Do you care? (You should)
+1
i just didn't wanna get in another debate, practically already in a windows "license" debate, and barely woken up yet.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, funny to see you there. Sorry if I bothered you with the whole license thing, just wanted to check on something you said, not start an argument. (I actually didnot feel it was one, sorry :( )
Comment has been collapsed.
it wasn't, as far as i knew either really. sorry if i made it sound like one too. err at least i don't look at debates as an argument. we both were very civil and not even really on the opposite side of the debate, just not understanding each other at first :D
(◑‿◐)
Comment has been collapsed.
Skeptical - considering how unreliable sources and models are especially compared to thousands -
millions of years its ludicrous to assume "flimsy predictions and assessments" are warranted to hold
up to reality. Obviously doesn't mean the current course won't have a temporary impact ... but still compare
that little time to a long stretch and the only thing that becomes evident, is that the climate changes lol.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you have any meteorological background? As a physicist, I've read papers on the models a couple of years ago. Yes, the models have their flaws, mostly due to incomplete data (we don't know temperature, pressure, wind vector and chemical composition at every point of the atmosphere. We have the data just at points where we can measure, i.e. on the ground and a coulpe of balloons), but the most likely predict too small effects (judging from comparison to other physical models that were refined over decades).
The major problem is that a "temporary impact" might kill millions or billions of people. I agree with you that any impact will be temporary - on geological timescales (like millions of years) - but we all should be concerned about timescales of a couple of decades.
Comment has been collapsed.
There have been plenty of false climate predictions, i couldn't even tell if those are true or not - too
much to look up and to compare for an argument much like these "climate change myths".
The grand picture of global climate isn't easy to grasp. The shared responsibility almost impossible to sort out which
is why nobody from nation, multinational corporation to average citizen care or will lift a finger until they'll have to.
The major problem is that a "temporary impact" might kill millions or billions of people.
Ironic, how the major problem sounds like the only "natural solution" to be applied - because that is where we are headed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Um sprachliche Missverständnisse zu vermeiden auf deutsch.
Die aktuellen Zitate aus deiner Liste sind schlichtweg zu neu, um sie zu überprüfen. Bei den älteren sind welche dabei, die leider reine PR sind, um Mittel für Projekte zu bekommen. Kein ernsthafter Meteorologe wird konkrete regionale Aussagen machen. In allen Klimamodellen geht es um Wahrscheinlichkeiten. Insbesondere die alten (20 Jahre+) Berechnungen haben aufgrund der damals verfügbaren Rechenleistung ein sehr grobes Gitter auf dem die Berechnungen durchgeführt werden. Doch selbst einige der alten Aussagen sind eingetroffen (sinngemäß "Dürre in zentral Eurasien"), s. Bild.
Es ist immer leicht zu sagen 'Ich kann sowie so nichts tun, also lasse ich es.'. Wenn das jeder macht fahren wir garantiert vor die Wand. Selbst wenn man persönlich keine Einschränkungen hinnehmen möchte, sollten Projekte gefördert werden, die sich jetzt schon den 'Plan B' überlegen. Z.B. Was bauen wir in Europa an, wenn die Pflanzen von heute nicht mehr wachsen wollen, weil es zu warm wird.
Deine Schlussfolgerung ist arg zynisch. Mit der gleichen Argumentation hätte der kalte Krieg heiß werden sollen.
Ich nehme mir heraus, dass ich die Modelle wahrscheinlich besser verstehe als die meisten hier aus SG, weil ich Physiker bin, mich mich komplexeren Modellen beschäftigt habe und auch in Klimamodelle eingelesen habe (vor ca. 8 Jahren).
Meine Bitte an alle Skeptiker ist immer, sich versuchsweise in die Arbeitsweise der Wissenschaftler und Modelle einzulesen oder, wenn dafür die mathematisch-physikalischen Grundlagen fehlen, sehr genau nach der Qualifikation derjenigen zu fragen, die sich (pro und kontra) zu den Modellen äußern. Nur weil sich jemand "Experte" nennt, heißt das nicht, dass es eine fundierte Meinung gibt. Populäre Naturwissenschaftler aus dem deutschen Sprachraum, die Ahnung davon haben sollten sind z.B. Harald Lesch und Ranga Yogeshwar.
Comment has been collapsed.
Interessant - Danke für die ausführliche Antwort. An deinem Verständnis zur Sache hätte ich nicht gezweifelt. Dürfte auch nicht
schwer zu verstehen sein, warum sich jemand bei umfangreichem/anspruchsvollen, teilweise kontroversem Bezugsmaterial
ein gewisses Maß Skepsis bewahrt.
