The end of the world as we know it

[OngBonga]

It is funny that your friends mum tells you something and you think the world is on the brink yet tonnes of evidence backing something up and it's hearsay.

Yeah because I trust my friend's mum, but not media. My friend's mum is at the very least sincere in her beliefs, and is way better qualified to make that claim than I ever could be.

[Poopadoop]

So anyone who knows more than you about something must be right? Unless they're a scientist?

[OngBonga]

So anyone who knows more than you about something must be right? Unless they're a scientist?

Do you know what trust means?

[Poopadoop]

Do you know what trust means?

Yes, and it's understandable you trust your friend's mom more than a complete stranger. But I also think there has to be some faith that qualified people who study the matter intensely and have no obvious interest in lying have a better grasp on things like global warming than you or I.

[Poopadoop]

In Ong's defense, there is a difficulty in proving global warming based simply on mean global temperatures. The kind of time scales and fluctuations involved mean it would take probably centuries to 'prove' global warming is for real.

The crux of the matter to me though is the fact that the concentrations of greenhouse gases have been rising exponentially since industrialization began. If that isn't resulting in global warming then they will need to rewrite all the geology texts.

[OngBonga]

In Ong's defense, there is a difficulty in proving global warming based simply on mean global temperatures. The kind of time scales and fluctuations involved mean it would take probably centuries to 'prove' global warming is for real.

The crux of the matter to me though is the fact that the concentrations of greenhouse gases have been rising exponentially since industrialization began. If that isn't resulting in global warming then they will need to rewrite all the geology texts.

Why are you assuming that a build up of gasses implies an increase in temperature? It could, for all we mere mortals know, result in a cooling, as more solar radiation is reflected back into space. There's a logical argument supporting cooling and warming.

Furthermore, there's a balancing act that goes on in nature. The warmer something gets, the more it radiates energy, and thus, the quicker it cools. That's why hot water freezes quicker than cold water. So if the planet is warming up, then it's also losing more heat in the form of radiation. Nature can deal with warming.

There's no need for panic. The sea levels aren't rising like they said they would be. Thermal expansion of the oceans isn't happening, because it's nonsense. The VAST majority of water in the oceans is deep water, and isn't going to be even remotely influenced by a degree or two of surface warming. There's a Pacific nation that has a vested interest in playing the climate change card to get foreign aid... they refused to allow a video to be shown by a Swedish scientist who claims there's nothing for them to worry about.

I'm not buying it. This decade is cooler than last, based on my observations here in the UK. I strongly suspect that the warm period of 2000-2010 was natural fluctuation. There's much more pressing things to worry about... air quality is one of them so the global warming myth at least can do some good.

[Poopadoop]

Why are you assuming that a build up of gasses implies an increase in temperature? It could, for all we mere mortals know, result in a cooling, as more solar radiation is reflected back into space. There's a logical argument supporting cooling and warming.

I'm assuming it for the same reason that if you build a greenhouse it will get hot inside. The extra radiation is trapped, not reflected back to space. Incidentally, one of these gases, CO2 is a big part of the atmosphere of Venus iirc. Pretty fucking warm there.

Furthermore, there's a balancing act that goes on in nature. The warmer something gets, the more it radiates energy, and thus, the quicker it cools. That's why hot water freezes quicker than cold water. So if the planet is warming up, then it's also losing more heat in the form of radiation. Nature can deal with warming.

I don't think there's a consensus on why hot water freezes quicker than cold water, but anyways let's leave that to MMM.

But by this logic, Venus should not be much hotter than Earth.

There's no need for panic. The sea levels aren't rising like they said they would be. Thermal expansion of the oceans isn't happening, because it's nonsense. The VAST majority of water in the oceans is deep water, and isn't going to be even remotely influenced by a degree or two of surface warming. There's a Pacific nation that has a vested interest in playing the climate change card to get foreign aid... they refused to allow a video to be shown by a Swedish scientist who claims there's nothing for them to worry about.

The people with the vested interest in arguing for climate change are outnumbered by a fairly large margin by the people for whom the reverse is true. Oil companies, for example.

I'm not buying it. This decade is cooler than last, based on my observations here in the UK. I strongly suspect that the warm period of 2000-2010 was natural fluctuation. There's much more pressing things to worry about... air quality is one of them so the global warming myth at least can do some good.

It could be, but my argument was about the factors that lead to global warming, not the strength of the evidence that it's already here.

[OngBonga]

But I also think there has to be some faith that qualified people who study the matter intensely and have no obvious interest in lying have a better grasp on things like global warming than you or I.

Ok, this is fair enough. But what is it to "study"? If I want to learn about something, such as water filters, I go to wikipedia. I'm learning what someone else has written. If I then filter water as advised, and it's clean enough for me to consider it a success, then I'm going to assume that what I was told is truth. I might even teach other how to make water filters, spreading the knowledge. But how do I actually know that it worked as a result of what I was taught? I'm making a leap of faith. So, too, is every scientist who trusts their education.

The problem isn't necessarily that qualified people are lying directly to the people, the problem might be much more deep rooted than that. Maybe people are being taught lies as they become qualified.

Ultimately, the distrust is still aimed at the system, not the person.

[Poopadoop]

Ultimately, the distrust is still aimed at the system, not the person.

Well obviously I'm biased, but I think the system of science has been shown to work pretty well over the years, no? I'm not saying mistakes haven't been made but on the balance it seems to me that science has been one of mankind's more successful ventures.

[OngBonga]

Well obviously I'm biased, but I think the system of science has been shown to work pretty well over the years, no? I'm not saying mistakes haven't been made but on the balance it seems to me that science has been one of mankind's more successful ventures.

Climate change is theory at best, disinformation at worst. You're putting faith in science, which is fine, but this isn't science. It's theory, and it's highly political in nature, which muddies the waters further. I have no faith in unproven science where there is so much politics involved.

[Savy]

Yeah because I trust my friend's mum, but not media. My friend's mum is at the very least sincere in her beliefs, and is way better qualified to make that claim than I ever could be.

It's very hard to believe that a media run by rich people are pushing an agenda that makes people want to implement policies which lose them money. You'd think the millions they spend trying to squash things like that would be somewhat at odds.

[OngBonga]

It's very hard to believe that a media run by rich people are pushing an agenda that makes people want to implement policies which lose them money. You'd think the millions they spend trying to squash things like that would be somewhat at odds.

Well let's assume just for one minute that is is all bollocks. I wouldn't assume that their lies are losing them money, I would assume the opposite. I'm not going to pretend how the complexities of that works, but I'm gonna suggest that maybe it's for the greater benefit of big business due to excessive regulations killing the smaller competition. Fuck knows. But if they're lying about it, then they're not losing money, they're making it.