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

[Bazal]

Where was this?



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.

ANU.

And none of that should affect the process of constructing a theory. Here's a question. Climate change is so omnipresent at the moment that a lot of science is dedicated purely to that in many areas. What if it's wrong? What if we've focussed on a theory that we never appropriately challenged and tested, and it's wrong, and we miss the chance to fix whatever is?

 

[muzby]

guys, i think you've got it all wrong trying to blame the human race for this whole global warming thing...

it's all the dinosaurs fault.

you see, the earth used to be rather cold, infact they called it an ice age..

but then the dinosaurs came, and the ice went..


the dinosaurs stuffed up the planet (i blame their limited knowledge of agriculture and additional gasses caused by general fartiness that comes from eating lots of meat)

so they died out.. (and became fossil fuels)

and what happened?

voila, another ice age!!

now, we all know the legend of dragons in medieval times?

well these dragons were infact a few leftover dinosaurs who helped cure the 2nd ice age and get us into the world we have today.. (don't believe me that dragons were dinosaurs? how else would china also have a dragon culture when both cultures hadn't met by that stage?)

now that the medieval dinosaurs have gone, the 1st generation of dinosaurs are coming back to warm the planet again via their process as fossil fuels..

so it's not scaremongering.

it's not right or left wing propaganda.


it's the dinosaurs.

 

[Bazal]

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.

Well if you want to be pedantic, solar energy fields destroy habitat and kill wildlife. Tidal and other ocean based energies corrupt ecosystems. Wind turbines damage ecosystems and kill birds.

Every energy option we have has flaws. Nothing, absolutely nothing, will ever be truly clean. Nuclear energy pollution is negligible, it's much more efficient than fossil fuels and current alternative sources, it produces very little waste compared to fossil fuels and is easily managed.

 

[Drew-Sta]

ANU.

And none of that should affect the process of constructing a theory. Here's a question. Climate change is so omnipresent at the moment that a lot of science is dedicated purely to that in many areas. What if it's wrong? What if we've focussed on a theory that we never appropriately challenged and tested, and it's wrong, and we miss the chance to fix whatever is?

The whole point of science is to prove and disprove. If its wrong, then all the better. We know then that we are ok to keep doing what we're doing.

The point of the exercise is to work out the consequences of our actions. If we do not, then we will blunder about until we end up destroying ourselves.

So in reality, I don't care if we're right or wrong, per se - I care that we are trying to work it out.

 

[Drew-Sta]

Well if you want to be pedantic, solar energy fields destroy habitat and kill wildlife. Tidal and other ocean based energies corrupt ecosystems. Wind turbines damage ecosystems and kill birds.

Every energy option we have has flaws. Nothing, absolutely nothing, will ever be truly clean. Nuclear energy pollution is negligible, it's much more efficient than fossil fuels and current alternative sources, it produces very little waste compared to fossil fuels and is easily managed.

Bingo. Now we're thinking in alignment.

So what we've identified here is everything will cease to be because all energy is not clean and the world will eventually be used up.

A slight problem, isn't it ;-) So what is the point when everything goes to shit?

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

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.

This I agree with.

Everytime you mention that you don't believe in the theory around climate change, you are shouted down.

When you mention that there is evidence to suggest that at times in the history of the earth, carbon dioxide was up to 20 times more prevalent in the atmosphere then it is now, people choose not to believe it. Yet climate scientists come up with some tentative causal link between the earth's temperature rising a few degrees and carbon dioxide melting the polar ice caps and they believe that without a shadow of doubt.

In earths history, we can prove that the entire planet has been both completely covered by ice and completely devoid of ice. Human beings were around for neither of those events.

Now that the atmosphere is heating up, these so called climate scientist will have you believe that it's a direct result of human interference.

Maybe we have something to do with it, but I refuse to believe that it is completely our fault and I'm also not sure that there is a single thing we can do about it either way.

 

[Bazal]

The whole point of science is to prove and disprove. If its wrong, then all the better. We know then that we are ok to keep doing what we're doing.

The point of the exercise is to work out the consequences of our actions. If we do not, then we will blunder about until we end up destroying ourselves.

So in reality, I don't care if we're right or wrong, per se - I care that we are trying to work it out.

But we're not. We're not challenging the theory of climate change. We've acknowledged that there is a problem and we've convinced ourselves we know the cause and the result, without testing it. So how are we doing the right thing exactly? Sure we might decrease pollution, and that's great. But what if it's not that? We're so caught up in a hasty theory that we're not focussing on other things. The Barrier Reef is not going to give two shits about climate change unless the ocean literally boils, but we're focussing on it anyway. Meanwhile, erosion in the area has increased markedly, increasing run off which both suffocates coral polyps and leads to algal blooms that kill everything else. Crown of Thorns starfish are on the increase again. Climate change science is doing as much harm as ignoring it would.