Meine Bitte an alle Skeptiker ist immer, sich versuchsweise in die Arbeitsweise der Wissenschaftler und Modelle einzulesen oder, wenn dafür die mathematisch-physikalischen Grundlagen fehlen, sehr genau nach der Qualifikation derjenigen zu fragen, die sich (pro und kontra) zu den Modellen äußern. Nur weil sich jemand "Experte" nennt, heißt das nicht, dass es eine fundierte Meinung gibt.
Finanziert und publiziert werden hauptsächlich Studien die zum Ergebnis führen das gesucht wird ... ist auch bei "unabhängigen Studien" Standard. Durch "Petrodollar" finanzierte Studien, die wahrscheinlich schon in der Hypothese kein Wasser halten, sofern
sie überhaupt korrekt nochmals repliziert oder widerlegt werden gibt es auch zuhauf. Persönlich würde ich auf nichts wetten.
Wird jedenfalls interessant - wie sich "die Lage" entwickelt wird,
insbesondere bei Eintritt der "kleinen Eiszeit" Theorie gegen 2030 ...
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't understand German, but I'm not sure the Aral sea is a good example of climate change. This is more the effect of humans not caring about environmental impact. The Aral sea has mostly dried up because of the cotton industry and production there. As far as I know.
I think wiki is on the same boat
Comment has been collapsed.
You are correct. It is a bad example. My mistake, I knew better, but -ahhh- misplaced that knowledge.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, climate changes naturally, and we have quite accurate models for predicting natural climate change. They work well when you apply them backwards, use the models we have now to predict what the climate should have been 100, 1000, 10 000, 100 000 years ago (which you can compare to ice core samples). Our models are not nearly as poor as you make it sound.
Then you compare it to the current trends. They don't line up well with the "natural" predictions.
Climate change due to human influence is currently considered to be a "theory". That's the highest level of certainty you're getting in science. There's a near consensus in the scientific world that climate change is happening, and that it will have a long term impact. It's just that the debate loves to ignore science and go with sensationalism, which makes it sound like there's a debate in the scientific world about "if" climate change is happening. The debate is not in regards to the "if". Claiming that is at this point just science denial. The debate is about the details in the modelling.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks. I forgot where I had seen that. Was looking for it earlier :)
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem with that graph is that it dates back 20 000 years. Earth's temperatures have been changing a lot more if you look further back.
The question isn't really if climate change occurs - it's going to change anyway. The question is did we cause the rapid change of it? Does our actions contribute to the change?
Overall most of the science agrees that we contribute to it and we should do something about. I'm with that.
Also, the Earth is going to be fine. The climate change is weather we want to dies off as species either by just having and inhabitable planet or just kill each other because of various environmental impacts that are going fuck up our current system and way of life.
Comment has been collapsed.
I used to be like you. But once I tried to debunk my own ideas instead of reading things by people I already agree with I completely changed my mind.
Comment has been collapsed.
Congrats in getting out of the loop, very few individuals I know are capable of that
Comment has been collapsed.
The world is worth fighting for
Comment has been collapsed.
PLEASE anyone watch this documentary called: COWSPIRACY
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3302820/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV04zyfLyN4 [trailer]
It makes me sick how oil, fossils fuels are the easy targets when the biggest cause of man made climate change and environmental damage is the world eating meat (using water) especially at currently unsustainable rates (massive rise of middle classes in China, india, brazil). I love meat and am no active environmentalist but I hate deceitful politicians, hollywood actors with carbon footprints larger than towns pontificating (see Al gore's mansion energy bill also) and environmental lobbyists who are dishonest to get money from the public.
Comment has been collapsed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neal-barnard-md/cowsnot-coalare-the-real-_b_5526979.html might be a more immediately useful link to offer.
Also, it may be safer to adjust your phrasing to "the biggest single cause", as I believe the estimate for all livestock contribution is typically "only" estimated to be at 43% (estimates I've seen range between 39 and 51%, however).
[Of that, just over half is reported to come from cows alone.]
By all means, if you wanna lobby for meat alternatives AND prevent humanity from destroying itself in the process, you can count on us vegetarians/vegans to cheer you on.. :P
It's likely not deceitful, however. Or rather, not intentionally so. Much like cigarettes, which easily met the requirements for immediate illegalization back when the Surgeon General did his report on them (in 1964!), the addictive properties of meat [as with cigarettes] makes it a touchy subject to try and reduce the utilization of. Unlike cigarettes, which they could implement slowly tightening restrictions on over time [despite them still being readily available, even now], trying to push for any sort of meat improvements tends to meet extreme resistance.
