It's just not something a regular person can claim to understand. Nor can we directly experience it's impact. I don't know much about gravity but I sure know it's working every single day. I don't know much about medicine but I know enough people helped by it. Climate change is too abstract to have an opinion on.
I find that every few years the secular world comes up with an end times prophecy. Nowadays climate change gave way to Artificial Intelligence taking over the world and stealing all our jobs. I give it as much credence as I do to people on the right freaking out over trans people signifying the end of the West. 10% truth, 90% BS.
Topic: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change? - page 8. (Read 22113 times)
people who are skeptical about global warming because the impact cannot be felt directly, maybe the impact can be felt after several years, they also assume that global warming is only an issue that does not need to be considered, and warming gloabal can be overcome by scientists
All right, let's go back to that assertion. I understood it and rejected it.
Let's break this down into two pieces, and handle the "why" first. This is a logical fallacy, as it creates a choice between "the moral and ethical" and "the corrupt and lying." (or whatever)
That's not hardly ever all there is as to the range of motivations for individuals let alone groups.
Basically it's lying by presenting two false choices. It's no more authentic than your using arguments of ridicule, or implying that someone that doesn't agree with you is a conspiracy wacko.
Secondly let's look at "steps taken to solve climate change."
Proposed steps singly or jointly have not been shown to have any more than a tiny effect on Co2 concentration.
Thirdly let's consider "create sustainable, renewable energy systems."
Many of these are over promised, overly expensive, underperforming junk.
"Fourth let's look at "getting rid of CO2 is good."
More logical fallacies. Corrected, the assertion would be "A 1% reduction in human CO2 emissions has XYZ value." No it is not a priori good to "get rid of CO2." CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and the earth and ocean.
I'll have to agree. Plant life needs CO2 in order to survive. The goal is to get the amount of CO2 at some kind of equilibrium rather than eliminate it completely.
I couldn't agree more CO2 is essential for life—animals exhale it, plants sequester it. It exists in Earth's atmosphere in comparably small concentrations, but is vital for sustaining life. Since the Industrial Revolution, energy-driven consumption of fossil fuels has led to a rapid increase in CO2 emissions, disrupting the global carbon cycle and leading to a planetary warming impact. The issues arise when there is excessive amount of CO2.
But we haven't come close to excessive amounts of CO2. Excessive amounts would be when there is more than enough to:
Warm and melt the poles;
Make Siberia, Northern Canada, and Antarctica habitable;
Put enough moisture into the atmosphere (via heat) to water the Sahara;
Make atmospheric water to be enough to block bad cosmic radiation;
Make atmospheric water enough so that the cosmic radiation that gets through turns the water into H2O2 so that multitudes of deadly diseases are killed off by peroxide bleaching;
Etc.
All this is why the one-worlders are making CO2 look bad. If there were more CO2 in the atmosphere, all of the above would happen, populations would explode, the one-worlders would lose control, we wouldn't need a medical, and people could become free, healthier, and happy.
All right, let's go back to that assertion. I understood it and rejected it.
Let's break this down into two pieces, and handle the "why" first. This is a logical fallacy, as it creates a choice between "the moral and ethical" and "the corrupt and lying." (or whatever)
That's not hardly ever all there is as to the range of motivations for individuals let alone groups.
Basically it's lying by presenting two false choices. It's no more authentic than your using arguments of ridicule, or implying that someone that doesn't agree with you is a conspiracy wacko.
Secondly let's look at "steps taken to solve climate change."
Proposed steps singly or jointly have not been shown to have any more than a tiny effect on Co2 concentration.
Thirdly let's consider "create sustainable, renewable energy systems."
Many of these are over promised, overly expensive, underperforming junk.
"Fourth let's look at "getting rid of CO2 is good."
More logical fallacies. Corrected, the assertion would be "A 1% reduction in human CO2 emissions has XYZ value." No it is not a priori good to "get rid of CO2." CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and the earth and ocean.
