Superthread LXI - No longer honouring AdamKungl for his birthday as it has now passed

[whall15]

:lol: What makes you think that though?

Because he posted that accusation without evidence.

But in all seriousness I think it's ludicrous to claim that climate change is incorrect when 97% of the experts in the field of climate science state that it is and the vast majority of the other 3% have been bought off.

 

[madunit]

The problem is more that we don't understand the climate so how can we hope to determine what's going on, and how, and why? We don't even understand water...

But otherwise, yes. It's ridiculous and the whole thing is the reason I gave up on doing science.

But we understand pollution and the impact it has, so why not just do something about that, afterall, that seems to be the root of the problem.

Nature is unpredicatble and we'll never know how it works 100%, its fruitless to try.

 

[Misanthrope]

I'd just put it this way: even if climate is shifting due to factors other than emissions produced by humans, cleaning our act up will still result in better quality air and water, food and so on.

Just look at the air quality in China over the last few months. Tell me that's not caused by anything other than the industry there. You can't.

I can attest first hand to this. There have been days where it has literally been dangerous to my health to go outside. It's been bloody dire.

 

[Bazal]

Because he posted that accusation without evidence.

But in all seriousness I think it's ludicrous to claim that climate change is incorrect when 97% of the experts in the field of climate science state that it is and the vast majority of the other 3% have been bought off.

That's complete rubbish and I think you know it.

 

[whall15]

That's complete rubbish and I think you know it.

What is, the 97% figure, the vast majority of the other 3% being bought off or both?

 

[Bazal]

I'm going with both, in all honesty. In fact the vast majority of scientists I know (and there's quite a few, given my field of study in a previous life) think the same way I do...

But that bought off comment? I thought you were a fair bit smarter than that

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

I agree that any change that should be made must come from China, India and America for it to matter.

But Kiribati going underwater, which seems to be due to the melting of the polar ice caps, appears to me to be a consequence of human intervention through pollution. But I'm aware there's a lot of different opinions on that.

There is plenty of evidence below the Sahara to suggest that it was once a lush rainforest and the thought is that it will be again in a few million years time.

The polar ice caps may be melting at this point in time, but we could just be at the beginning of the opposite cycle to whatever caused the ice age all those millions of years ago. Their are plenty of theories on what caused this but no one is completely sure. Whats the latest theory again? A meteor strike I think?

The fact is, that the evidence we have been collecting and basing theories on comes from a sample which is only a few thousand years in size. If you look at the life span of the earth as a 24 hour clock then in the scheme of things, the industrial revolution only happened the equivalent of a few 100's of a second ago and our comparative sample size is based on a few minutes of information.

This I can't necessarily agree with. We have no doubt caused massive damage to the planet. Some of it totally irreparable. But at the same time, having an impact on the entire earth system is beyond our influence. We destroy pieces...is that enough to damage the whole? That's something else we just don't know so how can we assume that we are

You basically did just agree with me. I'm not denying that we have damaged the planet and it may even be possible that we have also made a change to the climate, but to blame humans for the entire thing and rationale that taxing emissions will solve the problem... It's an insane conclusion to make.

Not to mention the INCREASE in emissions that our decrease will create when companies (looking at you, Holden) take their emissions to countries without regulation...

Exactly. What little manufacturing is left in this country is regulated to the extreme. We are already amongst the cleanest producers of manufactured goods in the world. If you then go and add a tax to that, you are forcing manufacturers to move shop to less regulated countries and probably just adding to this hypothetical problem.

 

[Misanthrope]

I've read very little credible research that argues against climate change being influenced by the level of pollution we generate.

I've got entirely too many friends in the field and get to read a great many educated discussions on the matter every time one of them decides to bring it up on Facebook.

 

[whall15]

I'm going with both, in all honesty. In fact the vast majority of scientists I know (and there's quite a few, given my field of study in a previous life) think the same way I do...

But that bought off comment? I thought you were a fair bit smarter than that

Are they climate scientists?

 

[Drew-Sta]

Does it?

Yep. Thermal heating is a constant, so its going to happen and rising sea levels will happen because of it. This I won't dispute. But thermal heating is very, very slow and part of the controlled planetary design so its to be expected and simply worked around.

But CO2 emissions have had a direct impact on the climate, with one of them being the warming of ice shelfs that have led to an increase in the sea level.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/03/1216073110

I'd just put it this way: even if climate is shifting due to factors other than emissions produced by humans, cleaning our act up will still result in better quality air and water, food and so on.

Just look at the air quality in China over the last few months. Tell me that's not caused by anything other than the industry there. You can't.

Bingo. +1 to this man.

Because he posted that accusation without evidence.

But in all seriousness I think it's ludicrous to claim that climate change is incorrect when 97% of the experts in the field of climate science state that it is and the vast majority of the other 3% have been bought off.

I see. I understand now

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

At the end of the day, only two things about the whole debate are certain.

