Author Topic: Climate change  (Read 34293 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline loki679

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #625 on: Saturday 27 July 2019, 12:27:42 PM »
Hey Stan, if you're really interested in learning I found this great site that can help:

www.google.com
Comfy chairs, beer, and doom. Humanity's future is an early 90s LAN party.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #626 on: Saturday 27 July 2019, 04:06:06 PM »
f*** this. I'm away to make my own video that demonstrates levitation, by suspending a brick on a string.

I'm genuinely tempted, just for s***s and giggles. I reckon if I entitle it "Flat-earther DESTROYS theory of gravity" I'll get my answer in the first 5 comments, but that's just the brucie bonus. I'd be rich within a month.


« Last Edit: Saturday 27 July 2019, 04:47:45 PM by sadnesstan »

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #627 on: Saturday 27 July 2019, 04:32:19 PM »
Hey Stan, if you're really interested in learning I found this great site that can help:

www.google.com

I've already tried that. But my lack of a basic understanding of scientific language stifled my efforts. All I could think of was "Believe in the sheet", and that just provided page after page after page after page of stuff about the Turin shroud. There was one article about a 27 year old man that had peed the bed, and the stain resembled Frank Zappa, which was interesting. But didn't help.

Offline QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #628 on: Saturday 27 July 2019, 06:28:38 PM »
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.





To properly challenge consensus, it requires a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, and the purpose of peer reviewing. It also requires being well-versed in the field. If these criteria don't apply, that challenging people trained in their field is just patently absurd. The uninitiated are just highly unlikely to be able to challenge consensus critically, and using the same methodology that got us here. Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe challenged classical physics, specifically because he understood classical physics to his very core, and also was aware of the glaring inconsistency with the model when dealing with blackbody radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment put a speed limit on light, which would lead to Special Relativity. It also put to bed a prevailing idea about an aether in space. This was done by physicists well-trained in their field.

You should approach people who challenge consensus with healthy skepticism, and before you do anything else, sufficiently research the claimant. This lack of rigor is a fundamental problem with many "consensus challengers". Given some of your posts on gravity, I suggest that you make sure you understand the fundamental science before going toe to toe with an established theory.

Can't disagree with any of that.

Except the notion that I'm going toe to toe with gravity. I'm not, I just want to know about the clamps.

Also, I believe it's 97% of scientists who agree on climate change (I'm not sure if the same percentage agree on the solution). Which means that 3% of scientists are challenging the consensus.Or at the very least they don't agree 100%.




Not quite true about the 97% comment. 97% of all papers written about climate change support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Virtually all of the 3% that challenge the consensus have not met the standard of peer review, due to some major flaws in methodology. Not to mention that a great many of those 3% have backing from Big Oil, who have used Big Tobacco's tactics of throwing questionable scientific studies in the mix to confuse, and to sow doubt. It's not challenging consensus in any meaningful way. When actual studies come out that cannot be quickly refuted, and that have used proper scientific methodology, then we'll talk about a proper challenging of consensus. As it stands now, we are not there.

Not to be pedantic, but science is just a methodology that is pretty effective at filtering out bad explanations and producing accurate results. It in and of itself is not right or wrong. Too often people treat it as if it were a religion when they say science is doing this or that, which is fundamentally misunderstanding what the method is about.

I honestly don't think I'm re-writing physics by asking you to account for the clamps.

You raise the identity of the backers of the 3% as evidence that they should be treated with scepticism. That's fair enough. But I'm not asking for reasons to be sceptical about the 3%, I'm asking for evidence as to why I should not be sceptical of the 97%. Let's start with the same argument. Who funds the 97%? Is there anything about them that might raise questions as to their motive?


Your fundamental misunderstanding that you appeared to demonstrate of how Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, and how General Relativity works in the beginning leads me to believe that you should probably dust off the old physics text if you want ot explore further into the machinations of gravity. Otherwise you are just creating word salads.

The 97% are generally funded by organizations such as the NSF. It's usually pretty transparent where they get their funding from. By that reasoning, you could possibly go down the path of saying that my sister is part of a cabal of corrupt scientists who have made up, or have exaggerated the problem that cosmic radiation wreaks on instrumentation. They made this up clearly to fund their specious research. You could use this same reasoning about evolutionary biologists, biochemists, other astrophysicists, etc. Being skeptical about 1 paper here and there is of course healthy, but without anything to indicate so, being skeptical about a consensus from peer-reviewed research because you are not aware of where the generally transparent funding comes from is a bit rich. My sister got her funding from the NSF. I am sure you could figure out. Start by looking at specific papers. Any reputable journal usually requires the researcher to submit where they got their funding, and it is listed in the paper. And on that note, reputable journals are absolutely ruthless about what they publish. s*** can slip through the cracks, but it doesn't often happen, and certainly not a level where nearly a whole body of scientific research is doctored. If that was the case, then at some point in the future that journal would have a destroyed reputation.

