Your views on climate change

[ZombieRothbard]

Well I am an atheist, and last I knew a good majority of people believe in an invisible man, so personally I don't put too much stock in the majority opinion.

You don't have to believe a majority opinion. The nice thing about science, especially hard science, is that the answer gets debated back and forth until enough evidence comes out to basically solve the problem, instead of getting filtered through some sort of "majority-logic" mechanism. In this case, climate change is mostly settled, barring the unlikely event of some stunning new finding. You have the option of reviewing previous literature, or reviewing papers that review the previous literature, or just taking the word of somebody who has read the literature. In this case, you're doing the latter - trusting not the majority, but the widely-respected opinion of academics and scientists. In fact, if you really wanted the whole story, you could just talk to any grad student at your local college.

This is a very good point, and I personally refrain from coming solidly down on one side or another. In either case whether it exists or not, I do not support the green movement and its stated goals, so the question to be is actually quite moot.

[Ridicularia]

This is a very good point, and I personally refrain from coming solidly down on one side or another. In either case whether it exists or not, I do not support the green movement and its stated goals, so the question to be is actually quite moot.

Ha, gotchya. That's a different story altogether.

[Revolutopia]

I like to think that I am smart enough to know that I DONT know nearly enough about the issue to think that I would have a legit opinion that is contrary to the overwhelming consensus of tens of thousands of scientists (the experts) about the issue. I also take the vast majority of women who have had children (the experts) at their word when they say that childbirth really hurts, just like I would hope those who haven't been kicked in the nuts would take me and virtually all the men who have been kicked there (the experts) at our word when we say that it really hurts. I would say that people believe both of these to be true and aren't just "throwing in" with the majority.

Well I am an atheist, and last I knew a good majority of people believe in an invisible man, so personally I don't put too much stock in the majority opinion.

That is not equivalent situation, the majority of theists are not expects in the fields of theology and philosophy needed to have an expert opinion nor have any data supporting their ideas on the issue of the presence of a divine being, while these scientists are experts in the field of environmental and climate science thus we can assume they have idea what they are talking about specifically in relationship to the presence of data supporting their conclusions.

[United Dependencies]

I'm highly sceptical of human-caused climate change.

In fact, I'm sceptical the world is even warming...I'm thinking more of a global cooling to come.

No it's pretty much the standard amongst the scientific community that the world is in fact warming up.

[Baja California Prime]

I like to think that I am smart enough to know that I DONT know nearly enough about the issue to think that I would have a legit opinion that is contrary to the overwhelming consensus of tens of thousands of scientists (the experts) about the issue. I also take the vast majority of women who have had children (the experts) at their word when they say that childbirth really hurts, just like I would hope those who haven't been kicked in the nuts would take me and virtually all the men who have been kicked there (the experts) at our word when we say that it really hurts. I would say that people believe both of these to be true and aren't just "throwing in" with the majority.

Well I am an atheist, and last I knew a good majority of people believe in an invisible man, so personally I don't put too much stock in the majority opinion.

I'm an atheist too, the difference is that there is absolutely no scientific data to support the existence or non-existence of god, no verifiable case of somebody interacting with an existing god, hence no experts, just a hierarchy of people who believe for other reasons, and even then Ive never met an atheist or theist who believed what they believe simply because lots of people also do (which is "throwing in"). Even as an atheist, I don't KNOW that no god exists, but as I stated above there is no "experts" who can put up evidence to prove or disprove anything, my simple belief that there is probably no god (and that even if there is one, it is almost certainly nothing like the depictions of any of the world's religions) is legit insofar that there is no overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and as far as literal interpretations of any of the dogma of the world's religion, there is plenty of scientific evidence to disprove that, hence I don't consider religious people to "not believe in science" but fundamentalist people who take a literal interpretation of their religious scripture (like the 6000 year old earth people for instance) are people who I DO consider to "not believe in science".

[Brent Kockman]

Evidence of climate change is not reason enough to try to stop it and it is not clear that doing so is now or ever was possible.

