What will it take to convince you of climate change?

[redruM]

I view both sides of the argument but one side of the science actually has thousands of peer reviewed research papers to back it up while the other brings up findings from the 60s-70s. I can't take that seriously when you guys post websites that clearly have bias's and from data that is that old. You know what people thought was healthy in the 60s? Cigarettes.

And why did people think cigarettes were healthy in the 50s & 60s?

Because the 'peer reviewed' medical/scientific establishment, in tandem with popular media, promoted them. So... yeah.

 

[tzrider]

But...his first example is wrong. You'd never need an infinite amount machinery to supply energy for a known amount of energy usage. And everyone knows the early versions of things are shitty and you just have to go through the motions anyway, it's akin to the early discovery process that you'd find at almost any tech company. And we'll get there with fast charge, cell phones will probably lead the tech.

I know we'll get there. That's not the point; the point is there is incredible financial gain for somebody in the policies being implemented in the name of climate change. Pierre didn't seem to see that.

 

[byke]

They started putting warnings on ciggy's in the 60's, I'd guess they knew quite a bit before then.

 

[Pierre I am]

And why did people think cigarettes were healthy in the 50s & 60s?

Because the 'peer reviewed' medical/scientific establishment, in tandem with popular media, promoted them. So... yeah.

No people thought they were healthy because of corrupted cigarette officials who wanted to sell their product. Kind of reminds me of oil companies.... But hey exon Valdez / BP oil spill never happened.

 

[Pierre I am]

I know we'll get there. That's not the point; the point is there is incredible financial gain for somebody in the policies being implemented in the name of climate change. Pierre didn't seem to see that.

I don't see any greater financial gain than the current fossil fuel industry. Except one is detrimentally worst for the environment while the other one has the oppurnitnity to provide future generations with clean renewable fuel.

 

[byke]

I know we'll get there. That's not the point; the point is there is incredible financial gain for somebody in the policies being implemented in the name of climate change. Pierre didn't seem to see that.

It's not specific to climate change though, it's specific to any side of any topic where you have a decent size group of interested people (i.e. votes). When the money thing is consistent with every side of every topic, it doesn't really stand out anymore.

 

[kevin 714]

It's not specific to climate change though, it's specific to any side of any topic where you have a decent size group of interested people (i.e. votes). When the money thing is consistent with every side of every topic, it doesn't really stand out anymore.

this

there is money to made in every decisicion in every facet of life.

 

[ohio]

I've written this before, so I'm not sure why I feel compelled to repeat, but here we go...

"Doubt" is not binary. When we talk or read about disagreement or doubt within the scientific community, it's isn't about whether or not humans contribute significantly to climate change; it is about HOW MUCH they contribute and the disagreement is within a fairly narrow confidence interval.

It's like a debate between using a dynojet and a dyno dynamics dynomometer to measure the HP on the new R1, and whether the published HP it should be at the crank or rear wheel. There is a healthy debate about which one is the most accurate and whether it's a 200hp bike or a 180hp bike, but no one would claim it's a 100hp bike, let alone it doesn't produce power

 

[redruM]

No people thought they were healthy because of corrupted cigarette officials who wanted to sell their product.

officials of all kinds were and still are involved in the assault on our pockets, health and intelligence.

 

[Pierre I am]

I've written this before, so I'm not sure why I feel compelled to repeat, but here we go...

"Doubt" is not binary. When we talk or read about disagreement or doubt within the scientific community, it's isn't about whether or not humans contribute significantly to climate change; it is about HOW MUCH they contribute and the disagreement is within a fairly narrow confidence interval.

It's like a debate between using a dynojet and a dyno dynamics dynomometer to measure the HP on the new R1, and whether the published HP it should be at the crank or rear wheel. There is a healthy debate about which one is the most accurate and whether it's a 200hp bike or a 180hp bike, but no one would claim it's a 100hp bike, let alone it doesn't produce power

well said.

