Climate change

Horsa · Nov 6, 2017

Would it be fair for me to ask for your opinion on the topic?

britbox · Nov 7, 2017

Federberg said:
I think you need to study the research first before critiquing it

Like I said previously, we've had ice ages, dramatic heat waves, huge volcanoes, land mass shifts, droughts, species coming and going, tsunamis over the course of the history of this planet... hugely chaotic seismic changes to the entire planet, largely without the intervention of humans... yet, science tries to tell us that humans are 98% responsible for climate change? Solar provides life and Lunar moves oceans... I think they deserve a higher ranking than 2%...

Federberg · Nov 7, 2017

britbox said:
Like I said previously, we've had ice ages, dramatic heat waves, huge volcanoes, land mass shifts, droughts, species coming and going, tsunamis over the course of the history of this planet... hugely chaotic seismic changes to the entire planet, largely without the intervention of humans... yet, science tries to tell us that humans are 98% responsible for climate change? Solar provides life and Lunar moves oceans... I think they deserve a higher ranking than 2%...

If you read the peer reviewed research mate, you'll see they've normalised for that. I don't think you can critique the science without doing so.

britbox · Nov 8, 2017

Federberg said:
If you read the peer reviewed research mate, you'll see they've normalised for that. I don't think you can critique the science without doing so.

OK, I'll read it. Not right now... but before I comment on something I haven't read again

Horsa · Jan 19, 2018

britbox said:
I find the whole thing mildly ridiculous to be honest. We've had several ice ages which have changed the entire global makeup of the planet, formed oceans, changed land masses, wiped out species... we have science with hardly any knowledge of the universe outside of the planet we live on... weather and climate is naturally chaotic not linear... and these top scientists can barely predict tommorow's weather. Climate change happens with or without the interference of humans.

But for all that, I'm in favour of green energy, conservation, reducing pollution and protecting the environment... so the current kidology is all good IMO.

After a critical reading of chapter 1 of Neil Oliver's "A history of Ancient Britain" (I loved his programmes on T.V. so bought the D.V.D. set then heard about his books so had to get them. He's brilliant.) I would now like to agree with you & assert my right to change my mind.

I'm not saying that what we're doing to the world isn't wrong. It is.

Federberg · Jan 25, 2018

https://qz.com/1188241/farmland-cou...l-exists/?mc_cid=34881814af&mc_eid=5abd786ab2

Horsa · Jan 25, 2018

Federberg said:
https://qz.com/1188241/farmland-cou...l-exists/?mc_cid=34881814af&mc_eid=5abd786ab2

That's very interesting. Thank you very much for sharing. I hope they'll take notice of this & decide to do something about it.

calitennis127 · Jan 28, 2018

britbox said:
Like I said previously, we've had ice ages, dramatic heat waves, huge volcanoes, land mass shifts, droughts, species coming and going, tsunamis over the course of the history of this planet... hugely chaotic seismic changes to the entire planet, largely without the intervention of humans... yet, science tries to tell us that humans are 98% responsible for climate change? Solar provides life and Lunar moves oceans... I think they deserve a higher ranking than 2%...

Science is not telling us. A well-funded ideological machine masquerading as "science" is telling us that.

calitennis127 · Jan 28, 2018

Federberg said:
If you read the peer reviewed research mate, you'll see they've normalised for that. I don't think you can critique the science without doing so.

According to the Norwegian Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, Obama has been wrong about global warming:

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...g-physicist-obama-dead-wrong-global-warming-0

Federberg · Mar 16, 2018

http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...utm_campaign=Feed:+ClimateHome+(Climate+Home)

Federberg · Mar 16, 2018

calitennis127 said:
According to the Norwegian Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, Obama has been wrong about global warming:

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...g-physicist-obama-dead-wrong-global-warming-0

So the basis of your argument is an article from a partisan website? Ok let's leave that aside, here's a quote from the same scientist...

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."

Good grief.... I don't get people like you mate. This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue. This is a science issue.

Horsa · Mar 16, 2018

Federberg said:
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/03/16/norways-electric-car-demand-outstripping-supply-lessons-eu/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ClimateHome+(Climate+Home)

That's very interesting. Thank you very much for sharing. Do you think it would catch on though?

Federberg · Mar 16, 2018

EquineAnn said:
That's very interesting. Thank you very much for sharing. Do you think it would catch on though?

that's the very definition of catching on isn't it? 50% of all new cars?

Horsa · Mar 16, 2018

Federberg said:
that's the very definition of catching on isn't it? 50% of all new cars?

Partially. 50% of all new cars in Norway not the whole world. It would be nice if it could catch on all over the world but some people just think about how expensive it is compared to other cars when buying & don't think about long-term running costs.

mrzz · Mar 16, 2018

Federberg said:
This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue. This is a science issue.

Well, Federberg, that this is a science issue there is no doubt. But -- and this is the ugly part -- (most) liberals and conservatives politicians will support one of the views based on their political and economical interests, and because of that this, unfortunately, becomes a political issue. So I agree that this was not supposed to be a liberal vs conservative issue, but it ends up being one, for idiotic reasons, sometimes just to be against your adversaries.

As it is not my area of expertise, I won't say anything about the question itself, but one quote from the physicist mentioned in the posts above is actually a good one (not that I agree 100% with what he says):

"In the APS [American Physical Society] it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time, and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

So, I take with a grain of salt much of this (public) debate, but on the other hand I obviously know that probably 99,99% of the public adversaries of the global warming idea are moved by immediate self-interest or shameless inertia at best.

Federberg · Mar 16, 2018

this is how economies of scale kick in. It will get progressively cheaper to produce these cars the more popular they become. Besides it's not only Norway where demand is picking up. It's all over Europe, California, even China...

Horsa · Mar 16, 2018

Federberg said:
this is how economies of scale kick in. It will get progressively cheaper to produce these cars the more popular they become. Besides it's not only Norway where demand is picking up. It's all over Europe, California, even China...

I know. That's how things work according to the laws of supply & demand too. O.K. I didn't see them points. I really must get checked to see if I need new specs. Lol.

Federberg · Mar 16, 2018

mrzz said:
Well, Federberg, that this is a science issue there is no doubt. But -- and this is the ugly part -- (most) liberals and conservatives politicians will support one of the views based on their political and economical interests, and because of that this, unfortunately, becomes a political issue. So I agree that this was not supposed to be a liberal vs conservative issue, but it ends up being one, for idiotic reasons, sometimes just to be against your adversaries.

As it is not my area of expertise, I won't say anything about the question itself, but one quote from the physicist mentioned in the posts above is actually a good one (not that I agree 100% with what he says):

"In the APS [American Physical Society] it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time, and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

So, I take with a grain of salt much of this (public) debate, but on the other hand I obviously know that probably 99,99% of the public adversaries of the global warming idea are moved by immediate self-interest or shameless inertia at best.

That's a very good point mate. I definitely think that Climate changers have not helped themselves with their hyperbole. But generally speaking the scientists themselves are far more empirical in their stance, and their forecast models have been surprisingly accurate. In any case the physicist is being a bit disingenuous, he knows perfectly well that when you are in the quantum physics arena uncertainty is a part of the equation. It's clearly very important to separate the science from the politics. To be honest, I would like to know if he has any economic interest in energy companies, such is the distrust between the sides these days...

mrzz · Mar 16, 2018

Federberg said:
That's a very good point mate. I definitely think that Climate changers have not helped themselves with their hyperbole. But generally speaking the scientists themselves are far more empirical in their stance, and their forecast models have been surprisingly accurate. In any case the physicist is being a bit disingenuous, he knows perfectly well that when you are in the quantum physics arena uncertainty is a part of the equation. It's clearly very important to separate the science from the politics. To be honest, I would like to know if he has any economic interest in energy companies, such is the distrust between the sides these days...

Well, unfortunately it has indeed come down to that and I would not be surprised with anything. But the actual quote makes sense in itself -- the point is not the field of knowledge he gets the analogy from, but the fact that absolute certainty is quite rare in science (he could have used a relativity analogy and it would have worked just fine). That is exactly the hyperbole you mentioned so in this sense you and him are in complete agreement. Obviously he does not stop there and goes on to say that he is quite sure that nothing is happening -- which is too much in my view. If he were just defending the idea that current data is inconclusive it would sound much more reasonable to me.

But even if I don't fully buy the raise in average temperature idea, that does not mean I do not believe in human interference on the environment on a global scale. I live in a freaking big city (as lots of us here on the boards), and when I came back from vacations I could smell the pollution while sitting in my living room. That is enough evidence for me, and that alone justifies action. Unfortunately, people in general only listen to catastrophic arguments, and here we are in the middle of a huge mess...

Federberg · Nov 11, 2019

Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace of Climate Change

Climate change

Equine-loving rhyme-artist

Multiple Major Winner

The GOAT

Multiple Major Winner

Equine-loving rhyme-artist

The GOAT

Equine-loving rhyme-artist

Multiple Major Winner

Multiple Major Winner

The GOAT

The GOAT

Equine-loving rhyme-artist

The GOAT

Equine-loving rhyme-artist

Hater

The GOAT

Equine-loving rhyme-artist

The GOAT

Hater

The GOAT