I'll have to agree. Plant life needs CO2 in order to survive. The goal is to get the amount of CO2 at some kind of equilibrium rather than eliminate it completely.
I couldn't agree more CO2 is essential for life—animals exhale it, plants sequester it. It exists in Earth's atmosphere in comparably small concentrations, but is vital for sustaining life. Since the Industrial Revolution, energy-driven consumption of fossil fuels has led to a rapid increase in CO2 emissions, disrupting the global carbon cycle and leading to a planetary warming impact. The issues arise when there is excessive amount of CO2.
There isn't any evidence that it is more a result of sun cycles though. The problem is that you are looking for reasons (that have all been dubunked) to deny climate change instead of just looking at all of the evidence. ...
So now it's clear you don't know what you are talking about. That being the case, please stop trying to push your own ignorance on others. Here is one example of effects of solar and space weather on climate. This is CERN and the CLOUD experiment, pretty darn reputable.
https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cloud-experiment-sharpens-climate-predictions
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Earth’s mean temperature is predicted to rise by between 1.5 – 4.5 °C for a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is expected by around 2050. One of the main reasons for this large uncertainty, which makes it difficult for society to know how best to act against climate change, is a poor understanding of aerosol particles in the atmosphere and their effects on clouds.
...The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles ...
So since you know so much, which is it? 1.5C or 4.5C?
Hint: There's only one right answer, anything else is lying.
There isn't any evidence that it is more a result of sun cycles though. The problem is that you are looking for reasons (that have all been dubunked) to deny climate change instead of just looking at all of the evidence. We don't want climate change to be real but you want it to not be real and then reach for evidence against it. there is a difference in motives here and that difference puts you at odds with science because you are cherrypicking evidence that you think supports what you want to be true.
scientific theories don't need to be proven correct. theories only exist because the body of evidence suggests they are true.
scientific theories don't need to be proven correct. theories only exist because the body of evidence suggests they are true.
I'm just trying to put myself in your shoes to better understand your line of thinking.
Lets say there rampant lying about temperatures. I don't understand how that changes the big picture unless you throw out all of the basic concepts like
-combustion produces carbon dioxide which is released into the atmosphere
-the amount of carbon dioxide emissions can be estimated based on fuel burned
-carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (it traps infrared radiation)
-deforestation decreases carbon dioxide consumption
In theory, doing all of those things should warm the planet, melt ice, acidify the oceans, and change climate. Without any data on temperature, one should still be able to acknowledge the effects these activities cause. Humans lying can't change the processes or the qualitative evidence we have that they are occurring.
The temperature thing is really complicated though, because the warming sets off a series of events that compensate for warming. When you melt ice, heat is absorbed but temperature does not rise because all of the energy goes into phase change. Also, water has a very high heat capacity.
When ocean currents change due to changing ocean salinity, some places that rely on warm water currents become much colder. This is why we say climate change and not just warming but also negates some of the warming once you factor it into global averages.
Its as if you think the totality of climate change evidence is based on temperature data.
Lets say there rampant lying about temperatures. I don't understand how that changes the big picture unless you throw out all of the basic concepts like
-combustion produces carbon dioxide which is released into the atmosphere
-the amount of carbon dioxide emissions can be estimated based on fuel burned
-carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (it traps infrared radiation)
-deforestation decreases carbon dioxide consumption
In theory, doing all of those things should warm the planet, melt ice, acidify the oceans, and change climate. Without any data on temperature, one should still be able to acknowledge the effects these activities cause. Humans lying can't change the processes or the qualitative evidence we have that they are occurring.
The temperature thing is really complicated though, because the warming sets off a series of events that compensate for warming. When you melt ice, heat is absorbed but temperature does not rise because all of the energy goes into phase change. Also, water has a very high heat capacity.
When ocean currents change due to changing ocean salinity, some places that rely on warm water currents become much colder. This is why we say climate change and not just warming but also negates some of the warming once you factor it into global averages.
Its as if you think the totality of climate change evidence is based on temperature data.
