Thread: Catastrophic Failure of Earth Within the Lifetime of Someone Alive Today!?

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

It is absolutely shocking to see how many regular members here oppose climate change!

Do you mean climate change, or global warming? Do you mean it is entirely humanity's fault, or it's a mixture of both us and nature? I'm sorry but I find your post kind of confusing, you don't really seem to be agreeing with the people who are supporting global warming exactly. When I say global warming, I mean it the same way most people mean feminism. Not the true cause or issue, but what it has become; I'm talking about the political maneuver/scapegoat argument.

All I want is for people to be factual, logical, calm, non-fanatical, respectful, and understanding. I really do not care what the outcome of the debate is or the finding, because I think the debate itself is useless and a waste of time. However, since everyone insists on continuing, I would at least like that they make sense when they do and be as scientific as possible. Now, both sides have been guilty of low blows, taking shortcuts, logical fallacies, and using less than credible sources. Hence when the OP and others started providing links and backing up their claims, I liked their posts and became open to what they had to say.

Personally, I don't think global warming is as dangerous as people make it out to be. I believe it exists in the sense climate change exists, both naturally and because of humans. The implications of this is what I disagree most with, the doomsday scenario (at least for the earth) is nothing more than fear-mongering. It's like the Red Scare. If it's what it takes, we will be wiped out, whatever. The theories that many have come up with that would result of our part in the rising CO2 levels have more or less been scare tactics to push political agendas and to generate funds for various groups. Very little of it has been borne of true stewardship, and honestly most of the evidence presented is what people that want you to see this information (for unaltruistic reasons) want you to spread around. There is more to it, there is always more to it. The limited sharing of information has led to many prophecies that have never come to fruition because key pieces of the puzzle were left out when coming up with the theories, or they were flat out fabricated.

This is why I play devil's advocate when it comes to this stuff. Anybody that is too gung-ho about either side of this stuff is going to be too willing to believe whatever information is presented to them that supports their side of the argument. Being impartial and getting results is more important to me than winning a debate.

Originally Posted by snoop

This is why I play devil's advocate when it comes to this stuff. Anybody that is too gung-ho about either side of this stuff is going to be too willing to believe whatever information is presented to them that supports their side of the argument. Being impartial and getting results is more important to me than winning a debate.

Sitting in the middle and not taking sides doesn't equate to being impartial. If there was an argument over if the sun revolves around the earth or the earth resolves around the sun and you take the position, "I am undecided because the data of neither side convinces me." That isn't impartial, because any unbiased person would see the overwhelming evidence and be forced to side with the truth.

Originally Posted by Alric

Sitting in the middle and not taking sides doesn't equate to being impartial. If there was an argument over if the sun revolves around the earth or the earth resolves around the sun and you take the position, "I am undecided because the data of neither side convinces me." That isn't impartial, because any unbiased person would see the overwhelming evidence and be forced to side with the truth.

Did you even read the rest of my post, or did you just decide to stop there?

edit: By the way, why are you so obsessed with saying others are wrong and what you believe in is the truth? That kind of thinking has no place in science or really on the earth. What you are doing is the equivalent of theists claiming that their religion is the correct religion and not even giving the possibility that they are wrong a chance. That kind of thinking is what leads to crusades, animosity, and ultimately the persecution of skeptics, free thinkers, and being able to adapt. It's extremely close minded and unbecoming of all humans. Quite frankly it just makes you look ignorant and biased as fuck.

As is clear from my other posts, I accept the scientific evidence for anthropic climate change.

But what you've just written isn't a valid argument for it.

It's a valid argument for the hypothesis that CO2 levels have risen to way above average as a result of industrialisation. But that's barely even a hypothesis, that's just a fact. It's patently clear from both the historical records, and the basic chemistry of burning fossil fuels. I think most climate change sceptics would happily concede to the truth of what you wrote.

But that's not what the anthropic climate change hypothesis is. The hypothesis is about the recent warming of the globe - namely that it's largely a result of the CO2 rise. This is what the sceptics tend to be sceptical about. There's good scientific evidence for it, but it's more complicated, and your post doesn't really provide any of the relevant evidence.