[Sociobiology]

Evidence of climate change is not reason enough to try to stop it and it is not clear that doing so is now or ever was possible.

knowing that climate change will totally screw over human civilization IS a reason to try and stop it.

[Sociobiology]

i know that you have absolutely no basis on which to make such a judgement. i also know that the people who do have such a basis put it at near certainty that we are the responsible factor.

Well, given the amount of years that Earth has existed, and the amount of years we have been able to accurately measure the global climate, I would say we don't have a large enough sample size to draw any conclusions.

we can measured the climate for most of 4.6 billion years, the more recent data has fine scale accuracy and it all points towards global warming more highly correlated with human activity than any other known factor.

[Mushet]

I don't give a fuck if it's heating up the world or not, we shouldn't be polluting anyway, we shouldn't be destroying the earth anyway

[Occupied Deutschland]

Evidence of climate change is not reason enough to try to stop it and it is not clear that doing so is now or ever was possible.

knowing that climate change will totally screw over human civilization IS a reason to try and stop it.

But is the cure worse than the disease? I'd rather die while driving a 1-ton diesel pickup that gets eight miles a gallon while my house's AC is set to "Arctic-Snowstorm" in the middle of the summer and my tires are burning in the backyard so I can come home and have a fire-smoked hot-dog taken (in part) off of a cow that is contributing to the greenhouse gas problem in the atmosphere by farting too much than twiddle my thumbs in a dark corner of my hot, musty, home in the dark because I don't have any electricity as I cry myself to sleep where I can dream about electricity and flushable toilets.

[Revolutopia]

knowing that climate change will totally screw over human civilization IS a reason to try and stop it.

But is the cure worse than the disease? I'd rather die while driving a 1-ton diesel pickup that gets eight miles a gallon while my house's AC is set to "Arctic-Snowstorm" in the middle of the summer and my tires are burning in the backyard so I can come home and have a fire-smoked hot-dog taken (in part) off of a cow that is contributing to the greenhouse gas problem in the atmosphere by farting too much than twiddle my thumbs in a dark corner of my hot, musty, home in the dark because I don't have any electricity as I cry myself to sleep where I can dream about electricity and flushable toilets.

Yes, because those are the only options completely destroying the environment or returning to the 17th century.

[Xsyne]

On the everyday scale, Newton's equations give completely, 100%, accurate answers. If they didn't then we wouldn't have the problem we have, we could just use the errors to figure out an equation that works in every single circumstance.

Hence Einstein, which holds for every circumstance (although some are suggesting that Einstein may be facing supplantation soon).

Except Einstein's laws don't hold for every circumstance.

[Augarundus]

It doesn't matter.

[Farnhamia]

It doesn't matter.

Well, we ought to at least leave the place clean when we go. Anyway, you and Frank Fenner can give up. I won't until I die.

[Augarundus]

It doesn't matter.

Well, we ought to at least leave the place clean when we go. Anyway, you and Frank Fenner can give up. I won't until I die.

Why do you care about the state of the earth? Especially after you're dead and nothing can be done.

If climate change is the threat the world assumes it to be, then our deaths are imminent; don't worry. Embrace and love the inevitability of your own death, and to hell with the human race. There's no turning back now; extinction is inevitable.

We may as well not cause further pain and suffering by regulating the use of fossil fuels in the short term, and, in doing so, harm those reliant upon fossil fuels (which is to say, the poor, particularly in developing nations, who rely upon fossil fuels for industrialization).

There is no "leaving the place clean"; all life on the world will be dead, save that which can evolve to the new conditions.

[Brent Kockman]

But is the cure worse than the disease? I'd rather die while driving a 1-ton diesel pickup that gets eight miles a gallon while my house's AC is set to "Arctic-Snowstorm" in the middle of the summer and my tires are burning in the backyard so I can come home and have a fire-smoked hot-dog taken (in part) off of a cow that is contributing to the greenhouse gas problem in the atmosphere by farting too much than twiddle my thumbs in a dark corner of my hot, musty, home in the dark because I don't have any electricity as I cry myself to sleep where I can dream about electricity and flushable toilets.