Add in that there's no compelling meat substitute yet [and that even with meat substitutes, they don't address the addiction that meat causes, that tends to lead most veggie-dabblers back into the fold], and it's hard to offer any recourse in a matter that a majority of people believe they have an intrinsic right to.
So yeah, for many reasons- climate change, health benefits, moral considerations- changing from a meat-heavy agriculture system is very desirable. But politicians- when they're not busy actually being deceitful, immoral individuals- have to be rational in how they approach things. Any politician that says "This is good for you, so we're doing it" is just going to get removed from their position.
Instead, targeting things that are easy for their constituents to perceive as being negative, things not as strongly constrained by expectations of being entitled to things remaining as they are, things that have visible, daily reminders of how bad they are [eg, smog].. those are quite easy to approach, by comparison.
And, in the end, doing something is better than doing nothing.
If you're concerned about how meat affects climate change, then stop eating meat yourself.
Find that a challenging proposition?
Imagine trying to convince the world as a whole. :X
Comment has been collapsed.
Ever since I visited countries like China, India and Egypt feel everything I try to contribute is pretty much useless. For example in China they didnt even isolate homes or buildings till a few years ago. Just turn up the heat and it will all be fine.....
I turn off the lights when I'm not in a room, take the bicyle instead of the car whenever I can, keep electricity usage at minimum. Just some examples, but like I said it all feels useless.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well if we all give up just because not everyone is on our level, it indeed is useless. Developing countries are called developing countries for a reason. Once when they can afford, they take measures too.
Comment has been collapsed.
True. I'll still do my share but I cant help it feels useless.
Comment has been collapsed.
China is taking steps to decrease its environmental footprint. It's not going as fast as it should, but their current way of doing things have already started causing major issues for them. They're currently in the stage that a large portion of the western world were in during the 70's, when acid rain and other such nasty things were becoming a hot topic. And having smog covered cities that give your population major health problems is not good for the economy, which they are well aware of at this point.
Comment has been collapsed.
The US may give up its second place polluter title to another country in a decade or two, that still leaves China at the top two for decades to come.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, and it's going to take time for China to change. But at least they're taking the problem seriously (it would have been better for everyone, them included, if they had started taking the problem seriously before it started to hurt their economy).
Comment has been collapsed.
It does suck that reducing energy usage doesn't cut down on energy costs in places.
Comment has been collapsed.
As SimCity taught us: Keep your residential and industrial zones apart!
Comment has been collapsed.
Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change. It's useless to change yourself if we don't change our global policies! Sure you will feel better but that's it..
Comment has been collapsed.
I would, if I believed it was still possible to do anything meaningful about it.
The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when Al Gore, after going through the hassle of making 'An Inconvenient Truth', and then still went an unnecessarily served up an imported and endangered fish anyway, simply because it was his daughter's birthday - it was a massive FU to what 'An Inconvenient Truth' represented.
The reality is that if you believe in climate change, then you also have to face the reality that little is or will be done.
Campaigning against a 3rd runway at Heathrow on climate grounds?
Good for you, but China is building 66 airports in the next 5 years anyway.
Fighting climate change should be a top priority for all governments, but instead it has merely, but somewhat predictably, become a new opportunity for big businesses and the elite.
People simply aren't willing, and tbh that includes me, to do what is necessary to make a meaningful impact on a problem that more than likely won't significantly impact them personally for the next few decades / rest of their lives.
The negative effects just aren't tangible to enough people, the economy, migration, war, etc all those problems are both immediate and tangible - telling someone about desertification, receding ice sheets, etc isn't.
I used to work in marketing, and for a very brief moment, advertising your product as 'green' or environmentally friendly was seen as 'THE' thing to do, but deep down, when we actually did research into customer thoughts and perceptions, most consumers either didn't care at all or were too lazy to check what we were telling them.
Comment has been collapsed.
- The problem is that the human does not like to think long-termed. "Oh climate change is bad hmmm... Oh look there! A sweet kitty! Awww!".
- Also, the human likes the selfish argument "Why should exactly I do something? Others can do that.".
- Another problem is that even though we live on one planet together, we fight each other and are in competition. Being eco-friendly is expensive, while giving a fuck on it (like China for example) gives you economic growth like hell. This boosts the wrong people.
- In conclusion, one has to get his ass off his lazy and selfish arguments. And only really well-minded people do that
PS: Your poll is biased for several reasons...:
"(you should)" is premaking opinions. Also, who will even click the title of the thread? Much likely not the people who pretend everything is awesome and thus don't care. Last one for me: "Actions speak louder than words". Saying: "Uhhh I care soooo much" is different from actually caring and even changing the livestyle because you care.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do I care? Yes. Do I believe in "global climate change?" Yes. Do I currently believe that humanity has a relevant impact on climate change? No. Do I believe that each one of us will be held personally responsible for how we treat our environment and those with whom we interact? Yes. Do I believe that the world will end well before today's "concerns" become a real problem? Yes.