P.S. a relatively tangential niggle, but you got the data quite badly wrong. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is 400ppm, a significant difference from 650ppm.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

As is clear from my other posts, I accept the scientific evidence for anthropic climate change.

But what you've just written isn't a valid argument for it.

It's a valid argument for the hypothesis that CO2 levels have risen to way above average as a result of industrialisation. But that's barely even a hypothesis, that's just a fact. It's patently clear from both the historical records, and the basic chemistry of burning fossil fuels. I think most climate change sceptics would happily concede to the truth of what you wrote.

But that's not what the anthropic climate change hypothesis is. The hypothesis is about the recent warming of the globe - namely that it's largely a result of the CO2 rise. This is what the sceptics tend to be sceptical about. There's good scientific evidence for it, but it's more complicated, and your post doesn't really provide any of the relevant evidence.

P.S. a relatively tangential niggle, but you got the data quite badly wrong. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is 400ppm, a significant difference from 650ppm.

Sorry if I didn't make this clearer, it was meant to be a thought experiment to put into perspective the radical change that has been brought about. I meant to say 400 PPM, it managed to screw up somehow, thanks for letting me know.

I wrote hundreds of lines and decided to delete them because ultimately I'm not here to discuss the merits of climate change, it's been done already. I will say though that I find it absolutely absurd that in almost any other fragile system we will assume the worst, and strive to disprove it. Yet here skeptics think it's okay to assume the best until we formulate a perfect model. They attest to this when preliminary evidence shows that climate change has a very real possibility of being man made, and even more so catastrophic. They wish to think that thousands of systems are currently radically different then they were for thousands of years, yet that all has no bearing on the earth.

Thats sounds a lot like they're the ones with the hidden agenda.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Sorry if I didn't make this clearer, it was meant to be a thought experiment to put into perspective the radical change that has been brought about.

Okay yeah, I was pretty sure you were just being unclear rather than trying to make a bad argument. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Okay yeah, I was pretty sure you were just being unclear rather than trying to make a bad argument. Thanks.

You are missing the point, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just commenting on what kind of a person you must be to choose to be a skeptic just because evidence is not absolutely solid, yet it's consequences could be huge. It's a complete negligent attitude that I disagree with.

There's a time and a place for utmost certainty. When it comes to the future of our planet, it's diverse and beautiful lifeforms, I won't accept to sit on my ass while I wait for a scientist to show me to 99.999% level of confidence that climate change is man made.

Even if I'm completely wrong, in almost every possible way. I have planted hundreds of trees, lived environmentally friendly and enjoyed it all. None of those things are bad.
Now if I chose to live an extravagant lifestyle because climate change may not be true. In 40 years when it becomes apparent just how bad things might be, I'm one of the primary reasons for it.

You are missing the point... I'm just saying that I now understand what you meant and doubted you were being ignorant or intellectually dishonest in the first place. Not sure how you've read that as a counterargument or criticism.

:T

Ahh woops, sorry again. Stress is quite high in my life right now, as you can imagine it leads embarrassing mistakes.

Not a problem... misunderstanding is the curse of the internet.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Not a problem... misunderstanding is the curse of the internet.

Very true! I think someone else misunderstood what another person was saying in this very thread...wait that was me! Haha. That provides a good example for what I said in my last post...I admitted then and now, that I was wrong in interpreting a members quote a page or two back, and I apologized.

Your constant inference that all of the extra CO2 in the extra atmosphere will be absorbed into plant material is just plain wrong.

1. Where do you get this idea from in the first place? Why do you think that CO2 is the bottleneck in plant growth, and not, say, the amount of sunlight? Either you've done the calculations to prove that CO2 is the bottleneck, in which case show us, or you haven't, in which case your statements are baseless and idiotic.

2. If CO2 is the bottleneck and you're right in your inference that plants would indeed absorb any extra CO2 put into the atmosphere... why is there ever CO2 in the atmosphere?

3. If plants would indeed absorb any extra CO2 put into the atmosphere, why aren't they absorbing the extra CO2 put into the atmosphere?

I will interpret your flat-out ignoring of the question about your "university work" to mean that you were just bullshitting and have zero relevant experience in this field, probably serving some kind of janitorial or administrative role at a college.

