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

[Bazal]

Like it or not DKOR kinda has a point. My ex brother in law is doing a PHD on corroboree frogs and chitrid fungus. Couldn't get a sponsor for quite a while until he started looking at the effects of climate on the spread of chitrid and the effect it has on the severity of the infection. It's not a conspiracy theory, is just the way it works. Research institutions need funding, they need to show relevant results to get that. So they will support the most relevant work. Institutions that support existing paradigms do a lot better. There's nothing underhanded about it, it's just the way things work.

 

[Drew-Sta]

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.

:? Err, I was giving two examples. All of the South Pacific is in the same boat, mate. The Tonga one was simply me giving an example of something I'd seen with my eyes, and the Kiribati one was simply an example of the obvious.

Secondly, what factors may they be, eh? Especially since I've acknowledged thermal heating as being a cause for very slow, constant warming, but the rapidity of the warming is acknowledged to be due to CO2 causing ocean warming, causing sea level rise?

 

[whall15]

Like it or not DKOR kinda has a point. My ex brother in law is doing a PHD on corroboree frogs and chitrid fungus. Couldn't get a sponsor for quite a while until he started looking at the effects of climate on the spread of chitrid and the effect it has on the severity of the infection. It's not a conspiracy theory, is just the way it works. Research institutions need funding, they need to show relevant results to get that. So they will support the most relevant work. Institutions that support existing paradigms do a lot better. There's nothing underhanded about it, it's just the way things work.

He hasn't got a point, he's crapping out right-wing talking points.

 

[Dani]

Where's my thankyou?

You got one on Facebook. Don't be greedy!

<3

 

[thorson1987]

Remember when it was global warming.

Then they realised they f**ked up and changed it to climate change.

Here's a thought, our climate is constantly changing, nothing we have done or do in the future can change that

 

[Jake_The_Dog]

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?

Hunt Jackalopes

 

[Misanthrope]

You got one on Facebook. Don't be greedy!

<3

I did? I haven't been on since last night :lol:

 

[Apey]

The great thing about science is it doesn't really matter if average joe believes in it or not.

 

[Bazal]

:? Err, I was giving two examples. All of the South Pacific is in the same boat, mate. The Tonga one was simply me giving an example of something I'd seen with my eyes, and the Kiribati one was simply an example of the obvious.

Secondly, what factors may they be, eh? Especially since I've acknowledged thermal heating as being a cause for very slow, constant warming, but the rapidity of the warming is acknowledged to be due to CO2 causing ocean warming, causing sea level rise?

And I'm telling you all of the South Pacific is not in the same boat. Bora Bora pays very close attention to erosion and all that sort of thing, they have to. The entire economy of Tahiti pretty much counts on it. They have seen no noticeable change. Why would that be?

Do you remember what caused the Boxing Day tsunamis? A massive section of the sea floor suddenly thrust upwards. Geology still controls or influences most of the planets processes. Did you know Kiribati is on a similar ridge structure, in a rather active area? Most people don't. Isn't it just as likely that it's a geological process? Or another human influenced process like erosion? Why are we assuming that it's something we haven't even proved exists yet?

 

[Bazal]

He hasn't got a point, he's crapping out right-wing talking points.

Lol. Right. I guess I am too, yeah? No personal offence intended, but this attitude is worse than anything regarding scientific discourse over climate change. It's pathetic.

Why is science a political thing these days? It's killing scientific endeavour.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

Remember when it was global warming.

Then they realised they f**ked up and changed it to climate change.

Here's a thought, our climate is constantly changing, nothing we have done or do in the future can change that

Exactly.

Just because the climate is changing, doesn't mean that it is our fault. The climate is constantly changing and has done since the earth was formed.

So the polar ice caps are melting... Based on what? We've only been observing the polar ice caps for the last 100 years or so. What did they look like 500 or 1000 years ago, 1 million years ago even?

I'm more than aware of the theory behind climate change and the link between Co2, a greenhouse gas and the apparent excess heat being trapped in our atmosphere.

Fact is, this is still just a theory based on a couple of hundred years of evidence and no-one can prove that this apparent change in climate isn't just a cycle that the earth may well have gone through many times previously.

 

[whall15]

Lol. Right. I guess I am too, yeah? No personal offence intended, but this attitude is worse than anything regarding scientific discourse over climate change. It's pathetic.

Why is science a political thing these days? It's killing scientific endeavour.

At least you're making some independent points.

Climate Science is political because of the far-right. This has happened through the funding of bogus studies and the platform that has been given to unqualified morons through the media.

 

[Non Terminator]

Where's my thankyou?

Thank you...for being you.

 

[Drew-Sta]

And I'm telling you all of the South Pacific is not in the same boat. Bora Bora pays very close attention to erosion and all that sort of thing, they have to. The entire economy of Tahiti pretty much counts on it. They have seen no noticeable change. Why would that be?