It's in essence proposing that there is a vast conspiracy of scientists who are taking us all for a ride while living the high life, which is some bold claim, and at least deserves evidence. Now if in the future it turns out that the models weren't that great or were incomplete, then fair enough. But that is wildly different than assuming a conspiracy of scientists. Sadly, many of the models look like they were too conservative at the moment.

This is essentially the argument that climate deniers use, even though that the vast sums of money being thrown about by Big Oil to gaslight the population. On the other side, the flaws in the reasoning and methodology of nearly all of the remaining 3% of studies are generally so glaring that it makes me wonder if they are aimed specifically at friendly politicians for a few bullet points. Because it is pretty damn embarrassing if some of them swear by their methodology when they know pretty much any asshole with a reasonable climate science background will immediately poke holes in their models.

And I would like to remind you that there is a vast difference between informed skepticism, and ignorant skepticism, or just outright denial. Instead of expressing skepticism about source of funding, go and look some papers up form reputable journals.

Just giving you the opportunit to demonstrate that your rigorous scepticism is applied universally. You've wasted that opportunity to siply re-iterate you superior knowledge. Well done.


My aim is to apply my skepticism with knowledge and reason, and accepting that models change, and theories are fluid. This also applies to climate science. But only one side is clearly applying the rigorous scientific method to their models. The other side has been generally shown to do no such thing.

I taught science for many years, and have no problem explaining things to people who just don't have the knowledge. The issue comes when people think they know something but clearly don't, and use terms like skepticism without really understanding what they mean. In order to be reasonably skeptical, it helps to have a bit of knowledge on the subject first. It also helps to be able to critically think within that context. If just you're trolling, then fair enough. Otherwise, it may help you to go to Khan Academy's site. They have some fantastic courses in science and mathematics, among other things.

Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #629 on: Monday 29 July 2019, 12:51:52 AM »
Just watched this. Probably been seen before, but I enjoyed it. I don't share his belief that cutting your lifestyle to 1/6 is impossible. I'm pretty sure I've cut mine to 1/100th (exaggeration) since 10 years ago. This is two years old so it's difficult to form an argument based on them. Is the target getting closer or further away? Have living standards risen in the last two years? Were they rising at the time of the video? Aargh, too many questions.

What we do know is that there has been a widespread campaign, encouraging people to do the things necessary, we also know shitloads of people who have made a massive effort to comply. Taking into consideration that 1/6 is the global average, I probably haven't done my fair share (even if 1/100th is even remotely close to the truth), anyway, it puts me in a position of comparing those who might have a standard of living 1/100 of my own, with those who have a SoL x100 my own. I don't think it is fair to expect those with the lower SoL to contribute to the overall target.

So in conclusion, we need those with the highest standard of living to make a bigger contribution to the effort. And that is the problem. When the global economy depends on people's desire to improve their SoL what do you do?

That's the conundrum, and it's an issue that shouldn't be political, at all.


Whoops


Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #630 on: Monday 29 July 2019, 03:12:52 PM »
It's my birthday in 2 days, gonna get a massive cake for the party, and eat 9/10 of it in full view of the other guests. Then I'll tell hem that there isn't enough cake for everybody else, if they want to save the cake they'll have to stop eating it. Then I'll take the rest of the cake upstairs to bed with me and finish it off. Who gives a f***, they'll all be gone in the morning.

Offline neesy111

  • General Member
Re: Climate change
« Reply #631 on: Monday 29 July 2019, 04:38:39 PM »
:weirdo:

Offline loki679

  • General Member
Re: Climate change
« Reply #632 on: Tuesday 30 July 2019, 05:15:15 AM »
On July 29th we passed the point where we've used more natural resources this year than the earth can regenerate in one year.  Interesting concept.

Comfy chairs, beer, and doom. Humanity's future is an early 90s LAN party.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Climate change
« Reply #633 on: Tuesday 30 July 2019, 04:05:04 PM »
Guess I won't be sending a bendy bus to Jupiter.

Offline loki679

  • General Member
Re: Climate change
« Reply #634 on: Wednesday 31 July 2019, 09:59:46 AM »
China predicted to hit peak emissions 5-9 years earlier than targeted.   Good news for the effort against climate change and due in no small part to the focus and determination to develop and implement renewable technologies.

中国加油!
Comfy chairs, beer, and doom. Humanity's future is an early 90s LAN party.

Offline loki679

  • General Member
Re: Climate change
« Reply #635 on: Friday 2 August 2019, 07:26:16 AM »
:scared:


Comfy chairs, beer, and doom. Humanity's future is an early 90s LAN party.

Offline Troll

  • Book Wanker
  • General Member
  • Get outta here, snail!
Re: Climate change
« Reply #636 on: Wednesday 14 August 2019, 08:31:08 PM »

The planet is f***ed when people like this are getting elected.