You can do all the mental gymnastics you like, but this doesn't make your dogma any more based in fact. You have no hard evidence of anthropogenic climate change. All you have are theories, estimates, and simulations.
Is there evidence the Earths climate is changing? Sure, some of it seems reliable. The problem is with science you have to eliminate as many variables as possible in order to create a control. There is no control to compare to here. You have no way of proving your theory when there is far more evidence this is a result of sun cycles than human activity.
I'm just trying to put myself in your shoes to better understand your line of thinking.
Lets say there rampant lying about temperatures. I don't understand how that changes the big picture unless you throw out all of the basic concepts like
-combustion produces carbon dioxide which is released into the atmosphere
-the amount of carbon dioxide emissions can be estimated based on fuel burned
-carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (it traps infrared radiation)
-deforestation decreases carbon dioxide consumption
In theory, doing all of those things should warm the planet, melt ice, acidify the oceans, and change climate. Without any data on temperature, one should still be able to acknowledge the effects these activities cause. Humans lying can't change the processes or the qualitative evidence we have that they are occurring.
The temperature thing is really complicated though, because the warming sets off a series of events that compensate for warming. When you melt ice, heat is absorbed but temperature does not rise because all of the energy goes into phase change. Also, water has a very high heat capacity.
When ocean currents change due to changing ocean salinity, some places that rely on warm water currents become much colder. This is why we say climate change and not just warming but also negates some of the warming once you factor it into global averages.
Its as if you think the totality of climate change evidence is based on temperature data.
Lets say there rampant lying about temperatures. I don't understand how that changes the big picture unless you throw out all of the basic concepts like
-combustion produces carbon dioxide which is released into the atmosphere
-the amount of carbon dioxide emissions can be estimated based on fuel burned
-carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (it traps infrared radiation)
-deforestation decreases carbon dioxide consumption
In theory, doing all of those things should warm the planet, melt ice, acidify the oceans, and change climate. Without any data on temperature, one should still be able to acknowledge the effects these activities cause. Humans lying can't change the processes or the qualitative evidence we have that they are occurring.
The temperature thing is really complicated though, because the warming sets off a series of events that compensate for warming. When you melt ice, heat is absorbed but temperature does not rise because all of the energy goes into phase change. Also, water has a very high heat capacity.
When ocean currents change due to changing ocean salinity, some places that rely on warm water currents become much colder. This is why we say climate change and not just warming but also negates some of the warming once you factor it into global averages.
Its as if you think the totality of climate change evidence is based on temperature data.
I dont understand getting caught up on how temperature data has been presented. Do you disagree that higher concentration of CO2 leads to increased temperatures? We know pretty precisely how much CO2 we are releasing because its basic chemistry from the mass of carbon fuel we burn.
In the presentation of temperature data, and in the near term likely effects of global warming, there has been massive lying. That's the only way to put it.
There has been some reasonable statements and cautions about possible dangers, that is mostly seen from scientists and engineers. From lay people and environmentalists, there has been massive exaggerations and outright lying.
Including on this forum. Who is "caught up in how temperature data is presented" is those doing the lying, not I. For example, people that try to cry hysterically that Greenland and Antarctica will melt, blah-blah-blah.
I dont understand getting caught up on how temperature data has been presented. Do you disagree that higher concentration of CO2 leads to increased temperatures? We know pretty precisely how much CO2 we are releasing because its basic chemistry from the mass of carbon fuel we burn.
Yeah why get caught up in the science part right? None of your points provide any evidence of anthropogenic climate change, even if they were fact.
I dont understand getting caught up on how temperature data has been presented. Do you disagree that higher concentration of CO2 leads to increased temperatures? We know pretty precisely how much CO2 we are releasing because its basic chemistry from the mass of carbon fuel we burn.
Scientists predict 'mini ice age' could hit UK by 2030
Looks like we should prepare for an ice age.