Voldmer, although your last post sounded "cute" it added nothing to the debate...much like most of what you have said in this thread. You are doing a decent job of pushing the evidence and sources further up the thread where others are less likely to see them...perhaps that is your intention.

*Don't pretend that you do not see Denziloe's post just above mine either.

Originally Posted by fogelbise

Voldmer, although your last post sounded "cute" it added nothing to the debate...much like most of what you have said in this thread. You are doing a decent job of pushing the evidence and sources further up the thread where others are less likely to see them...perhaps that is your intention.

*Don't pretend that you do not see Denziloe's post just above mine either.

I find your accusation about my motives appalling, and bordering on paranoia.

There is no evidence present in this thread concerning CO2; only quotes from lists of "papers to throw at thinking people, should they dare to speak up against the official CO2-story".

I ignore Denziloe on purpose, because of his uncivilised demeanor in this thread (even if his grotesque accusations are flame-bate, if ever such a thing existed).

Either that or you're stumped by my incredibly basic scientific questions. One or the other.

Given that you literally just called somebody a "borderline paranoid", I'm guessing it's not the "civilised demeanour" thing.

Come on now Voldmer. Plenty of evidence is sourced throughout the thread and what I said is in the same vein as asking someone if they are simply trolling. Any rational person who reads all of your posts in this thread will see someone sharing conspiracy theories and personal beliefs with no sources to back them up...end of story.

Originally Posted by fogelbise

Come on now Voldmer. Plenty of evidence is sourced throughout the thread and what I said is in the same vein as asking someone if they are simply trolling. Any rational person who reads all of your posts in this thread will see someone sharing conspiracy theories and personal beliefs with no sources to back them up...end of story.

I don't really suspect any formal conspiracy - at least not a major one. There is simply a lot of people pursuing their own agendas, but their various objectives can all be realised through joining the "Anti-CO2"-movement, which they then duly do.

Everything stated in this thread, by me and everyone else, is based on beliefs. You, for example, believe the sources which you have quoted.

Stop acting as if scientific sources are opinions. If you want to test whether the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is indeed 400ppm, you can go to the source, find out the methodology, and test it for yourself. Not being bothered is not an argument. You've also repeatedly ignored purely analytical counterarguments to your claims which require zero empirical work, so on top of being wrong, the whole premise of your defence is also a lie.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Stop acting as if scientific sources are opinions.

With that statement you demonstrate your unquestioning faith in these sources. A religious devotee of any faith and denomination would approve.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Stop acting as if scientific sources are opinions.

With that statement you demonstrate your unquestioning faith in these sources. A religious devotee of any faith and denomination would approve.

Let me requote the rest of the post, because apparently you somehow missed it:

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Stop acting as if scientific sources are opinions. If you want to test whether the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is indeed 400ppm, you can go to the source, find out the methodology, and test it for yourself. Not being bothered is not an argument. You've also repeatedly ignored purely analytical counterarguments to your claims which require zero empirical work, so on top of being wrong, the whole premise of your defence is also a lie.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

With that statement you demonstrate your unquestioning faith in these sources. A religious devotee of any faith and denomination would approve.

But that is the difference between scientists and a "religious devotee." The 97% source (see also theconsensusproject.com) is based on thousands of peer reviewed science papers! That is hardly equivalent to "faith." It is not unusual for there to be a few science papers that upon peer review are determined to be faulty in some way or subsequent experiments are not able to duplicate the original results. What we have in this case instead is an overwhelming majority of peer reviewed science papers that all come to the same general conclusion that global warming is happening and that it is primarily man made. Your skepticism is not of faith but seems to be a skepticism of knowledge (science derives from the latin scientia meaning knowledge) and a skepticism of the scientific method and the process of peer review.

Originally Posted by fogelbise

But that is the difference between scientists and a "religious devotee." The 97% source (see also theconsensusproject.com) is based on thousands of peer reviewed science papers! That is hardly equivalent to "faith." It is not unusual for there to be a few science papers that upon peer review are determined to be faulty in some way or subsequent experiments are not able to duplicate the original results. What we have in this case instead is an overwhelming majority of peer reviewed science papers that all come to the same general conclusion that global warming is happening and that it is primarily man made. Your skepticism is not of faith but seems to be a skepticism of knowledge (science derives from the latin scientia meaning knowledge) and a skepticism of the scientific method and the process of peer review.