 

[Nahullo]

Its cyclical and a fact of life on earth.

I would suggest that an increase in climate temperature has been a boon for human civilization in the past.

Its certainly an interesting correlation; given the planet's climate history and the increase in prosperity for humans whenever there was an increase in temperature.

 

[Nahullo]

Of course all of this increase in tempature was before Trump and things are boud to get a lot colder if he wins the POTUS race...

 

[byke]

Its cyclical and a fact of life on earth.

I would suggest that an increase in climate temperature has been a boon for human civilization in the past.

Its certainly an interesting correlation; given the planet's climate history and the increase in prosperity for humans whenever there was an increase in temperature.

Appears somewhat random? And where's the industrial revolution?

 

[Nahullo]

Appears somewhat random? And where's the industrial revolution?

good question -

 

[Nahullo]

from skepticalscience.com

Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Even if the warming were as big as the IPCC imagines, it would not be as dangerous as Mr. Brown suggests. After all, recent research suggests that some 9,100 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than the present by up to 3 Celsius degrees: yet here we all are. (Christopher Monckton)

This argument is based on the work of Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures. That’s a fatal flaw, before we even begin to examine the use of the ice core data. A single regional record cannot stand in for the global record — local variability will be higher than the global, plus we have evidence that Antarctic temperatures swing in the opposite direction to Arctic changes. Richard Alley discussed that in some detail at Dot Earth last year, and it’s well worth reading his comments. Easterbrook, however, is content to ignore someone who has worked in this field, and relies entirely on Greenland data to make his case.

Link - https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

 

[Nahullo]

Appears somewhat random? And where's the industrial revolution?

I think its random because most systems / processes in nature are far from symmetrical or on an even cycle.

I think you could argue the Industrial Revolution is the slight uptick in the second graph. But given the scale... kind of hard to say for sure, IMO

 

[ohio]

This argument is based on the work of Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures.

Not sure where he's getting this idea. The data is triangulated between a number of geographies and methodologies.

 

[kevin 714]

from skepticalscience.com

Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Even if the warming were as big as the IPCC imagines, it would not be as dangerous as Mr. Brown suggests. After all, recent research suggests that some 9,100 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than the present by up to 3 Celsius degrees: yet here we all are. (Christopher Monckton)

This argument is based on the work of Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures. That’s a fatal flaw, before we even begin to examine the use of the ice core data. A single regional record cannot stand in for the global record — local variability will be higher than the global, plus we have evidence that Antarctic temperatures swing in the opposite direction to Arctic changes. Richard Alley discussed that in some detail at Dot Earth last year, and it’s well worth reading his comments. Easterbrook, however, is content to ignore someone who has worked in this field, and relies entirely on Greenland data to make his case.

Link - https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

theres a few billion more humans now with existence based on industrialized famring, its not comparable. the same subsitence and/or hunter gatherer lifestyles would still exist just as they did 10,000 years ago, but what didnt exist 10,000 years ago is a society of specialization where the vast majority of people only have survial skills within an advanced technologicaly based sopciety

 

[Nahullo]

theres a few billion more humans now with existence based on industrialized famring, its not comparable. the same subsitence and/or hunter gatherer lifestyles would still exist just as they did 10,000 years ago, but what didnt exist 10,000 years ago is a society of specialization where the vast majority of people only have survial skills within an advanced technologicaly based sopciety

True and our assumption (or hubris) is that the human population explosion has increased the temperature of the planet at a rate that is alarmingly fast. That does not appear to be historically accurate...

Seems clear the globe is warming. And I am sure we humans have an impact on that increase. I just dont think it is all about us.

 

[ohio]

True and our assumption (or hubris) is that the human population explosion has increased the temperature of the planet at a rate that is alarmingly fast. That does not appear to be historically accurate...

No, the assumption is that the industrial revolution and emergence of the fossil fuel economy has increased the temperature of the planet.