valid ways of interpreting the question. 

 

From what I've come across so far it seems that conditions beyond mans control has resulted in the most drastic changes in climate. The middle ages cooling appears to be the result of a volcano eruption. 

 

I believe I have seen some recent papers about the linear model being incorrect of CO2 emissions or something like that. I'll have to find the paper again. 

 

But if the model is incorrect could it be that the CO2 that we contribute doesnt result in a significant amount of global heating?

 

I'm really not a climatologist but I figure in these threads everyone just argues points of view. Maybe we can discuss the science and make rational discussion 

9/22/19 11:12 AM
2/4/09
Posts: 5837

Also I'm very new to the science of climatology so I'm learning as we go

9/22/19 12:17 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 4215
David@accu - 
MattyECB - 
David@accu -
Sebastiaan - 
MattyECB -

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect cancer article... Does this mean cancer doesn't exist?

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect article on the mechanism behind tumor biopsies... Does this mean no one should ever get a cancer biopsy and testing done?

You look at a body of literature, not cherry-picked results. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of publications since your start point, and your handful of posts (most of which are not scientific articles but sensationalist bullshit) is supposed to prove something?

 

You can also avoid labs or people who make extreme predictions and focus on those with a long history of success and accurate predictions. And while we're on the subject of predictions, how about the fact that Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.

Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here. 

Not to mention, you were retarded enough to post real events that occurred but were PREVENTED by human action, e.g. the ozone. How the fuck are you going to claim the ozone was a hoax? Holy shit this site is retarded, between the anti-vaxx, anti-evolution, and anti-GMO sentiment, I guess this isn't even the worst demonstration of ignorance and misunderstanding. I agree scientists can be sensationalist and dip into exaggeration to push funding. Weaker labs fall into that behavior (particularly if speaking extomporaneously and not from a publication), but the body of evidence that humans are a major driver of temperature shifts is just ridiculous at this point, although once again, I'd be blown away if even a fucking FIFTH of the OG has ever actually sat down and downloaded a major review article on modeling and statistical efforts in deducing climate change. 

this man gets it ...

 

No he really doesn't. Smoking increases your chance of cancer. Not smoking doesn't mean you still won't get cancer. What's being suggested is that if not for "A", "B" would never happen. That's simply not true and there is about 4.6 billion years of history that backs that up. Predicting trends successfully doesn't prove that the culprit is in fact "Climate Change" only that we are very successful at predicting B follows A. 

Before you two go crazy on me, I'm not a climate change denier. I believe in a lot of the same principals, I am just not going to make extrodinary claims without the evidence to back them up. If you want to claim that fossil fuels don't help, I'm on board. Just like smoking doesn't help not get cancer. We should curb our fossil fuels but not just because of climate change. 

We need to stop dividing ourselves into these groups. We need to find things we agree on and work from there. 

You missed my point entirely. The point I'm makings is how fundamentally flawed the OG's interpretation of science as a singular and mobolithic entity is. The amount of times I've seen someone post, look X exaggerated results or can't be replicated so ALL THE RESEARCH IN THAT FIELD IS WRONG...

 

Well guess what? Pre-clinical oncogenic trials can have replicability rates in the thirties and there have been fraud cases in virtually every area of science (or any field) because surprise surprise, people are shit and need careful oversight (there are also very significant barriers to overcoming bias and poor statistical methods when working across silo'ed resesrch groups but that's a whole other can of worms).

 

You're also horrifically misinterpeting my argument. I'm not saying humans are 100 percent responsible for climate change. Virtually no one is. In fact I've argued time and time again on the OG that there is nuance and shades of dissent in the field, both with timing and degree of variability contributed by humans. In fact I had posted a thread literally called shades of dissent with a series of against-the-grain, c9nservative climate estimates to show that there is disagreement on the matter, but disagreement over the degree and not whether it exists or whether humans have ANY influence.

 

Ironically, if humans have even a middling impact, then the best way to buy us time while we figure out better tech is through environmental policies that delay the current shift we're experiencing. I'm sorry, but you completely misunderstood my point snd then mischaracterized my argument by implying I was suggesting an all or nothing situation.

 

Edit: I made my first sentence a bit less cunty/faggy.


Oh in that case you can tell me what the impact of climate change would occur without the human element? If your not saying if not for A this should be a very simple question. I never said that you thought man was 100% responsible. My point was is that your argument is that if not for man the imact would be less. My question is how much less? How much of Climate change can't be solved by our intervention? 


Man is 92%-123% responsible...

Detection and attribution studies, observations, paleoclimate data, modeling, physics, etc. tell us with 95%-100% certainty that man has been the dominant cause of the observed recent warming with no convincing alternative explanations.

The temp data is statistically disturbing. We are sure the cause of the recent temp increases are from man. AGW is responsible for .6C-.8C of the recent global ave temp increase translating to a human contribution of 92%-123% of the observed change from 1951-2010.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure3_1.png

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/3/


How much of Climate change can't be solved by our intervention?