First of all, it really does not matter how many people believe a particular proposition; it may still be completely wrong.

But much more importantly here, I wish you would take a step back and view the larger picture. Originally there was no such thing as "climate science". There was meteorology, and there were studies of geology, and oceanography. Then, out of nowhere you suddenly have whole masses of "climate scientists" who all work for universities (primarily government owned), and all write papers on "climate science", and all review each others papers.

How did they become "climate experts", when there was not even such a science before? The grim fact is that they are taken from all sorts of other areas (many are mere meteorologists ... and it gets worse: economists), and they would not appear to be qualified to take on such research. Moreover, they all rely on a public desire for research into "climate science", because their funding comes from governments, and only for as long as the politicians think it can buy them votes. Please think about this: these "climate scientists" have no careers, if public support for the CO2-story disappears! And all they have to do, in order to ensure the backing of people like yourself, is to accept each others papers, so that they may be published.

This should make the whole area of "climate science" extremely dubious for everyone, and for me - a hard core scientist - and very many like me around the world, this group of non-scientists who are parading around as if they were the genuine article, are both a cause for real concern, and much nuisance (since they are dragging the good name of science down with them).

Originally Posted by Voldmer

First of all, it really does not matter how many people believe a particular proposition; it may still be completely wrong.

But much more importantly here, I wish you would take a step back and view the larger picture. Originally there was no such thing as "climate science". There was meteorology, and there were studies of geology, and oceanography. Then, out of nowhere you suddenly have whole masses of "climate scientists" who all work for universities (primarily government owned), and all write papers on "climate science", and all review each others papers.

How did they become "climate experts", when there was not even such a science before? The grim fact is that they are taken from all sorts of other areas (many are mere meteorologists ... and it gets worse: economists), and they would not appear to be qualified to take on such research. Moreover, they all rely on a public desire for research into "climate science", because their funding comes from governments, and only for as long as the politicians think it can buy them votes. Please think about this: these "climate scientists" have no careers, if public support for the CO2-story disappears! And all they have to do, in order to ensure the backing of people like yourself, is to accept each others papers, so that they may be published.

This should make the whole area of "climate science" extremely dubious for everyone, and for me - a hard core scientist - and very many like me around the world, this group of non-scientists who are parading around as if they were the genuine article, are both a cause for real concern, and much nuisance (since they are dragging the good name of science down with them).

Oh, I get it now.
That's kind of shocking.
I really don't know what to say.
Well, all I can do is ask one question: Are they really un-credible to the extent that we can ignore their papers? I mean, is it really that bad? Are they really unqualified at all?
This is not sarcasm BTW, I'm really serious.

Here is actually a non-scientific thought to reflect on. (Wich make it unbiased?)

1. Take some chemical toxic waste.
2. Let the toxic waste free in nature.
3. Then take some time to reflect over the combination of statement 1+2..

For anyone who thinks that global warming probably is just another conspiracy theory. I will hereby present four different answears so no one have to scratch their head bloody in confusion with this little example above.

What could be the most likely effect if the combination of statement 1+2 is put togheter. Is it

A: Nothing will happen, because everything looks the same as always.
B: Why should I bother to care?
C: Nothing will happen, because I dont like the words "global warming".
D: The chemical toxic waste will probably most likely effect the natural environment in a negative way in the long run, even if there is science to prove or disaprove the claims of global warming.

Hmmm...

@Voldmer: since you have repeatedly said that you don't want to review the sources...how about a simple infographics-like link. Once loaded you can see the qualifications of various experts who believe that we shouldn't sit back and deny that we can have a real impact on our environment. Your position seems to be skeptic/don't want to research/no worries...instead of skeptic/let me research/maybe we need to take action. I would be glad to review any sources for your extraordinary claims that these 97% of science papers are lying to keep their jobs!! Please share that truth with me with sources and I will listen and be open-minded.

Simple graphic...click on each for their qualifications/backgrounds: 97 Hours