Quote from: https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-predict-mini-ice-age-could-hit-uk-by-2030-11186098
A mini ice age that would freeze major rivers could hit Britain in less than two decades, according to research from universities in the UK and Russia.
A mathematical model of the Sun's magnetic activity suggests temperatures could start dropping here from 2021, with the potential for winter skating on the River Thames by 2030.
A team led by maths professor Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University built on work from Moscow to predict the movements of two magnetic waves produced by the Sun.
It predicts rapidly decreasing magnetic waves for three solar cycles beginning in 2021 and lasting 33 years.
A mathematical model of the Sun's magnetic activity suggests temperatures could start dropping here from 2021, with the potential for winter skating on the River Thames by 2030.
A team led by maths professor Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University built on work from Moscow to predict the movements of two magnetic waves produced by the Sun.
It predicts rapidly decreasing magnetic waves for three solar cycles beginning in 2021 and lasting 33 years.
Sept. 27, 2018: The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age. Sunspots have been absent for most of 2018, and the sun’s ultraviolet output has sharply dropped. New research shows that Earth’s upper atmosphere is responding.
“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
Looks like we should prepare for an ice age.
All right, let's go back to that assertion. I understood it and rejected it.
Let's break this down into two pieces, and handle the "why" first. This is a logical fallacy, as it creates a choice between "the moral and ethical" and "the corrupt and lying." (or whatever)
That's not hardly ever all there is as to the range of motivations for individuals let alone groups.
Basically it's lying by presenting two false choices. It's no more authentic than your using arguments of ridicule, or implying that someone that doesn't agree with you is a conspiracy wacko.
Secondly let's look at "steps taken to solve climate change."
Proposed steps singly or jointly have not been shown to have any more than a tiny effect on Co2 concentration.
Thirdly let's consider "create sustainable, renewable energy systems."
Many of these are over promised, overly expensive, underperforming junk.
"Fourth let's look at "getting rid of CO2 is good."
More logical fallacies. Corrected, the assertion would be "A 1% reduction in human CO2 emissions has XYZ value." No it is not a priori good to "get rid of CO2." CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and the earth and ocean.
I'll have to agree. Plant life needs CO2 in order to survive. The goal is to get the amount of CO2 at some kind of equilibrium rather than eliminate it completely.
...
So you don't think getting rid of CO2 is good? The original point was: ''Lets say climate change didn't exist. The steps taken to solve climate change would still create sustainable, renewable energy systems'' I didn't say that but I understood it, you obviously did not.
The point was that the steps taken to solve climate change are beneficial nonetheless, so why would the ''fake it''?
So you don't think getting rid of CO2 is good? The original point was: ''Lets say climate change didn't exist. The steps taken to solve climate change would still create sustainable, renewable energy systems'' I didn't say that but I understood it, you obviously did not.
The point was that the steps taken to solve climate change are beneficial nonetheless, so why would the ''fake it''?
All right, let's go back to that assertion. I understood it and rejected it.
Let's break this down into two pieces, and handle the "why" first. This is a logical fallacy, as it creates a choice between "the moral and ethical" and "the corrupt and lying." (or whatever)
That's not hardly ever all there is as to the range of motivations for individuals let alone groups.
Basically it's lying by presenting two false choices. It's no more authentic than your using arguments of ridicule, or implying that someone that doesn't agree with you is a conspiracy wacko.
Secondly let's look at "steps taken to solve climate change."
Proposed steps singly or jointly have not been shown to have any more than a tiny effect on Co2 concentration.
Thirdly let's consider "create sustainable, renewable energy systems."
Many of these are over promised, overly expensive, underperforming junk.
"Fourth let's look at "getting rid of CO2 is good."
More logical fallacies. Corrected, the assertion would be "A 1% reduction in human CO2 emissions has XYZ value." No it is not a priori good to "get rid of CO2." CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and the earth and ocean.
....
''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
You are now ridiculing the answer? It's YOUR ANSWER. You wanted proof that your use of "ALL" was ridiculous, you got it. Ridicule the wackos who propose such things, not me.''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
"ALL" is inclusive of all answers, dumbass. I invited you to change your assertion, didn't I?