 

[Drew-Sta]

But we're not. We're not challenging the theory of climate change. We've acknowledged that there is a problem and we've convinced ourselves we know the cause and the result, without testing it. So how are we doing the right thing exactly? Sure we might decrease pollution, and that's great. But what if it's not that? We're so caught up in a hasty theory that we're not focussing on other things. The Barrier Reef is not going to give two shits about climate change unless the ocean literally boils, but we're focussing on it anyway. Meanwhile, erosion in the area has increased markedly, increasing run off which both suffocates coral polyps and leads to algal blooms that kill everything else. Crown of Thorns starfish are on the increase again. Climate change science is doing as much harm as ignoring it would.

And the erosion and change that is happening is due, generally, to pollution, right?

Common theme, here...

 

[Bazal]

Pollution has nothing to do with erosion....not sure how you draw that bow?

Pollution is a single issue, not the root of all evil...

 

[Drew-Sta]

Pollution has nothing to do with erosion....not sure how you draw that bow?

Pollution is a single issue, not the root of all evil...

There's other factors, which are eroding the reef, but pollution run off is eroding the reef by killing it.

http://www.reportage-enviro.com/2009/08/a-dark-forecast-for-our-reefs/

 

[Bazal]

Nothing is eroding the reef. It's a limestone monolith. Erosion is the process by which sand and soil are being removed from the land and deposited on the reef. And much of that runoff isn't pollution anyway, certainly not the problem stuff. Alot has changed since 2009 when that was written. It's simply fertilisers, often natural, that create algal blooms. Algae being plants. And the sand and soil suffocates the coral polyps.

Why the fixation with pollution? This isn't 6 Degrees of Environmental Disaster, there are so many more factors that are, in certain areas, so much worse that have nothing to with pollution...

 

[Apey]

One of the oddest conspiracy theories around that's for sure. Always interesting when there's suddenly something wrong with science when it disagrees with someone's particular viewpoint. Anyone follow "I f**king love Science" on Facebook and see the shitstorm from their "Pseudoscience" post? :lol:

IPCC's 4th assessment (2007) reported that 90% of GW was a result of human activities. This finding was accepted by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations in 2010. Their upcoming 5th report says "It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.". Scientific literature holds the strong consensus that the primary cause of GW are human activities. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view. The majority of disputes over GW are in popular media not in scientific literature, where the issues are considered resolved.

It's starting to feel like a bit of a God of the Gaps argument. Hiding in those percentages of uncertainty that continually decrease over time.

#believe

 

[Bazal]

One of the oddest conspiracy theories around that's for sure. Always interesting when there's suddenly something wrong with science when it disagrees with someone's particular viewpoint.

As interesting as trivialising someones opinion because it disagrees with a particular viewpoint? ;-)

 

[Skinner]

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.




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.





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.

I knew I liked you man - you echo my thoughts exactly. Since the beginning of time on earth, there has always been climate change. To completely blame man kind for our entry into the current cycle change is to draw an enormously long bow.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

One of the oddest conspiracy theories around that's for sure. Always interesting when there's suddenly something wrong with science when it disagrees with someone's particular viewpoint. Anyone follow "I f**king love Science" on Facebook and see the shitstorm from their "Pseudoscience" post? :lol:

IPCC's 4th assessment (2007) reported that 90% of GW was a result of human activities. This finding was accepted by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations in 2010. Their upcoming 5th report says "It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.". Scientific literature holds the strong consensus that the primary cause of GW are human activities. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view. The majority of disputes over GW are in popular media not in scientific literature, where the issues are considered resolved.

It's starting to feel like a bit of a God of the Gaps argument. Hiding in those percentages of uncertainty that continually decrease over time.

#believe

At one point in time the vast majority of scientists believed that the earth was flat. Popular concensus among scientists proves absolutely nothing.

 

[Misanthrope]

This thread is too serious for me to just drop in and contribute. Let me know when Rhino NQ drops in so I can discuss bewbs with him.

 

[Drew-Sta]

I tend to agree. The moment has passed for such srs dizgusshion.

One thing Baz and I can agree on, though, is that red wine is awesome!

 

[Skinner]

Yep, keep this shyte for the "experts" in 4C.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

I knew I liked you man - you echo my thoughts exactly. Since the beginning of time on earth, there has always been climate change. To completely blame man kind for our entry into the current cycle change is to draw an enormously long bow.

Yep.

We've been here five minutes and the temperature on the earth has risen by a couple of degrees = OMG the world is ending and it's all the fault of human beings.

 

[Timmah]

Firkin Four Corners?