Kevin's Watch Forum Index
 HomeHome   MemberlistMemberlist   RegisterRegister   SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   FAQFAQ   StatisticsStatistics  SudokuSudoku   Phoogle MapPhoogle Map 
 AlbumAlbum StoresStores   StoresItems Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Enjoying Your "Global Warming"? (Part 2)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kevin's Watch Forum Index -> Hile Troy's Think-Tank
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
[Syl]
Embattred


Joined: 26 Oct 2002
Posts: 12947

Thanks: 85
Thanked 58 Times in 56 Posts


3903 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zarathustra wrote:
Good to see you around, Syl!

[Syl] wrote:
Fist wrote:
Things are going swimmingly.



Think I'll trust Scientific American on this one.


I think I will too:

Thanks, Zar. And are you sure about that?
_________________
"It is not the literal past that rules us, save, possibly, in a biological sense. It is images of the past. Each new historical era mirrors itself in the picture and active mythology of its past or of a past borrowed from other cultures. It tests its sense of identity, of regress or new achievement against that past.
-George Steiner
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SoulBiter
Cail is missed!!!

Ranyhyn
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 6974

Thanks: 27
Thanked 55 Times in 54 Posts


22980 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Forbidding1 Giant Ship1 Giant


PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wayfriend wrote:
SoulBiter wrote:
Second, If we were carbon neutral starting tomorrow, it would be something like 100 years before we saw any meaningful changes assuming a reduction in carbon made ANY changes at all.

If we were carbon neutral starting tomorrow, we would immediately see carbon neutrality - carbon levels would stop RISING. No one can overstress how incredibly important that is. It would immediately mean that all the threats caused by carbon levels higher than they are now would be mitigated.

What would take decades is lowering carbon levels. But carbon neutrality doesn't even do that - it's in the definition of the term. Carbon reduction is something that we can't even begin until we achieve carbon neutral.



I agree with the last paragraph (above) in entirety. However I don't see carbon neutrality as "immediately mean that all threats caused by carbon levels higher than they are now being mitigated". There is no proof of that and there wont be until we get to that point. We also still dont know exactly what it will take to get there in terms of changing the way we use energy and live our lives. Again a new science. There are theories but nobody really knows just yet.

wayfriend wrote:

SoulBiter wrote:
Climate "science" is really new and like any new science it is likely to be wrong on many fronts as more data becomes available.

That's the basic "don't trust science" position, looks like.

Science is maybe sometimes wrong, but it is always the way to bet. Always.



My position is not "Don't trust the science" its rather, when the science is new and many positions within the science are unproven, question the science. If we never did that we would still think the earth is flat and petroleum comes from dinosaurs.

wayfriend wrote:


Sadly, lies about climate science being wrong "all the time" are behind this "don't trust science" position, and they are being pushed in order to rescue big oil money.


That would be sad but I don't know many people that think climate science is wrong "All the time". Even big oil and car manufacturing is working on ways to change to a different energy source so as not to be left behind.

wayfriend wrote:

Oh, and climate science has been around since the 19th century. Far longer than space travel, computers, immunology, or creation science.


Yes and they have been wrong on a number of fronts over the years. Science said we had reached peak oil production 20 years ago and would have ran out already. But we haven't and we keep finding more sources. Science claimed in the 60's and 70's that we were entering into a new ice-age. They recommended more carbon releases as a way to mitigate that. Wrong.

Paul Eurick (sp?) a professor at Stanford said we would see a 4+ Billion person "die off" during the 1980's. Yep wrong.

Wheat yields have increased 100 to 300% around the world since the 1960s, while a study of 30 science models completed in 2014 found that yields would decline by 6% for every one degree Celsius increase in temperature. Yet rather than decrease, yield's continue to increase.

There was a time when scientists said we would not be able to feed another billion people on the earth. that was a few hundred billion people ago.

That's what I mean. As with any science, we are still learning. We still don't have all the answers and many things we think are on rock solid ground will eventually be proven incorrect. And the human race continues to adapt to its environment by finding ways to alleviate the issues that occur when the climate is not "perfect" for us.
_________________
"He torments himself sufficiently."