Yes, because those are the only options completely destroying the environment or returning to the 17th century.

I think what he's trying to say is that the answer to environmental problems isn't to abandon the technology that makes life as you know it possible, especially when there is no reason to believe that doing so will solve anything.

Evidence of climate change is not reason enough to try to stop it and it is not clear that doing so is now or ever was possible.

knowing that climate change will totally screw over human civilization IS a reason to try and stop it.

You don't know that. And besides, vegetation has actually been increasing according to NASA satellite photography. The cause? Higher levels of atmospheric carbon. Also, Audubon put out a report on how climate change was affecting birds a while back, complaining that some were dying out and others were on the move. Trouble was according to their own report the number of species on the rise trumped those on the fall by 2:1 so it seems all is well and North America's birds are doing a pretty good job of adapting to the ever changing environment.

Also I'd go out on a limb and say that humans are doing better now than, say, 50 years ago. Shit isn't really getting worse, it's getting better. The good old days might have had some bright spots but compared to the modern age they just sucked. Stop pining for an imagined past and stop bitching about how everyone around you is doing it wrong. Keep it up and you'll be forever alone.

[Revolutopia]

Yes, because those are the only options completely destroying the environment or returning to the 17th century.

I think what he's trying to say is that the answer to environmental problems isn't to abandon the technology that makes life as you know it possible, especially when there is no reason to believe that doing so will solve anything.

Yes, but one does have to destroy all technology that makes life as you know it possible to be "green." Instead, there is various different actions we and companies can do that would better the environment and lower damage without drastically affecting your life.

[Brent Kockman]

I think what he's trying to say is that the answer to environmental problems isn't to abandon the technology that makes life as you know it possible, especially when there is no reason to believe that doing so will solve anything.

Yes, but one does have to destroy all technology that makes life as you know it possible to be "green." Instead, there is various different actions we and companies can do that would better the environment and lower damage without drastically affecting your life.

Such as? Keep in mind that there is no profit in things like revenge and wanton or petty destruction. Real life =/= the GTA series. Businesses that serve their function in the most efficient manner possible generally are more profitable and more successful than those that deliberately waste resources. When you say that you know better there really are only a handful of possibilities.
1) You're full of crap and know nothing about the industry. If you took the time to study the manufacturing or construction industries like I did in college you'd see that businesses are already pretty efficient, some even going so far as to vacuum metal dust off of workers that handle it at the end of the day.
2) You actually do know a way to improve things and you or someone else is making a fortune off of it.
3) What you have is technically superior but the increased efficiency doesn't yet justify a change over industry-wide.

Most people that bitch about big business fall into that first category. They grew up on cartoons like Captain Planet and for whatever reason now actually believe that CEOs hijack oil tankers to crash them into beaches for shits and giggles.

Whenever you hear an extraordinary claim like the world is going to end because you commute 20 miles to work every day or big business and government are suppressing advanced technology for profit rather than sell the advanced technology you have good reason to be skeptical.

[Revolutopia]

Yes, but one does have to destroy all technology that makes life as you know it possible to be "green." Instead, there is various different actions we and companies can do that would better the environment and lower damage without drastically affecting your life.

Such as? Keep in mind that there is no profit in things like revenge and wanton or petty destruction. Real life =/= the GTA series. Businesses that serve their function in the most efficient manner possible generally are more profitable and more successful than those that deliberately waste resources. When you say that you know better there really are only a handful of possibilities.
1) You're full of crap and know nothing about the industry. If you took the time to study the manufacturing or construction industries like I did in college you'd see that businesses are already pretty efficient, some even going so far as to vacuum metal dust off of workers that handle it at the end of the day.
2) You actually do know a way to improve things and you or someone else is making a fortune off of it.
3) What you have is technically superior but the increased efficiency doesn't yet justify a change over industry-wide.