TL; DR: Reduce, Re-use, and Recycle. Not because it will save the Earth, but because it's the right thing to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
"each one of us will be held personally responsible"
By whom?
Comment has been collapsed.
By God. My belief system includes belief in the Day of Resurrection, when every person will be held accountable for his or her intentions and behavior. Such is the burden of having free will. Each person's end is decided by which path he or she chooses.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your belief does not tally with reality. We have no free will. Think about a simple thing, we cannot even consciously choose our next thought.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your argument is flawed. Not only is your evidence spurious (as we are trapped in the present and cannot interact with the future), your premise contradicts your conclusion. Our ability to make choices which contradict our nature and/or environmental pressures is the very definition of free will.
Comment has been collapsed.
We can in fact interact with the future. I can set an alarm clock, I can book a flight. I can tell someone a secret which will change the person's actions in the future. I can think about something I will write or say, but I can't choose what will I think about in the next moment.
The ability to make a choice is always preceded by a chain of events. You cannot tell if you could have made a different choice in those exact conditions. Theoretically - maybe...
But lets see an extreme example. You have probably heard about brain cancer can cause increased aggression. Do those people have free will? Or those with Tourette syndrome? Do animals have free will?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm afraid you're confusing anticipation with causation. They are two separate things. You can anticipate the future, and plan for it, but you cannot force Life to happen in the manner in which you anticipate it. You set your alarm clock, for example, but it's functions all remain in the present. The power may be cut off, the clock may die, and the alarm may never go off. You may book a flight on a plane, but the flight may be canceled, or you may miss it. If you advise a person, and they choose to follow it, the advice is within their consciousness in the present, along with their actions and reactions to it.
Any thought which you have will occur in the moment you have it (t.e. the present). Likewise, any choice you make will be done in the present. You have various actions (or inaction) to choose from, and the intent behind those actions is also in the present and up to you. You may not have Tourette's by choice, but how you choose to deal with having it is indeed a choice.
Of course, there are those who do not have the capacity to choose between good and evil. Children before the age of discernment, the insane, the severely, mentally handicapped, the unconscious, and animals. These are exempt from judgement until their condition changes (if ever).
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't worry, I'm not confused. Of course I can anticipate or plan something and there are many outside possibilities that can change the outcome. Nevertheless, I can still change the future with my current action. I might miss a booked flight but since I've booked it, it's reserved for me and maybe someone couldn't make his emergency trip back to home, because the flight was full.
We cannot even perceive the very exact present moment, if we could, we would have 0 reaction time. And this is not only true for our audiovisual detection but for the nervous system in our body too. An electric impulse induced by a touch has to make a longer route from our limbs to the brain than from the nose.
If I would have free will, I could do anything I can think of, but that's not the case. There are limitations. I'm limited by my phsical capabilites, by my knowledge, by my tools, by the society, and by many other factors I doesn't even know of.
Lets say I'm told to draw something, and naturally a few things come to my mind and I choose one. What about the things I couldn't call up, or the things I doesn't know exist? Was I free to choose one of those?
As for the animals, there were many studies that shown they can have cognitive abilities and make conscious decisions. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Animal_Minds
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't worry, I'm not confused.
You say that, yet your arguments indicate otherwise. You book your flight in the present, your seat is reserved in the present, and your reaction to whatever events may happen to that reservation (which will occur in the present) is going to be carried out by you in the present. You are stuck in the present, unable to known future events before they happen, and that is why you cannot change them ahead of time. The best you can do is to anticipate the future and hope that whatever preparations you have made for it (in the present) will be sufficient. If people were truly able to affect future events, everyone would always score 100% on exams.
If I would have free will, I could do anything I can think of, but that's not the case.
What you describe is "freedom of choice," not "free will." As you yourself point out, the alternatives we have to choose from will always be limited by circumstance. The ability to do the actual choosing, however, remains the sole prerogative of the individual. No one can force you to make a particular choice. Moreover, human beings have the freedom to make choices in defiance of their own nature, and this is the very definition of "free will." Yes, animals think and make decisions, but they cannot rebel against their nature and their God.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not talking about the level of certainty. It is not about my anticipation. It is about my current actions changing the future circumstances. It can have many outcome, one is more likely than the other.
No one force me to make a particular choice.