There is a linear relationship between temps and emissions. Global ave temps increase 1C for every 500 gigatons carbon emmitted. If we limit our emissions by providing renewable base load energy and electrifying transportation, we can solve the climate/energy challenge.
9/22/19 1:21 PM
12/17/06
Posts: 78186
Renoslovakia -

Breitbart? You really are a worthless idiot, aren't you.

The source is not breitbart lol. They simply reported it 

9/22/19 1:23 PM
12/17/06
Posts: 78187
thehoodedwonder139 -
Eskimo -
thehoodedwonder139 -

Has the thought never occurred to you people that maybe just maybe, some of the environmental protections that have been put in place to prevent these cataclysms, or the incentives companies had to go green, or the breakthroughs in clean energy have all done their job?  Maybe all the states,companies,and countries that put the work in and made the investments in better more environmentally friendly tech did its job?

Chalk up another liberal victory!!! 

Not a liberal.  However a healthier environment is a victory for everyone regardless of your political leanings.

Explain.

What wonderful bits of the environment will I have that I don't already?

I live in the mountain woods. It's beautiful up here. Quite healthy, teeming with life of all types. What more will I see if we follow said climate plans?

9/22/19 3:16 PM
1/2/15
Posts: 8491
angryinch - Anyone who thinks humans can't affect the climate or the planet in general in other ways obviously doesn't know how the great dust bowl happened.

Only a tax will save us!

9/22/19 3:24 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 4596
Lazarus -
ziggystardust - 
Lazarus -
ziggystardust - 
Lazarus -
MattyECB - 

One of your headlines: Only Anti-Science Suckers Believe Climate Change Hysteria. 

As much as I dislike an appeal to authority, it's factual that the scientific community is virtually in universal agreement over anthropogenic global warming so this is just factually incorrect and retarded... Like most of your posts. 

Ironically, there is disagreement of the exten of human contribution and the modeling and degree of severity. There are disagreements and nuance in the community and as an easy mental exercise, you could just cut out all extreme outliers of, "the world is ending," and, "everything is fine" and you'd be left with an incredibly strong body of evidence showing humans are clearly impacting our temperature, and that this needs to be addressed.


As you indicated, the only real consensus is that humans are contributing to climate change. And you agree that there is legitimate debate over how severe the effects will be. It will (probably) be bad in areas like the Middle East, Africa, and the pacific islands. But lots of areas will be totally fine. Cold countries like Canada will probably benefit from it.

Hence, the widespread hysteria doesn't match the scientific consensus in any way. Which is kind of OP's point - fuck the doomsday predictions.

OP's point is that climate change, if it happens at all, is not caused by humans, because Big Industry sponsored articles tells him so and it makes him feel good to have the opposite opinion of liberals. 

You don't think there's need for widespread hysteria because only parts of the world will be fucked? You think you have a refugee problem now? You think there's stagnant economic development now? 

Besides, it's not just the areas you pointed out. Check what other parts of the world are on the same latitude as the Mid East. Then check coastal areas in general, Netherlands specifically, that are threatened as well. The Gulf Stream might not support Northern Europe's climate as much as it does today. When permafrost thaws in Siberia you run the risk of releasing additional greenhouse gases, creating a self generating reaction that humans can't affect.

Basically, we're up for some world altering changes and the Tragedy of the Commons indicates that we won't do enough about it. 


Ahh. The refugee boogie man, economic stagnation AND the runaway greenhouse effect all in one post. Impressive. You could get a job manufacturing hysteria.

Yes, I could. I understand how people like OP works and how you trigger them emotionally. 

But in this instance I'm only posting the logical conclusion of your statement that it will probably be bad in areas like the Mid East, Africa and the Pacifics. (And then I added the runaway greenhouse effect). 

I don't understand how one can make the statement you did and then conclude there's no need to be highly concerned. 

 


If we stick to the statements that I made, we can agree that it will likely be bad for some parts of the world. So yeah, there are global concerns. But we don't know how much concern (that's highly debatable) and we're not the ones who will suffer the most.

If you want to treat this issue as an ultra-priority in the name of saving India and the Middle East, or for reasons of ethics or international relations, then fine. But that's not the goods we are being sold. We are being bombarded with doomsday predictions and descriptions of climate change as an "existentialist threat". It's just not true.

You go from saying there's a debate to stating the alarmism isn't true. That doesn't correlate with the debate that is going on. Almost all research indicates we will severly disrupt Earth's ecosystem. The question discussed is how soon and how f-cked we are (if we don't do enough, which we won't).

Even accepting your premises of a low impact, you can't have effects around the equator without having effects on coastal areas. If it's warmer around the equator it's warmer around the polar ice caps as well. I just don't see how you think your country won't be affected. 

The moral of the story about the boy who cried wolf wasn't that wolves don't exist. It's that no one believes you when it's actually coming.