1. Pollution is bad. I think we can all agree on this.
2. The climate is shifting.

I am yet to see a shred of tangible evidence that actually proves that 2 is because of 1.

 

[Bazal]

I've read very little credible research that argues against climate change being influenced by the level of pollution we generate.

I've got entirely too many friends in the field and get to read a great many educated discussions on the matter every time one of them decides to bring it up on Facebook.

But how often is research that argues against the existing paradigm considered credible, or even published? A lot of what we now hold to be true was considered incredible at best, and much of that may not last as we discover more and more. Hell some editors openly admit that they won't publish anything that argues against climate change, so where would one see it? The radical worshippers of the theory will tell you that "Big Oil" or some other garbage are trying to influence the theory...there are certain scientific communities doing exactly the same thing. Hence I am no longer pursuing that as a career. I wanted to be a scientist, not a politician or a devotee.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

Because he posted that accusation without evidence.

But in all seriousness I think it's ludicrous to claim that climate change is incorrect when 97% of the experts in the field of climate science state that it is and the vast majority of the other 3% have been bought off.

I think it's ludicrous to come to a conclusion either way. Our own government can't even make up its mind.

 

[Bazal]

Are they climate scientists?

A couple are yes. One is an oceanographer too. Most are ecologists. Does it matter? The leading Australian proponent of the theory is a paleobiologist. Does he get a pass because he subscribes to the belief?

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

But how often is research that argues against the existing paradigm considered credible, or even published? A lot of what we now hold to be true was considered incredible at best, and much of that may not last as we discover more and more. Hell some editors openly admit that they won't publish anything that argues against climate change, so where would one see it? The radical worshippers of the theory will tell you that "Big Oil" or some other garbage are trying to influence the theory...there are certain scientific communities doing exactly the same thing. Hence I am no longer pursuing that as a career. I wanted to be a scientist, not a politician or a devotee.

Exactly.

At the end of the day, the conclusion of most research tends to resemble the mantra of whoever has funded the research in the first place.

 

[whall15]

I think it's ludicrous to come to a conclusion either way. Our own government can't even make up its mind.

I'm not sure what the incompetence of our government has to do with the science of climate change.

 

[Drew-Sta]

There is plenty of evidence below the Sahara to suggest that it was once a lush rainforest and the thought is that it will be again in a few million years time.

Sure, I'm not arguing the climate is supposed to remain stagnant. I'm suggesting we're creating dynamic / unnatural changes to the climate that are creating different / hazardous effects.

The polar ice caps may be melting at this point in time, but we could just be at the beginning of the opposite cycle to whatever caused the ice age all those millions of years ago. Their are plenty of theories on what caused this but no one is completely sure. Whats the latest theory again? A meteor strike I think?

Just as it could just be that we are causing the issue. We don't know, but the majority of evidence suggests we're not having a positive impact. Take, for example, the below diagram. The increase in population in the last two centuries is surely going to have a dramatic impact on the world we live in.

The fact is, that the evidence we have been collecting and basing theories on comes from a sample which is only a few thousand years in size. If you look at the life span of the earth as a 24 hour clock then in the scheme of things, the industrial revolution only happened the equivalent of a few 100's of a second ago and our comparative sample size is based on a few minutes of information.

Again, this is true; we've been here a millisecond in comparison.

But that doesn't mean we haven't been able to make dramatic changes to the environment in such a short space of time. It is impossible to argue we are having a neutral effect based on the levels of pollution we as a species are producing.

 

[Bazal]

Yep. Thermal heating is a constant, so its going to happen and rising sea levels will happen because of it. This I won't dispute. But thermal heating is very, very slow and part of the controlled planetary design so its to be expected and simply worked around.

But CO2 emissions have had a direct impact on the climate, with one of them being the warming of ice shelfs that have led to an increase in the sea level.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/03/1216073110

Ok, lets assume all that is true for a moment, and that's a big assumption...why is it only Kiribati that's sinking?

If sea levels are rising, that too is a constant. Of all the low lying coral atolls and sand cays in the Pacific alone, why is this chain the only one that so far show any appreciable change?

Side note, does anyone else think the way Kiribati is pronounced is weird :lol:

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

I'm not sure what the incompetence of our government has to do with the science of climate change.

I'm merely saying that it is ludicrous to subscribe to one theory or another when the organisation that is funding most of the research and has whole departments dedicated to looking at the reults is still not convinced either way.

 

[whall15]

A couple are yes. One is an oceanographer too. Most are ecologists. Does it matter? The leading Australian proponent of the theory is a paleobiologist. Does he get a pass because he subscribes to the belief?

Well yes it does matter. I think it's quite important to know whether they are experts in the field.

Secondly, Flannery (I'm assuming that's who you're talking about) is supported by as I mentioned before 97% of climate scientists and uses their evidence, their facts.

Exactly.

At the end of the day, the conclusion of most research tends to resemble the mantra of whoever has funded the research in the first place.

And who funds anti-climate change 'research'.

All right-wing organisations funded by businesses who pollute. What a surprise.