No, not in a direct way. But the people around me, the books I read, the movies I watch, the advertisements I see, the food I eat. Everything around me, who or what has an effect on my perception of reality is shaping my subconscious and consciousness. Those small or big interactions in my past define who am I. If someone else would be my exact clone, by atom to atom and had the same experiences I had, he would make the same choices I do. Past events can be caused or random, but they effect us, and already limit our choices.
animals cannot rebel against their nature
Well, some animal show homosexual behaviour...
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 I personally dont "care" for climate change though (care as in I don't actively think about it). But I don't waste stuff because it just feels wrong to do so.
I don't believe in any god or whatever, so I couldn't care less whether I will be held responsible. But as I said, I don't waste because it just feels wrong to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do I currently believe that humanity has a relevant impact on climate change?
and on what is your belief based? because the scientific community seems to think otherwise. and these are the guys who spend their time to do real research on this. whom else should we believe, if not them?
Comment has been collapsed.
According to the scientific research I've managed to review so far, not only is the scientific community "split" in regards to their support or refutation of "manmade climate change," those scientists who refute it seem to be greater in number and possess stronger evidence. This, despite the fact that those who support the theory have the backing of both the world's leaders and The Media.
I continue to be open to arguments from both sides, however. My goal is always that of ascertaining truth, regardless of how I may feel about it or from whom I may hear it.
Comment has been collapsed.
According to the scientific research I've managed to review so far, not only is the scientific community "split" in regards to their support or refutation of "manmade climate change," those scientists who refute it seem to be greater in number and possess stronger evidence. This, despite the fact that those who support the theory have the backing of both the world's leaders and The Media.
Interesting, I did some research as well some time ago, and my result was the exact opposite. while the overwhelming opinion among scientists is in favor of humanmade climate change, my impression is that you will hear other opinions mostly on TV and from politicians (who obviously have certain agendas).
In fact, I googled it again just now and found this as second search result.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
This doesn't sound like there is any real debate among climatologists. Everyone who knows what he's talking about is convinced that we have a significant impact on global warming.
So, what about the media? Well, they often let people talk who actively try to refute climate change for whatever reason (probably, because they get paid), and do so by - well, lying. Or bending the truth, if we want to be generous. Please watch this short video*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgZU5uvM5Ok
Look what he does there. He picks an exceptional warm year and compares it to a recent year, just so he can come to the conclusion that there has been no increase in earth warmth. He basically cheats! One has to wonder why he does that. Why he is so dishonest, and why he tries so hard to convince people that there is no problem. Honestly, I can't think of any reason other than him getting paid for that.
And this doesn't just happen on TV. Politicians do it as well. Politicians who have power over out scientific research. For instance Ted Cruz, who decides about the NASA budget.*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCSnKNoyWtw
I find this very alarming. While scientists tell us we have a big problem and need to address it, the public opinion is pushed heavily in the other direction by people like Cruz. And if you then read that Cruz's campaign got financed by the fossil fuel industry, his intentions are more or less clear. I mean, what reason could there be to deny one of the biggest problems we have right now, other than money, right...
*I hope I have posted the right videos. Can't really watch them here at work. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
You've brought up several good points.
1) Don't trust the media because they will lie to you.
2) Don't trust politicians because they will lie to you.
3) Be skeptical about what Ted Cruz tells you because he speaks about things he does not know.
There are two more things which I believe you know and they should be included in this list:
4) Be careful about believing what you read on the internet as it may not be the truth.
5) The truth of a belief is not determined by the number of its adherents.
My understanding from our previous discussions is that you are a skeptic. This is as it should be. We live in the Age of Confusion, and it is very difficult to tell truth from fiction, these days. I would encourage you not to be easily satisfied with what you think you know as it is not difficult to deceive even a highly intelligent person. This is especially true for those who trust their intellect as the final arbiter (something I see quite often).
As for myself, my investigation of this matter continues, and I do my best to keep in mind that I may be mistaken.
Comment has been collapsed.
4) Be careful about believing what you read on the internet as it may not be the truth.
Sure, but it may also be the truth. I mean, this sounds like you want to imply the information on that site I posted is incorrect. Then i would ask you to tell me what exactly your criticism about the page is. Because it is well written and offers sources for all claims it makes. And the sources are scientific studies after all, so this really looks like a reliable source of information to me. If you think otherwise, please elaborate.
5) The truth of a belief is not determined by the number of its adherents.
We are not talking about a belief in the sense that religion is a belief, for instance. We are talking ab out the conclusions that were made by people who have high expertise on this subject and make those claims based on scientific data. And if nearly everyone of those experts comes to the same conclusion, we can indeed take this result as the truth. It's a matter of facts and probabilities, and of scientific research. not of belief. And if the evidence strongly points to climate change being manmade, then I don't see why anyone should
My understanding from our previous discussions is that you are a skeptic. This is as it should be. We live in the Age of Confusion, and it is very difficult to tell truth from fiction, these days. I would encourage you not to be easily satisfied with what you think you know as it is not difficult to deceive even a highly intelligent person. This is especially true for those who trust their intellect as the final arbiter (something I see quite often).