**"You can deny if you will but the "hens" didn't just happen to show up when they did, by accident. "***

** Note to add that ALL of the hens have since disappeared***


"All of the above is my opinion and thus shouldnt need to be supported by anything other than more of my opinions. twocents "

We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wayfriend
whilom witling

Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 20376

Thanks: 11
Thanked 247 Times in 226 Posts

Location: In reality once again
49987 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
3 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SoulBiter wrote:
Science claimed in the 60's and 70's that we were entering into a new ice-age. ... Wrong.

That is the classic lie that people claim proves climate science can't be trusted. There are some others, but that one crops up again and again.

It is a lie because climate science wasn't shown to be wrong. Human-made global warming changed the planet's trajectory, from will-get-colder-over-millions-of-years to will-get-hotter-in-hundreds-of-years. The carbon emissions of the 70's are miniscule compared to today. Climate science properly and accurately responded to new data arising from changing conditions.

This is really just pathetic denial for the sake of preserving the status quo. No one buys into it, not even the ones selling it.
_________________
* I occasionally post things on KevinsWatch because I am a fan of Stephen R. Donaldson; this should not be considered as condonation of the white nationalist propaganda which is posted far too frequently on this website.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
SoulBiter
Cail is missed!!!

Ranyhyn
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 6974

Thanks: 27
Thanked 55 Times in 54 Posts


22980 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Forbidding1 Giant Ship1 Giant


PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wayfriend wrote:
SoulBiter wrote:
Science claimed in the 60's and 70's that we were entering into a new ice-age. ... Wrong.

That is the classic lie that people claim proves climate science can't be trusted. There are some others, but that one crops up again and again.

It is a lie because climate science wasn't shown to be wrong. Human-made global warming changed the planet's trajectory, from will-get-colder-over-millions-of-years to will-get-hotter-in-hundreds-of-years. The carbon emissions of the 70's are miniscule compared to today. Climate science properly and accurately responded to new data arising from changing conditions.

This is really just pathetic denial for the sake of preserving the status quo. No one buys into it, not even the ones selling it.



Global cooling was wrong. Its was put out as the science of the time. They did NOT account for how carbon emissions (or other environmental issues like deforestation or polar melts) would impact climate. They were still learning. They are still learning.
_________________
"He torments himself sufficiently."

**"You can deny if you will but the "hens" didn't just happen to show up when they did, by accident. "***

** Note to add that ALL of the hens have since disappeared***


"All of the above is my opinion and thus shouldnt need to be supported by anything other than more of my opinions. twocents "

We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wayfriend
whilom witling

Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 20376

Thanks: 11
Thanked 247 Times in 226 Posts

Location: In reality once again
49987 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
3 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SoulBiter wrote:
Global cooling was wrong. Its was put out as the science of the time. They did NOT account for how carbon emissions (or other environmental issues like deforestation or polar melts) would impact climate. They were still learning. They are still learning.

Global cooling was not wrong as far as having any evidence against it. It was not put out "as" science, it was science. It did not account for how MASSIVE carbon emissions would impact climate because there were none foreseen at the time. And yes they are still learning but that's not the same as "always wrong".

The theory that ice-ages are periodic has not been proven wrong - the evidence is there. Therefore, it is always true that we're heading towards another one. The only thing that was actually claimed way back when was that we were closer to the next ice-age than the last ice-age. We were past peak warmth and trending cooler again.

(Ironically, Republicans, refuting modern climate science, point out that the Earth's climate changes in cycles, hotter then cooler. They actually refute current evidence by using this older theory! But inconsistency and hypocrisy don't matter to people who control elections.)

This was not a huge thing. This was a few academics posting a theory which the tabloids carried more than anyone else.

It was millions of years away. There was no urgent need to study it more deeply.

On the other hand, the current theory of imminent global climate change has been studied by tens of thousands of people over decades, of every nationality. It's a threat - people are worried - so scientists study it harder. It has been reconfirmed again and again and again. All contrary studies have been revealed to be the scams that they were - the results of a shameless greedy criminal industry - the creation science of climate science.

Since you feel compelled to take an obviously incorrect position on the matter, you must expect people to point out what that looks like. Like mindless loyalty to a party instead of science.
_________________
* I occasionally post things on KevinsWatch because I am a fan of Stephen R. Donaldson; this should not be considered as condonation of the white nationalist propaganda which is posted far too frequently on this website.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
SoulBiter
Cail is missed!!!