I think you're not looking at the right data. Check out here, which shows a number of countries showing small, but noticable and trend based increases to sea level.

http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/data/monthly.shtml

Do you remember what caused the Boxing Day tsunamis? A massive section of the sea floor suddenly thrust upwards. Geology still controls or influences most of the planets processes. Did you know Kiribati is on a similar ridge structure, in a rather active area? Most people don't. Isn't it just as likely that it's a geological process? Or another human influenced process like erosion? Why are we assuming that it's something we haven't even proved exists yet?

I suppose this is where all the debate centres, really. Is it CO2 or something else?

Perhaps we need to agree to disagree, but I cannot see how our increasing pollution in the world is not impacting on the function of the world. It seems illogical that the earths ecosystem is not impacted by the status and health of the earth itself.

 

[Bazal]

Clearly, I love science. Deciding to give it away was the hardest thing I've ever done. But this is exactly why I did. It's become an environment where if you question something like this, you're a heretic. It's become a religion. The day I decided to give it away I was actually removed from a class as a troublemaker for asking questions like I'm asking here....so don't blindly follow what popular science is telling you, because it's become an exercise in proving itself right instead of questioning itself.

 

[Jason Maher]

Climate change is real, and there is sweet f**k all we can do to stop it. And the simple fact is the fossil fuel industry is not going to disappear until alternative energy sources are actually economically viable. That will happen, but not any time soon. Government interference in the form of taxes, trading schemes, and subsidies will achieve 3/5s of f**k-all (aside from inconveniencing nearly everyone), unless they want to go the totalitarian route of simply forcing everyone to change (which some f**kwits actually do want, chiefly the Greens and some members of Labor Left).

Edit: one small thing governments could do is end existing subsidies to the fossil fuel industry (including car manufacturing). This is nigh-on impossible as conservative parties won't do it due to ties to big business, and social democrat parties won't do it because of ties to the union movement.

 

[Bazal]

Perhaps we need to agree to disagree, but I cannot see how our increasing pollution in the world is not impacting on the function of the world. It seems illogical that the earths ecosystem is not impacted by the status and health of the earth itself.

And I didn't say otherwise. Because I dislike the theory doesn't mean I don't agree with parts of it. I just think it's a shabby theory that hasn't undergone the proper evaluation. It's never been properly challenged and tested because people are happy to jump on it as gospel, and anyone who tries is shouted down. That's not, and should never be, how science works.

 

[Bazal]

Climate change is real, and there is sweet f**k all we can do to stop it. And the simple fact is the fossil fuel industry is not going to disappear until alternative energy sources are actually economically viable. That will happen, but not any time soon. Government interference in the form of taxes, trading schemes, and subsidies will achieve 3/5s of f**k-all (aside from inconveniencing nearly everyone), unless they want to go the totalitarian route of simply forcing everyone to change (which some f**kwits actually do want, chiefly the Greens and some members of Labor Left).

Edit: one small thing governments could do is end existing subsidies to the fossil fuel industry (including car manufacturing).

Well that's another thing. We do have a clean, alternative option. It may not be long term but it would certainly help a lot until we find one. It's called nuclear power. Try suggesting that to the Greens or someone though. Again, people want a solution, as long as it's the one THEY believe in

 

[Drew-Sta]

Clearly, I love science. Deciding to give it away was the hardest thing I've ever done. But this is exactly why I did. It's become an environment where if you question something like this, you're a heretic. It's become a religion. The day I decided to give it away I was actually removed from a class as a troublemaker for asking questions like I'm asking here....so don't blindly follow what popular science is telling you, because it's become an exercise in proving itself right instead of questioning itself.

Where was this?

And I didn't say otherwise. Because I dislike the theory doesn't mean I don't agree with parts of it. I just think it's a shabby theory that hasn't undergone the proper evaluation. It's never been properly challenged and tested because people are happy to jump on it as gospel, and anyone who tries is shouted down. That's not, and should never be, how science works.

I think you'll find it is a response to the decadent exploitation of the world. You can't plunder the earth and then hope to have it sustain future generations. People are wising up to this and rejecting the premise that we have unlimited resources.

We don't. Everything in this universe is finite. The sooner we learn that, the better.

 

[Drew-Sta]

Well that's another thing. We do have a clean, alternative option. It may not be long term but it would certainly help a lot until we find one. It's called nuclear power. Try suggesting that to the Greens or someone though. Again, people want a solution, as long as it's the one THEY believe in

Its not clean. Its cointainable, but its not clean.

You have to dig it out of the ground, too. And the waste it produces is toxic.

Don't get me wrong; properly harnessed it is an excellent source of energy. But it is not clean and it has consequences, like everything else.