Well, I don't see it that way. How am I easily satisfied in this case? I base my opinion on the results of the people with the highest expertise in this matter, which honestly is the only thing we can do, since we are no climatologists or meterologists ourselves. The overwhelming numbers of experts in favor of manmade climate change make it the only reasonable opinion. Why would anyone simply dismiss the results of the people who do the actual research? This is the only reliable information we have. Relying on this information, on scientific results, is not to be easily satisfied. quite the opposite, dismissing those results is ignorant (no offense).
I still wonder where you got the information that the scientific community is split on this topic. That really doesn't seem to be the case. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I've been thinking about whether your response was in pursuit of information or simply an attempt to argue your point. In the end, I decided to respond, just in case you were doing the former rather than the latter.
My goal is not to convince you one way or the other. Regardless of which side of the argument you choose to adopt, they will have convincing evidence and be able to refute the claims of the opposing point of view. I know this because I have heard both sides arguing their point since 1975. (This has been going on for a while, now.) Not only that, but if you "follow the money," you will see that the "experts" of both sides have monetary stakes tied in their success. Ignoring all of that for a moment, however, I will answer your question.
My own point of view is based upon the following:
- The past 40 years of weather patterns have consistently defied the predictions of the doomsayers.
- The evidence and reasoning of those with no financial backing---nor anything to gain by arguing---has been consistent.
- Which side is right or wrong is irrelevant. We have a responsibility to care for the planet, and the world will most likely end, soon, anyway.
These are at the foundation of my view of the matter, but I do not expect you to share my vision. In fact, I think it's healthy to question firmly-held beliefs. God gave us an intellect to exercise, after all. Some things must be discovered for oneself. My interest in this discussion is get you to pay attention and be aware of how easy it is to be misled. To that end, I offer you a link to this video on 7 Ways You're Being Manipulated. It is only a crash-course on what I have been studying for many years, but I think you may find it useful. If you are so inclined, you may check to see how many of the techniques mentioned you are able to notice being used in the world around you. Even if you do not, however, I hope that the reminder will benefit you in your search for the truth.
Yes, I still have faith that truth is what you are actually seeking.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've been thinking about whether your response was in pursuit of information or simply an attempt to argue your point.
well, a little bit of both, i guess. i am of course open to new information. the point is, that you actually didn't provide any. you talk about scientific research you reviews, yet you don't say what kind of research that was and where i can find it. i think if we want to discuss this, we have to admit that we both are no climate experts and need to rely on information we get from others. which means, we won't get any further by simply exchanging opinions. we need to work with facts. and no offense, but you often make claims that you don't provide any evidence for. it's not enough to tell me your research brought up this or that. please provide links that support your claims.
My goal is not to convince you one way or the other.
my goal is actually to convince you and others, if possible. this is one of the most serious topics we have today. if humanity doesn't fix this, it might be really, really bad for all of us. i know you don't care too much, since you believe the apocalypse will come soon anyway (whatever soon means). but if you take god out of the equation, this is a very, very serious issue.
Regardless of which side of the argument you choose to adopt, they will have convincing evidence and be able to refute the claims of the opposing point of view.
i don't think so. i think the opposition uses mostly cheap tricks to convice the public that there is no problem. i gave you a few examples in a earlier post (the youtube links). if we look at the actual scientific results, there is an overwhelming consensus that global warming is a serious (human-made) problem, as i showed with a link above.
The past 40 years of weather patterns have consistently defied the predictions of the doomsayers.
what exactly do you mean? the weather has changed. the ice caps are melting. we have longer droughts and whatnot. our climate and our wheather are changing. and the evidence suggests that we are responsible for quite a bit of that.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
The evidence and reasoning of those with no financial backing---nor anything to gain by arguing---has been consistent.
consistent in what way? as i showed earlier the consensus among scientists is very consistent.
Which side is right or wrong is irrelevant. We have a responsibility to care for the planet, and the world will most likely end, soon, anyway.
that is your view, and merely a belief. not supported by any evidence whatsoever. from my point of view, the world will not end, unless we destroy it ourselves. that is why i think it's so important that we take measures. and i must say, i find the notion, that the world will end anyway, very dangerous. there is a huge potential that religious people don't care enough about climate change, because it's not really relevant to them. you say you care. question is, do you care enough? do you really see the danger? i get the impression you don't.
the end of the world has been predicted so, so many times by religious people. and surprise - it never happened. honestly, i have no idea how you can be so certain that it will happen soon (or ever). there is no evidence for it, and all predictions so far were wrong.