Ranyhyn
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 6974

Thanks: 27
Thanked 55 Times in 54 Posts


22980 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Forbidding1 Giant Ship1 Giant


PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wayfriend wrote:

Global cooling was not wrong as far as having any evidence against it. It was not put out "as" science, it was science. It did not account for how MASSIVE carbon emissions would impact climate because there were none foreseen at the time. And yes they are still learning but that's not the same as "always wrong".



So they were wrong. You can say it. It wont hurt, I promise Wink

wayfriend wrote:

The theory that ice-ages are periodic has not been proven wrong - the evidence is there. Therefore, it is always true that we're heading towards another one. The only thing that was actually claimed way back when was that we were closer to the next ice-age than the last ice-age. We were past peak warmth and trending cooler again.



Of course when written in that manner you cant be wrong. We are always trending either warmer or cooler. Agreed. The current science now says we are so far off course, that we wont know how long we will continue to warm or how long it will be before another ice-age. We are now off track and just about anything can happen.

wayfriend wrote:

(Ironically, Republicans, refuting modern climate science, point out that the Earth's climate changes in cycles, hotter then cooler. They actually refute current evidence by using this older theory! But inconsistency and hypocrisy don't matter to people who control elections.)

This was not a huge thing. This was a few academics posting a theory which the tabloids carried more than anyone else.

It was millions of years away. There was no urgent need to study it more deeply.


What does that have to do with our discussion? Does everything refer back to the partisan divide in our country?

wayfriend wrote:

On the other hand, the current theory of imminent global climate change has been studied by tens of thousands of people over decades, of every nationality. It's a threat - people are worried - so scientists study it harder. It has been reconfirmed again and again and again. All contrary studies have been revealed to be the scams that they were - the results of a shameless greedy criminal industry - the creation science of climate science.

Well how dare anyone challenge the deeply held beliefs of Climate scientists!Wink

wayfriend wrote:

Since you feel compelled to take an obviously incorrect position on the matter, you must expect people to point out what that looks like.

I guess we could all just agree with each other. Log off and never talk again. I mean what do we have to debate about if everyone just agreed?

wayfriend wrote:

Like mindless loyalty to a party instead of science.


I wish each debate on this forum would not so easily devolve into partisan politics and broad-brushing each other into what we believe them to be. Framing everything into "Those Nasty Republicans and Nasty Democrats". "Golum Golum". "We hates them. WE HATES THEM FOREVER!" Laughing
_________________
"He torments himself sufficiently."

**"You can deny if you will but the "hens" didn't just happen to show up when they did, by accident. "***

** Note to add that ALL of the hens have since disappeared***


"All of the above is my opinion and thus shouldnt need to be supported by anything other than more of my opinions. twocents "

We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae


Joined: 01 Dec 2002
Posts: 19692

Thanks: 100
Thanked 104 Times in 100 Posts


15619 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Foul Duck1 Lord Mhoram's Victory1 2011 Watchies


PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SoulBiter wrote:
The current science now says we are so far off course, that we wont know how long we will continue to warm or how long it will be before another ice-age. We are now off track and just about anything can happen.
I gather you disagree?

SoulBiter wrote:
wayfriend wrote:

Like mindless loyalty to a party instead of science.


I wish each debate on this forum would not so easily devolve into partisan politics and broad-brushing each other into what we believe them to be. Framing everything into "Those Nasty Republicans and Nasty Democrats". "Golum Golum". "We hates them. WE HATES THEM FOREVER!" Laughing
I agree. Not every disagreement is caused by partisan politics. And my agreement with a stance known to be held by the Republican/Democratic party doesn't mean it's because I'm a Republican/Democrat, or that I agree on that stance for the same reasons. Can a stance on global warming not exist for a non-political reason? Can it not be because people disagree about the scientific evidence, or its interpretation?
_________________
...you won't end up on the wrong side of the police if you don't commit any crimes. - Hashi Lebwohl

All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger Phoogle Map
SoulBiter
Cail is missed!!!

Ranyhyn
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 6974

Thanks: 27
Thanked 55 Times in 54 Posts


22980 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Forbidding1 Giant Ship1 Giant


PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fist and Faith wrote:
SoulBiter wrote:
The current science now says we are so far off course, that we wont know how long we will continue to warm or how long it will be before another ice-age. We are now off track and just about anything can happen.
I gather you disagree


Actually I agree that we are now off track enough that historical models might not be able to help anymore, except as a baseline.
_________________
"He torments himself sufficiently."