Re: Climate change
« Reply #637 on: Wednesday 14 August 2019, 08:37:08 PM »
:lol: Lunacy.
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make

Offline Disco

  • General Member
Re: Climate change
« Reply #638 on: Thursday 15 August 2019, 01:06:11 AM »
One thing I’ve never quite got my head around, why do nationalists and right wingers the world abound despise (certain aspects of) science so much? Plenty of money to be made so it’s not that, is it the being told what to do or is it the dream of seeing those they despise suffer as a result of being critical? Or is it something else?

Offline gbandit

  • General Member
Re: Climate change
« Reply #639 on: Thursday 15 August 2019, 06:01:00 AM »
Think they just want to tell everyone else the ‘truth’ and hold onto all the power. Hard to do when facts back up different viewpoints. Science tends to point the finger at being a c*** in most domains as well so they probably feel victimised too

Offline Shelvey's Hair

  • General Member
Re: Climate change
« Reply #640 on: Thursday 15 August 2019, 09:10:53 AM »
'Punch in the gut' as scientists find micro plastic in Arctic ice

LONDON (Reuters) - Tiny pieces of plastic have been found in ice cores drilled in the Arctic by a U.S.-led team of scientists, underscoring the threat the growing form of pollution poses to marine life in even the remotest waters on the planet.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-environment-arctic-plastic/punch-in-the-gut-as-scientists-find-micro-plastic-in-arctic-ice-idUKKCN1V41V2

Offline Disco

  • General Member
Re: Climate change
« Reply #641 on: Wednesday 25 September 2019, 03:35:41 PM »
Quote
Climate change is devastating our seas and frozen regions as never before, a major new United Nations report warns.

According to a UN panel of scientists, waters are rising, the ice is melting, and species are moving habitat due to human activities.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49817804

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Climate change
« Reply #642 on: Wednesday 25 September 2019, 03:48:15 PM »
One thing I’ve never quite got my head around, why do nationalists and right wingers the world abound despise (certain aspects of) science so much? Plenty of money to be made so it’s not that, is it the being told what to do or is it the dream of seeing those they despise suffer as a result of being critical? Or is it something else?
Because they all involve shutting out facts and reason.
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Offline Darth Crooks

  • General Member
  • The greatest show on Darth
Re: Climate change
« Reply #643 on: Friday 27 September 2019, 07:21:43 AM »
Might also involve friends and themselves who have vested interests from lobbyists. These people are not all daft.

Offline Dinho lad

  • i lov u hatem
  • General Member
Re: Climate change
« Reply #644 on: Friday 27 September 2019, 07:33:54 PM »
I was going to post this in the Not Worthy of a Thread thread, but upon looking for it, I noticed this thread.

What I wanted to say was..... I no longer give a damn about the earth and will not be 'going out of my way' to be greener.

Offline triggs

  • eirenufcfan
  • General Member
  • I've had my fun and that's all that matters
Re: Climate change
« Reply #645 on: Friday 27 September 2019, 11:41:20 PM »
A very on brand Dinho post
"Lots of young fellas runnin' around in shorts, that's the kind of think you like looking at, and I bet you like that too, only you're probably imagining what they'd look like without shorts, you're sitting there imagining that with a big smile on your face, ya dirty fecker"

Offline Troll

  • Book Wanker
  • General Member
  • Get outta here, snail!
Re: Climate change
« Reply #646 on: Saturday 28 September 2019, 12:01:16 AM »
I was going to post this in the Not Worthy of a Thread thread, but upon looking for it, I noticed this thread.

What I wanted to say was..... I no longer give a damn about the earth and will not be 'going out of my way' to be greener.

Cool story.

Offline NEEJ

  • General Member
Re: Climate change
« Reply #647 on: Saturday 28 September 2019, 12:09:02 AM »
I was going to post this in the Not Worthy of a Thread thread, but upon looking for it, I noticed this thread.

What I wanted to say was..... I no longer give a damn about the earth and will not be 'going out of my way' to be greener.
Such a tosser.

Offline neesy111

  • General Member
Re: Climate change
« Reply #648 on: Saturday 28 September 2019, 12:56:45 AM »
I was going to post this in the Not Worthy of a Thread thread, but upon looking for it, I noticed this thread.

What I wanted to say was..... I no longer give a damn about the earth and will not be 'going out of my way' to be greener.

Well I always thought you were a c***.  Thanks for clarifying.

Re: Climate change
« Reply #649 on: Saturday 28 September 2019, 11:25:41 PM »
I was going to post this in the Not Worthy of a Thread thread, but upon looking for it, I noticed this thread.

What I wanted to say was..... I no longer give a damn about the earth and will not be 'going out of my way' to be greener.

You okay? Not being sarcy.
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make