In fact, I think it's healthy to question firmly-held beliefs.
absolutely right, but do you also do that with your own beliefs? no offense, but i feel you seem very convinced of your beliefs and won't change them easily. and some (god) you will never change, no matter the evidence.
God gave us an intellect to exercise, after all.
no, i think evolution did that. i didn't even want to throw the god thing into the mix, but you kept bringing it up. ;)
Yes, I still have faith that truth is what you are actually seeking.
and you are right about that. but can you say the same of yourself? so far i really got the impression you ignore every link i posted. your argument then is always "don't believe everything you read". on the other hand, you yourself didn't provide a single source of information on the matter. you make claims, but don't support them with evidence. don't get me wrong, i value you as a SG member, and you seem to be a nice person. but on the topic on climate change i trust scientific data and scientists way more than a single guy on the internet. so as i said, we have to work with actual data. so if you want to continue this discussion, please provide some evidence for your claims. i am trying to do that as well, despite having very little time currently. as an example: you claimed the scientific community was split on this topic. i provided evidence that this is very wrong, that there is a consensus in favor of manmade climate change. i provided a good website that lists every source and explains very detailed what the scientific community actually thinks about climate change. and your answer was "don't believe everything you read on the internet". well, that is a good way of evading all evidence and keeping your wordview, no matter what. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
absolutely right, but do you also [question] your own beliefs?
Constantly. Perceptions may be false, assumptions may be wrong, and understandings may be incorrect. Anyone who isn't open to the idea of being mistaken may easily be led astray.
and you are right about that. but can you say [that you are seeking truth] yourself?
Indubitably.
As I said before, I remain unconvinced, nor do I expect you to take my word for anything. Frankly, I would be surprised if you did. You do not know me well enough for that. It is a sad reality that I cannot dump all of the information I've accumulated over the years from my head to yours, but that's life.
i provided a good website that lists every source and explains very detailed what the scientific community actually thinks about climate change.
And my reaction was, "Oh, this, again."
When you provide links and arguments, I have usually been exposed to them already. Even when I haven't, I find the same "data" and argumentation which I have seen many times, before. As I mentioned, I have been following both sides of the argument for some years, yet I only ever hear one side of the argument from you. As you have probably not tried to discredit the position you hold (a useful exercise), that is not surprising. One weakness of the internet is that it feeds us more of what we have already perused.
You ask for scientists who do not believe in manmade global warming, but I cannot produce a list of the dozens of physicists, climatologists, biochemists, engineers, meteorologists and environmentalists I have heard from over the past 40 years. Nor can I provide you with links to the hundreds of articles, research papers, films, videos, and web pages. Some might say, "Well, then, produce one," but that is just silly. You yourself can produce more than one. Besides, throwing evidence at you about conjecture is pointless. You must do your own research and make up your own mind. I challenged your authoritative declaration that "overwhelming opinion among scientists is in favor of humanmade climate change " Such a statement is akin to saying "everyone knows who the President of the United States is." If you truly believe that, you have not talked to enough people.
P.S. (Regarding prophecy, I have been watching events unfold as foretold for the past 20 years. Even if you felt like discussing that topic, you are missing so much prerequisite information that you would have no basis upon which to measure the veracity of anything I told you. Instead, wait for the three massive (~10 Richter) earthquakes; one in the East (Japan?), one in the West (California?), and one in the Arabian peninsula (Mekkah). Assuming you are still around, know then that time is quickly running out.)
Comment has been collapsed.
LOL - you offer a link to 7 ways you're being manipulated - thus proving that you were manipulated by the material on that link - otherwise you would not have proposed others should watch/read it :) - I love it - that will make me smile all day :) (I have done the same myself in the past, so it always makes me chuckle - as that is how people sell those self help books and get clicks to their you tube videos - for which they make money - it's all about the money)
Comment has been collapsed.
otherwise you would not have proposed others should watch/read it :)
Actually, I linked that video because it's a "quick and dirty" summary. I studied advertising and psychology the first time I was in university, back in the 80's. There is a lot more to the subject, of course, but much of it can be summarized in about 15 principles.
it's all about the money)
It's almost always tied to money. Even those not driven by money are conscious of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Meanwhile, politicians like Jim Inhofe senator, who was the ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works denying the climate change:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/jim-inhofe-genesis_n_6815270.html
Comment has been collapsed.
the best thing we can do for this planets and our species is to get our population back to 1 or 2 billions, and not let it increase to 10 or 20 billions...
but if you agree with this please do procreate at least twice as to maintain or increase the average intellect of our retarded species
Comment has been collapsed.