**"You can deny if you will but the "hens" didn't just happen to show up when they did, by accident. "***

** Note to add that ALL of the hens have since disappeared***


"All of the above is my opinion and thus shouldnt need to be supported by anything other than more of my opinions. twocents "

We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae


Joined: 01 Dec 2002
Posts: 19692

Thanks: 100
Thanked 104 Times in 100 Posts


15619 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Foul Duck1 Lord Mhoram's Victory1 2011 Watchies


PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And was this getting off track caused by humans?
_________________
...you won't end up on the wrong side of the police if you don't commit any crimes. - Hashi Lebwohl

All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger Phoogle Map
SoulBiter
Cail is missed!!!

Ranyhyn
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 6974

Thanks: 27
Thanked 55 Times in 54 Posts


22980 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Forbidding1 Giant Ship1 Giant


PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fist and Faith wrote:
And was this getting off track caused by humans?


Quite probably. AFAIK nothing else has changed significantly except more humans changing the chemical makeup of the atmosphere. Some of that is by emissions but a significant amount has to do with taking away all the carbon sinks. i.e. rainforests. Its a double whammy. However I am unconvinced that even getting carbon neutral is achievable in the next 10 years when so many developed and developing nations are not changing even if we do. I am not convinced that even if we were to go better than carbon neutral tomorrow, that in 100 years we would be able to see a return to what scientists believe is normal for our climate. I am also unconvinced that moving to battery powered vehicles is sustainable across decades. The raw materials are not a renewable resource either.... Eventually we will have another storage of toxic chemicals problem as these batteries no longer hold a charge and cannot be made to work properly again.

I am convinced that it is very possible that we will bankrupt the nation trying to get there in the manner that this administration is doing. If that happens what do you suppose China will do?
_________________
"He torments himself sufficiently."

**"You can deny if you will but the "hens" didn't just happen to show up when they did, by accident. "***

** Note to add that ALL of the hens have since disappeared***


"All of the above is my opinion and thus shouldnt need to be supported by anything other than more of my opinions. twocents "

We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae


Joined: 01 Dec 2002
Posts: 19692

Thanks: 100
Thanked 104 Times in 100 Posts


15619 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Foul Duck1 Lord Mhoram's Victory1 2011 Watchies


PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep. I agree with all that. Much of the world will not attempt to change their ways, so we won't see any improvement. Improvement will only come when it is to everyone's financial advantage. When a cheaper source of energy is found.
_________________
...you won't end up on the wrong side of the police if you don't commit any crimes. - Hashi Lebwohl

All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger Phoogle Map
wayfriend
whilom witling

Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 20376

Thanks: 11
Thanked 247 Times in 226 Posts

Location: In reality once again
49987 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
3 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fist and Faith wrote:
I agree. Not every disagreement is caused by partisan politics.

This particular one is absolutely caused by partisan politics. There would be no mindless opposition to climate science if it were not for politicians, driven by corporations, inventing fallacious arguments like "don't trust science" and "global warming was fabricated by liberals in order to make money on green energy". (I remember that one, perhaps you don't.)

You see a Republican repeating the Republican denialism platform verbatim, just as Soulbiter is, and the conclusion is obvious.

Claiming I was the one who made it partisan is just deflecting. And taking an opportunity to be mean.
_________________
* I occasionally post things on KevinsWatch because I am a fan of Stephen R. Donaldson; this should not be considered as condonation of the white nationalist propaganda which is posted far too frequently on this website.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
SoulBiter
Cail is missed!!!

Ranyhyn
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 6974

Thanks: 27
Thanked 55 Times in 54 Posts


22980 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Forbidding1 Giant Ship1 Giant


PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess we are done debating here then. Its obvious that I am just some mindless Republican spouting the Party line. While you are the enlightened Democrat wondering how I could be so misled.

Good day.
_________________
"He torments himself sufficiently."

**"You can deny if you will but the "hens" didn't just happen to show up when they did, by accident. "***

** Note to add that ALL of the hens have since disappeared***


"All of the above is my opinion and thus shouldnt need to be supported by anything other than more of my opinions. twocents "

We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae


Joined: 01 Dec 2002
Posts: 19692

Thanks: 100
Thanked 104 Times in 100 Posts


15619 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Foul Duck1 Lord Mhoram's Victory1 2011 Watchies


PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have no doubt there have been politicians, driven by corporations, inventing fallacious arguments like "don't trust science" and "global warming was fabricated by liberals in order to make money on green energy". I just think it's possible that some people question it for other reasons.

