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

[Dani]

so the Tramadol has kicked in huh ?

Yes. I took a days dose in one hit. Fml.

But I was being 100% sincere also.

And thank you Drew <3

Edit - and Eele <3

 

[whall15]

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.

Well this is the same organisation that thinks that people fleeing warzones are evil.

 

[Bazal]

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.

Aside from the continued and frankly laughable 97% figure, there's an issue in itself. If the evidence is solid, what does the source matter? The problem is there is no consistent evidence either way.

Flannery is a tool and a glory hound. He's not as well respected as people believe. Which is a shame because he's a very good paleobiologist.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

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.


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.


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.

Undoubtedly we are having an effect on the planet but not necessarily on the climate.

There are far too many factors at play for anyone to be able to qualify and even quantify that conclusion but that is what many people are doing at the moment.

 

[Non Terminator]

Congratulations for your donations Dani
Truly deserved

 

[Bazal]

I should also mentioned that is accepted by 100% of climate scientists (as far as I'm aware) that we are coming out of a long period of cooling...

 

[whall15]

Aside from the continued and frankly laughable 97% figure, there's an issue in itself. If the evidence is solid, what does the source matter? The problem is there is no consistent evidence either way.

Flannery is a tool and a glory hound. He's not as well respected as people believe. Which is a shame because he's a very good paleobiologist.

But the evidence against climate change isn't solid.

 

[Jake_The_Dog]

Only in 'Murrica!

 

[Drew-Sta]

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.

Chernobyl. Dramatic impact on the local ecology. You can't deny it.

The effect of Chernobyl is from radioactive fallout, which is pollution. CO2 is on a scale 1000's of times bigger than Chernobyl (albeit less toxic). Same line of logic leads me to think that 1 can cause 2.

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

This is the same government that things Assylum Seekers should be shot, mate. I'm not sure that's a credible defence.

Gillard and labor considered it an issue. Abbott does not. It's the equivalent to having a pro-life vs pro-choice standpoint by the government. (not opening that can of worms, by the way; simply suggesting the party has a policy it is sticking to rather than actually seeking out an answer on the issue.

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?

It's not sinking; its simply being swallowed up by the rising sea levels. Its not exclusive to Kiribati; was happening in Tonga. Pangaimotu Island has had nearly 100 metres of its coast lost in the last 50 years. The waterfront in Tongatapu is also being eaten up. The small picture below (sorry its tiny) shows a small wall the Japanese built there as part of an aid agreement to stop the oceanlevels overtaking the main street (Vuna Road).

Same thing is being mimic'd around the South Pacific. If Australia wasn't so big, and our beaches not so deep, we'd notice it more too. Bondi is a good example though. It's slowly being lost.

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

:lol: Yes. Strange pronunciation of the name I will agree!

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

I also love the term "climate scientist"

Just stop and think for a second. What would these guys do for a job if climate change didn't exist?

 

[whall15]

I also love the term "climate scientist"

Just stop and think for a second. What would these guys do for a job if climate change didn't exist?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Here comes the ol' "climate scientists invented a conspiracy theory for the money schtick".

Did Andrew Bolt tell you about that?

 

[Bazal]

But the evidence against climate change isn't solid.

Neither is the evidence for it. It's incomplete, sporadic, and changes from place to place. Would you expect that from a global phenomenon? Do we even know what to expect from a global phenomenon? It's already been demonstrated that the climate hasn't actually changed much at all. But do we even know what that means? That's the issue. Why do you accept one and not the other? Why are we pushing a theory that we don't understand instead of working to understand it?

 

[Dani]

Congratulations for your donations Dani
Truly deserved

Thanks to you. My first donation!

 

[Misanthrope]

I also love the term "climate scientist"

Just stop and think for a second. What would these guys do for a job if climate change didn't exist?

Would climate also cease to exist in this fantasy?

 

[Drew-Sta]

Yes. I took a days dose in one hit. Fml.

But I was being 100% sincere also.

And thank you Drew <3

Edit - and Eele <3

You're welcome darl!

Undoubtedly we are having an effect on the planet but not necessarily on the climate.

There are far too many factors at play for anyone to be able to qualify and even quantify that conclusion but that is what many people are doing at the moment.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. You can't impact on the planet without impacting on the climate. You kill all the trees in the world and you're going to screw with the climate.

Ecosystems are all tied together mate. If you dump pollution into the ocean and kill a fish species off, that's got to impact on the climate as one of the oceans dynamics is now changes.

 

[Bazal]

It's not sinking; its simply being swallowed up by the rising sea levels. Its not exclusive to Kiribati; was happening in Tonga. Pangaimotu Island has had nearly 100 metres of its coast lost in the last 50 years. The waterfront in Tongatapu is also being eaten up. The small picture below (sorry its tiny) shows a small wall the Japanese built there as part of an aid agreement to stop the oceanlevels overtaking the main street (Vuna Road).


Same thing is being mimic'd around the South Pacific.

Sorry, but one island chain plus Tonga isn't "being mimicked around the South Pacific". There are any number of factors that could account for it as well.

If Australia wasn't so big, and our beaches not so deep, we'd notice it more too. Bondi is a good example though. It's slowly being lost.

Bondi is erosion. That's well known. Which, incidentally, is a much bigger issue for our beaches, our marine ecosystems and the Barrier Reef than climate change will ever be. That's something else, important problems are being lost or overlooked.

Although Bondi...not so much of a loss....

 

[Misanthrope]

Yes. I took a days dose in one hit. Fml.

But I was being 100% sincere also.

And thank you Drew <3

Edit - and Eele <3

Where's my thankyou?

 

[Non Terminator]

Thanks to you. My first donation!

Bless.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Here comes the ol' "climate scientists invented a conspiracy theory for the money schtick".

Did Andrew Bolt tell you about that?

Science is a tough gig. It's very difficult to get funding unless you are studying something that is seen as relevant.

Would climate also cease to exist in this fantasy?

:lol:

Of course the climate wouldn't cease to exist but if climate change wasn't such an "issue", there would be a much lower need for climate scientists.

 

[whall15]

Science is a tough gig. It's very difficult to get funding unless you are studying something that is seen as relevant.

That's a mightily convenient argument.

Facts aren't facts because people who have dedicated their entire lives to studying a field are in it for the money.

That's just impossibly stupid.

As you say yourself, it's very difficult to get funding in science. These people aren't stupid, if they were in it for personal gain, they would've studied something more lucrative to start with.