Saw that documentary last night..
Nice documentary, narration, great pics..
As a person who witnessing forest fires in that documentary (Indonesian's forest) especially because of corporation.
Just like Leo, i'm pretty pessimistic earth can be "fully recovered"..
Until near last part, where Mr astronaut said that earth can be healed and will be better place.
I still have hope for our next generation.
That's what made me always thinking about innovation in IT (my expertise) for contributing in "save the earth".
I believe there's many simple things we can do to realize that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do care, but at the same time I try to know about the global situation, but well... not care about it.
Not environmental issue, but once I tried to be really into my my country's and global politics, evaluate decisions, track laws - and I got depressed and ill, because it was just fucking terrifying what happened (and sometimes happens) in this country. And I have absolutely no effect on it, neither I do on the climate change itself.
I can care and set new goals for myself, but as far as someone's not in major position in a country, or developing a new technology that can reduce output AND it's a financially good solution for manufacturers, one will have no real effect, which is really scary. But at the same time, it's not coincidence that there are global, regional and local environmental programmes. It's not the everyday man's role to worry about deforestation, and try to prevent it. But at the same time you can try to make the situation just a tad better by getting recycled paper if it's okay for the situation you want to use, reduce your household waste, use less energy, and also really importantly - know the goals, and if there's any election, voting on it, one can make a well-thought out decision on the subject.
We can make some changes locally, and maybe even bigger ones through voting. Just don't over-worry it about stuff that you can not help. (at least I try, for my own health)
Comment has been collapsed.
Climatic changes are happening for millions of years. We only live to see a small window of the change and we -foolishly- think that the change happened recently so we -foolishly again- believe we can reverse it during our lifetime.
It's like being a rabbit and got bored of all those rains and floodings every autumn which make you relocate your nest. So you decide to take action and stop the rains because -as you might believe- the rains and floodings are caused by you and your colleagues peeing around the nest every morning. So the answer -for you- is simple, stop peeing or drink less liquids to pee less in order to stop the floodings. And yet, you die from dehydration long before you see the results of your actions.
Anyway, you might like watching this relevant Twilight Zone episode:
The Midnight Sun 1961
Comment has been collapsed.
I am more worried about global cooling, because I have to take the trolley to work and my hands start to crack.
Comment has been collapsed.
The US government concluded decades ago (now known due to wikileaks & FOIA) is that global warming is real but that ocean acidification and soil depletion will collapse global society first.
The coal & oil people don't hate the planet but they're plutoholics and are addicted to rent extraction.
If everyone had solar on their roof and an electric car the Koch brothers, the less connected Bushes, etc would all have to find some new scams.
And it is a scam because coal & oil has been heavily subsidized and tax deductable from the dirt to the consumer since WW2.
By contrast, when you put solar on your roof, they raise your property taxes.
Comment has been collapsed.
It doesn't matter if you care, it's still going to happen. Even if we take our head out of the sand right now. We recently passed 400 ppb CO2, which is kind of the point of no return.
Comment has been collapsed.
Now that's exactly the wrong way of thinking. The right direction is: You dont think about it and go on with your life and THUS there is nothing that can stop it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, change from politicans is important. But politicans only change things if people want it. Thus, you have to show that you want it. Same applies to industry: For example, if you are against deforestation, then stop buying non-recycled paper and start buying recycled one. Then industry will see "Aha, people want to spend money on recycled stuff, so we'd better produce it"
Comment has been collapsed.
We are all going to die anyway relatively soon, so why care?
Comment has been collapsed.
But they too will die in billion or two years. So why care? That's nothing in scale of Universe...
Comment has been collapsed.
Please, find some kind of graph that shows how temperature changed over the last x millions years.
Comment has been collapsed.
And this is the reaosn why i dont care cause we cant really do shit about it. People in many ways destroy planet but also it changes by itself and we are so small and misserable to do anything against the Universe so why would any1 care anyways? And it wont happend any time soon so enjoy your life.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://xkcd.com/1732/ (drawn on real data, in comic form to be more accessible)
Comment has been collapsed.
Hello community.
Last night I saw the docummentary Before The Flood, where Leonardo Di Caprio travels around the world to show how global warming is affecting our planet(climate change) and humanity. It is a must see.
I just want to share the docummentary, because I want people to see it and share it, so more and more people can understand the situation.
I've been concern about this situation since some years ago. I do what I can to help, by recycling (In my house and in the office), eating less meat, I even use LED's on every room and use them only when necessary, using less hot water, among other small things that everyone can do.
It's not the best, but if everyone do something small, we can do something bigger.
;)
Comment has been collapsed.