And I also have no doubt that people who would make money on green energy would fabricate it, if it was not true, and would exaggerate it wherever possible. So looking for verification of the reported data is not unreasonable.

I'm not coming down on either side of global warming. I'm just saying there are unscrupulous people on all sides of most issues, and not everyone on any side of the issue should be assumed to be unscrupulous. I'm sure it's move productive to address specific points regarding the science.
_________________
...you won't end up on the wrong side of the police if you don't commit any crimes. - Hashi Lebwohl

All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger Phoogle Map
wayfriend
whilom witling

Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 20376

Thanks: 11
Thanked 247 Times in 226 Posts

Location: In reality once again
49987 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
3 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fist and Faith wrote:
I just think it's possible that some people question it for other reasons.

If there has been legitimate (that is, not funded by partisans to cause climate skepticism) science that is contrary to the near-unanimous consensus, it is lost in the noise. But I will gladly accept references.

NASA wrote:
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists 97 percent agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.


Wikipedia wrote:
Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (9798%[3]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[4][5] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[6] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%.[2]

If anyone has found from some scholarly resource suggesting that global warming isn't man-made, rather than from some partisan propaganda source, and that resource is so convincing that it leads them to disagree with the vast majority of scientists, then I would really like to hear of it.
_________________
* I occasionally post things on KevinsWatch because I am a fan of Stephen R. Donaldson; this should not be considered as condonation of the white nationalist propaganda which is posted far too frequently on this website.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae


Joined: 01 Dec 2002
Posts: 19692

Thanks: 100
Thanked 104 Times in 100 Posts


15619 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Foul Duck1 Lord Mhoram's Victory1 2011 Watchies


PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As would I.

Not that I've followed the topic closely, but I thought the main argument was not that global warming was caused by humans, but that global warming is a hoax.
_________________
...you won't end up on the wrong side of the police if you don't commit any crimes. - Hashi Lebwohl

All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger Phoogle Map
Hashi Lebwohl
Director of Data Acquisition

Male
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 17122

Thanks: 29
Thanked 139 Times in 135 Posts

Location: UMCPHQ
98986 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Caesure1 Insequent1 UMCPHQ


PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SoulBiter wrote:
I guess we are done debating here then. Its obvious that I am just some mindless Republican spouting the Party line. While you are the enlightened Democrat wondering how I could be so misled.

Good day.


Trying to debate an alarmist or mention the flaws in climate mysticism is as pointless as trying to convince a devout catholic that the Virgin Mary is not real. Climate science is not science, it is a religion.

How do I know it isn't science? 1) they cannot prove conclusively what will happen or when it will happen. 2) they always conclude that only bad things will happen. 3) there is no "control" Earth with no humans on it to use for experimental purposes.

The only inconvenient truth about climate mysticism is that it is as scientific as phrenology, which was actually seriously considered a science in its day.

_________________
Fist and Faith wrote:
If you do not support your accusation at any time, I will delete your post.


Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and you shouldn't have any problems.

Don Exnihilote wrote:
Hashi, if you thought you were wrong at times, evidently you were mistaken.


Mensa and Intertel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae


Joined: 01 Dec 2002
Posts: 19692

Thanks: 100
Thanked 104 Times in 100 Posts


15619 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Foul Duck1 Lord Mhoram's Victory1 2011 Watchies


PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
1) they cannot prove conclusively what will happen or when it will happen.
I'm not sure we need any kind of scientific proof to think it's bad for the planet's ecosystems - and therefore even us - to dump an extraordinary amount of pollution into the world. I doubt science proved that DDT would weaken the shells of bird eggs before it happened, but it proved that's what had weakened them after we noticed they were weak. I doubt science proved we would end up eating tuna with dangerously high concentrations of mercury in them before we realized we were doing it.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
2) they always conclude that only bad things will happen.
Not sure I understand this one. Is anyone suggesting good things might happen to the planet as a result of the massive amount of pollution we've been dumping all over it?