Most people that bitch about big business fall into that first category. They grew up on cartoons like Captain Planet and for whatever reason now actually believe that CEOs hijack oil tankers to crash them into beaches for shits and giggles.

Whenever you hear an extraordinary claim like the world is going to end because you commute 20 miles to work every day or big business and government are suppressing advanced technology for profit rather than sell the advanced technology you have good reason to be skeptical.

What are you talking about? Where did I at all rail against Businesses and imply they are the root of all evil. All I said there are actions one can do that saves energy, aka car pooling or using energy efficient lightbulbs, that would be better for the environment. Additionally, there are number of corporations that pollute more then they have do and afford to cut down on it if it ensures a better and cleaner world.

[Wikkiwallana]

Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN

NASA Study: Global Warming Alarmists Wrong

Brand new reports.

Let's see, one only talks about cloud formation and decides to dismiss all other factors, and the other is from Newsmax, which is hardly a reliable source given it's strong ideological slant.

[Wikkiwallana]

I don't think that there is enough evidence to support climate change having to do with human activity. Also, remember when all of those scientists were caught trying to change the results of their experiments to make it look like global warming is occuring?

You mean that time a hacker cherry picked e-mails to make it look like that was what they were doing when they were actually acting ethically?

[Wikkiwallana]

Oh?

Do tell.

Because, the way I see it, we are taking out the carbon which has been stored underground (and thus taken OUT of the carbon cycle, with it never being returned to the air) BACK into the air, millions of years later.

That is unhealthy. We also like to use a lot of natural gas. One of these is methane. Both CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases. Therefore, the atmosphere is insulating more and more heat within the Earth. This heats it up.

As the Earth gets warmer, the ice caps melt. Ice, is shiny, and white. This means that it reflects heat off into space. However, as it melts, the amount of heat it allows to leave into space, is much lower.

CFCs, which we used to use, break ozone (O3) into oxygen (O2). This damages the ozone layer, thus eliminating our natural protection against UV radiation. This also heats the Earth up.

Sulphur dioxide is often used in industrial processes. When released into the atmosphere, it may react with oxygen, to produce sulphur trioxide. This is the main cause for acid rain.

But then, there are other factors as well.

The Earth will, over a course of a few thousand years, head towards an ice age. That may provide more cooling.

The effect of the greenhouse gases may be offset by the holes in the ozone layer, which may allow heat to escape.

Warmer Earth means warmer sea. This leads to more rapid cloud formation. Clouds are also white, and so may compensate for the loss of heat.

I think people forget that humans are a part of nature too, and nature has a funny way of counterbalancing things like this.

Yeah, it's called a mass extinction.

[Wikkiwallana]

I like to think that I am smart enough to know that I DONT know nearly enough about the issue to think that I would have a legit opinion that is contrary to the overwhelming consensus of tens of thousands of scientists (the experts) about the issue. I also take the vast majority of women who have had children (the experts) at their word when they say that childbirth really hurts, just like I would hope those who haven't been kicked in the nuts would take me and virtually all the men who have been kicked there (the experts) at our word when we say that it really hurts. I would say that people believe both of these to be true and aren't just "throwing in" with the majority.

Well I am an atheist, and last I knew a good majority of people believe in an invisible man, so personally I don't put too much stock in the majority opinion.

You've also made it clear in this thread and others that you don't believe in evidence either, so why should we care about your opinion on a scientific matter?

[Free Soviets]

Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN

NASA Study: Global Warming Alarmists Wrong

Brand new reports.

that is not what the CERN CLOUD paper says.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10343.html
try here for a somewhat accessible explanation. also, here.

good science journalists often have difficulty with easy science. this is not easy science and those are not good science journalists. but i can make it real simple. the lead author of the paper in question said that this paper "actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate".

[Free Soviets]

knowing that climate change will totally screw over human civilization IS a reason to try and stop it.

But is the cure worse than the disease?

no. this has been another edition of short answers to simple questions.

but, if you're interested for real, i can offer some reading suggestions for actual mitigation strategies and policy recommendations.