I'm not the one who said that btw. Your argument is trash, change the all to most then? Does it work now? Nutjob
No, of course it does not work. Neither is my argument trash. You want to support the "ALL", how many more examples of nut job radical environmentalists do you want?
The Atlantic isn't exactly a trash publication.
....Hillary Clinton in 2009, when as Secretary of State she acknowledged the overpopulation issue during a discussion with Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh. Clinton praised another panelist for noting "that it's rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning."
"And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways," Clinton added.
Right-wing critics pounced, with the Alex Jones-run Info Wars calling her comments "Malthusian."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/the-climate-change-solution-no-one-will-talk-about/382197/
Your problem, not mine. Obviously you need to correct the position or concede your position was wrong. "Most" is also ridiculous. Think about it, that implies this, directly:
"Most proposed solutions to global warming should be implemented as public policy."
That's what you really want to say?
It's ridiculous. First you start by praising science, and I remind you of the scientific methods. Then you praise "ALL SOLUTIONS," many of which were totally idiotic. Then you go to "Most solutions," which shows zero critical thinking.
You don't think that perhaps careful engineering studies would be useful, would you? Again, the need for critical thinking and skeptical viewpoints is required.
So you don't think getting rid of CO2 is good? The original point was: ''Lets say climate change didn't exist. The steps taken to solve climate change would still create sustainable, renewable energy systems'' I didn't say that but I understood it, you obviously did not.
The point was that the steps taken to solve climate change are beneficial nonetheless, so why would the ''fake it''?
....
''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
You are now ridiculing the answer? It's YOUR ANSWER. You wanted proof that your use of "ALL" was ridiculous, you got it. Ridicule the wackos who propose such things, not me.''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
"ALL" is inclusive of all answers, dumbass. I invited you to change your assertion, didn't I?
I'm not the one who said that btw. Your argument is trash, change the all to most then? Does it work now? Nutjob
No, of course it does not work. Neither is my argument trash. You want to support the "ALL", how many more examples of nut job radical environmentalists do you want?
The Atlantic isn't exactly a trash publication.
....Hillary Clinton in 2009, when as Secretary of State she acknowledged the overpopulation issue during a discussion with Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh. Clinton praised another panelist for noting "that it's rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning."
"And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways," Clinton added.
Right-wing critics pounced, with the Alex Jones-run Info Wars calling her comments "Malthusian."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/the-climate-change-solution-no-one-will-talk-about/382197/
Your problem, not mine. Obviously you need to correct the position or concede your position was wrong. "Most" is also ridiculous. Think about it, that implies this, directly:
"Most proposed solutions to global warming should be implemented as public policy."
That's what you really want to say?
It's ridiculous. First you start by praising science, and I remind you of the scientific methods. Then you praise "ALL SOLUTIONS," many of which were totally idiotic. Then you go to "Most solutions," which shows zero critical thinking.
You don't think that perhaps careful engineering studies would be useful, would you? Again, the need for critical thinking and skeptical viewpoints is required.
....
''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
You are now ridiculing the answer? It's YOUR ANSWER. You wanted proof that your use of "ALL" was ridiculous, you got it. Ridicule the wackos who propose such things, not me.''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
"ALL" is inclusive of all answers, dumbass. I invited you to change your assertion, didn't I?
I'm not the one who said that btw. Your argument is trash, change the all to most then? Does it work now? Nutjob
....
''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
You are now ridiculing the answer? It's YOUR ANSWER. You wanted proof that your use of "ALL" was ridiculous, you got it. Ridicule the wackos who propose such things, not me.''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
"ALL" is inclusive of all answers, dumbass. I invited you to change your assertion, didn't I?
''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
Let's start off by reducing the population that denies climate change.
Ahahaha, then the rest of us can actually take care of the problem without morons like him holding the rest of society back.
Jump to: