Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?
Register

We're all buggered and Sir David Attenborough says so.

Lee_Chester_Jr said:
I believe your sentence is misleading. There is no thousands of scientists disagreeing that climate change is related to human activity. In fact there is in this field the highest agreement (consensus) that can be expected. This is not an absolute one, but there is no such thing in science.

Sure you will find scientist disagreeing. But they are few, and isolated.

Edit: just so my answer would not be misread as a mere contradictory opinion, here one of my source
Click to expand...
Those few and isolated scientist just might be the exact reason why so called 97% agree on climate change.
It is in no way desirable to be a climate change skeptic. It´s in the same cathegory as Herritic, Holocaust denier, and so forth.
Nevertheless. Some 31000 US scientists alone signed a petittion basically saying that man made warming was not real. Thats 31000 just in USA.
 
Buckykatt said:
I don't side with anyone in the whole climate change thing, but what I will say is that I've been on the planet for 63 years in June and the weather sure isn't what it was when I was a kid. Hell, I haven't had to use my snowblower the past 3 winters. The weather around here DOES seem different, how different, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
Does it run on Diesel? if so then there´s your answer. Get an eletrical one, and the snow will be back.:LOL:
 
A Canadian Cat said:
No, no, no I am *not* saying *you* are making ad homenum attacks. I am saying you are being sucked in those that are. I am urging you to listen to the body of science that has reached a consensus that humans are the main cause of climate change. That's all I'm doing.

I can see that some might say that my calling the presenters of the "humans are not the cause" are lairs as an Ad Homenum attack but that is not what a true ad homenum attack is. I am saying they are lairs because they see the same evidence and try to manipulate others into believing conclusions that are not supported by that evidene. In other words they are lying. An ad homenum attack would be if I exposed information about their personal flaws and then tried to say that because of their debt, sexual discretion, criminal children (just examples) therefore they cannot be trusted. Ad homenum attacks are about distracting from the actual argument. My point is that this is what has happened to many of the people who have done the good scientific work in this area.

One side conducts research using the scientific method and debates the quality of each others work to find the likely truth. The other side digs up personal dirt and tries to discredit those doing that work or threatens their safety while at the same time finding shills who present poor quality work as definitive when it is not. These two things are *not* equivalent and should not be seen as such.
Click to expand...
I´m not sure what this "other side" you keep mentioning, that is using personal flaws etc to discredit scientist that believe in man made warming, is.
Nor do I understand why you are under the impression that I listen to these people.
I listen to the sceptical scientists that have their own conclussions based on numbers and data, and scientiffic facts. That is not mudthrowing.
Yet I would say that one is allowed to call out people like Al Gore. The man has made millions on flying around in his private jet preaching doom and hellfire to all the unbelievers. The man is all about "do as I say, not what I do" He owns a mansion of a beach resort. Hope he sleeps with his Scuba gear on. Global warming can be a HUGE income if you got the right attitude and conections. It really all comes down to money. And if there is one thing politicians can agree on. It´s getting rich by any means necessary.
 
Wastemoreland said:
Those few and isolated scientist just might be the exact reason why so called 97% agree on climate change.
It is in no way desirable to be a climate change skeptic. It´s in the same cathegory as Herritic, Holocaust denier, and so forth.
Nevertheless. Some 31000 US scientists alone signed a petittion basically saying that man made warming was not real. Thats 31000 just in USA.
Click to expand...

If you’re talking of the petition I know, this is at best a unreliable one, at worst a fake:

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

www.google.fr

The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be the understatement of the year.
www.google.fr www.google.fr
 
Wastemoreland said:
Global warming can be a HUGE income if you got the right attitude and conections. It really all comes down to money. And if there is one thing politicians can agree on. It´s getting rich by any means necessary.
Click to expand...

If you're a scientist and want to get rich from global warming, take bribes from the fossil fuel industry. They have the money.

If you are a politician and want to get elected, promise people they can get rich and get a big house, big car, nice steaks, yearly tropical vacations etc. Who would vote for someone saying we have to give up all the nice things?
 
Lee_Chester_Jr said:
If you’re talking of the petition I know, this is at best a unreliable one, at worst a fake:

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

www.google.fr

The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be the understatement of the year.
www.google.fr www.google.fr
Click to expand...

Thank you @Lee_Chester_Jr those are good examples of what I am talking about - groups out there trying to trick us into thinking there is still uncertainty when there really isn't. In this case they are saying "see this climate change thing isn't real all these experts say so" but if you look closer you see these are not people conducting their own research in the area nor are they actually singing on to support of a scientific document just a petition with a general statement. It's all show and no backing. In this case an "appeal to authority" fallacy. The climate change deniers do not have real quality science to bring to the table so they are tricking us with this kind of stunt.
 
This thread and the climate change debate as a whole (as well as other debates) reminds me of a military concept known as 'The Tenth Man' which I am sure can be appreciated by everyone reading this thread. In short;

'Where there is a group consensus about a course of action, a Tenth Man is brought in to challenge the findings of the group and explore alternative reasons and options. This is used to ensure that the desire for consensus does not stifle innovation and deliver the wrong result.'

I know which side I sit on in this debate but I appreciate the challenge from those who sit on the other side as it forces me to question the reasons as to why I sit on the side I do and try to understand why others sit on the side they do .
 
I am sure for every scientist that claims climate change there is one that debunks it. I am not a specialist climate scientist so I can only go with my gut.

My gut tells me that natural climate change occurs but the pollutants we produce must contribute to it.

My view is I would rather take steps to reduce my carbon footprint just in case rather than not and regret it after it is too late. For that reason we live in an eco house, are having a tesla battery fitted next week to multiply the effectiveness of our PV and are actively researching the purchase of an electric car.
 
About climate change, I'll only say that we can care about and be as proactive as we want, but if Mr. Volcano decides it'd be funny to pass wind then suddenly all our calculations and green wannabes go to waste. We really are an egocentric species and with climate change is no different.
 
Unfriendly said:
About climate change, I'll only say that we can care about and be as proactive as we want, but if Mr. Volcano decides it'd be funny to pass wind then suddenly all our calculations and green wannabes go to waste. We really are an egocentric species and with climate change is no different.
Click to expand...

"According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.

Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors."

www.scientificamerican.com

Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere?

Does one major volcanic eruption generate more climate-altering gas than that produced by humans in their entire history?
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com
 
Unfriendly said:
About climate change, I'll only say that we can care about and be as proactive as we want, but if Mr. Volcano decides it'd be funny to pass wind then suddenly all our calculations and green wannabes go to waste. We really are an egocentric species and with climate change isn't different.
Click to expand...

I'll give that a like because that is basically true if you believe in pure science VS religion. According to current science, the human race is basically 99.999% doomed to failure. If we don't destroy our own planet by nuclear war, overpopulation/human induced climate change, the creation of some supervirus, creation of a super AI that decides to turn us all into fuel to further it's own ends, etc., then we are left with the probability of our own extinction via natural means such as a supervolcano, asteroid impact, rogue planet or other extrasolar body passing through our solar system, gamma ray burst, general entropy, or a myriad of other causes. Our chances of reaching beyond our own solar system, are, for all intents and purposes, with our current science, basically zero.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top