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
3) there is no "control" Earth with no humans on it to use for experimental purposes.
Also true. But if the science that tells us that the earth has cycled through cold and hot periods, on a predictable timetable, for billions of years, but we can now see that that timetable is no longer being followed, might that not suggest humanity's touch has upset things? What else would be the cause of upsetting a billions-of-years-old timetable? Or is the dispute over whether or not science tells us that there ever was such a timetable and/or that it is no longer being followed?
_________________
...you won't end up on the wrong side of the police if you don't commit any crimes. - Hashi Lebwohl

All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger Phoogle Map
Skyweir
Lord of Light


Joined: 16 Mar 2002
Posts: 21719

Thanks: 20
Thanked 85 Times in 85 Posts

Location: Australia
45843 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Lord's Staff1 Oath of Peace1 Furls Fire


PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I enjoyed this page - thank you FnF for pulling key elements of this discussion together.

I dont really think SB, that partisan politics drives this debate, though I could be wrong but unfortunately partisan politicians seem galvanised in their commitment to disseminating lol 😂 demonstrably outrageous DIS-information.

I dont really want to further sidetrack the thread but I do empathise with Wayfriends comments - as the lunatic politicians who DO disseminate propagandist conspiracy BS curry significant following. I consider that not just a folly but dangerous.

That is truly challenging to navigate diplomatically lol 😂 but I respect that not all Pubs sing from the same less questionable playbooks.

Im glad that we have a more homogeneous appreciation of global warming and that we all agree that global warming is affected by human activity among other contributing factors.

But that climate change is also a seemingly natural cyclical environmental response to changing environmental factors.

None of that means there is zero value in reducing pollutants/emissions nor that global warming should not be mitigated or that supporting the Paris Accord is folly. Its about making positive changes and taking constructive steps to minimise the damage global warming causes.
_________________
health and healing

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'

EZBoard SURVIVOR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Hashi Lebwohl
Director of Data Acquisition

Male
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 17122

Thanks: 29
Thanked 139 Times in 135 Posts

Location: UMCPHQ
98986 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Caesure1 Insequent1 UMCPHQ


PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fist and Faith, you are conflating "pollution" and "climate change". "Pollution" is throwing trash out the window as one drives down the street, dumping used motor oil in the creek behind one's house, or a company dumping its waste into a lake or landfill in a legally-gray manner. Pollution leads to things like Love Canal--people suffering from chronic sickness because of the chemicals leaching up through the soil. Pollution is definitely a bad thing and should be avoided at all times, then fought against if it happens--no one wants to see someone else's shit strown along the side of the road or, as happened in China, be near a river which is so chemically polluted that it is biologically sterile.

"Climate change" is just a quick way to say "changes in long-term patterns". Only the most fringe anti-climate-change people still argue that human activity does not upset the balance--the Earth is, for all intents and purposes, a closed system, so any action taken by humanity as a whole is indeed going to change the dynamics of that system. The argument, at least the one I make, boils down to this: does climate change represent a threat to life on the planet or not? In my opinion, it does not. Even if polar caps melt, even if sea levels rise, and whatever other doom-and-gloom scenario alarmists like to conjure, humanity will survive and thrive in that new normal. "But Hashi", you may say, "what about mass migrations?" We have dealt with mass migrations before and we will deal with them again. "But Hashi", you may ask, "what about the bread basket zones changing?" Start buying land in Siberia or northern Canada now, if that is your concern--when the tundra unfreezes it will be a rich farm belt, at which point you may either sell your land for a profit, rent it out to farmers for a steady income stream, or try to farm it yourself.

That is the point where alarmists and I disagree. Alarmists see only negative outcomes and you will never hear them consider, even for a minute, how a possible future change, none of which can ever be proven, only posited as conjecture, may be positive. Even such basic questions as "but won't it be too hot for people to live?" already have answers--people actually live in the Death Valley region, which has at times recorded the highest surface temperatures ever measured. I don't think "too hot" is going to happen.

_________________
Fist and Faith wrote:
If you do not support your accusation at any time, I will delete your post.


Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and you shouldn't have any problems.

Don Exnihilote wrote:
Hashi, if you thought you were wrong at times, evidently you were mistaken.


Mensa and Intertel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kevin's Watch Forum Index -> Hile Troy's Think-Tank All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 9 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by Earthpower © Kevin's Watch