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

When I first heard this I thought it was hyperbole or perhaps an overstatement, but now I am not so sure. There is a television series on HBO that features episodes involving issues that are obviously important to the creator and principal writer Alan Sorkin. That show is a drama called Newsroom which has fictional characters and components but it explores some recent actual news events including the Boston Marathon attack. This season is looking to be quite good. The latest episode, episode 3 of the 3rd and final season, portrayed an interview with a high ranking EPA official that said some very alarming things. Albeit this is a television show, but the portrayal is based on a lot of damning facts. For anyone wishing to avoid spoilers for the episode I have included the spoiler box below but it is definitely some interesting reading in the spoiler box. The two names listed are the two people who transcribed some quotes and thoughts from the episode. I wish I could link to a clip of the segment as it aired but it isn't on youtube or anything due to copyrights. If you have an HBO subscription you can pull it up on "HBO go" or on demand or watch it on cable/satellite before the new episode comes out Sunday. Anyway:

Spoiler for Chat transcript that was tracking the episode:

Kehe: Live interview.
He has lots of impressive degrees.
Crucchiola: Very.
Kehe: Will to EPA guy: “What’s your prognosis?”
Crucchiola: “A person has already been born who will die due to catastrophic failure of the planet.”
Kehe: The house has already burned to the ground.
Crucchiola: House = Earth
Kehe: There’s nothing we can do.
Maggie looks surprised.
Crucchiola: Literally no one at ACN understands what to do now.
<snip heavy commentary>
It was a good story.
Until the guy says the world is ending, with no hope of reversal.
Crucchiola: “There isn’t a position on this any more than there is a position on at what temperature water boils.”
Will: “Let’s see if we can’t find a better spin. People are starting their weekends.”
WILL!
<snip>
Kehe:
Everyone watching is extremely riveted.
What’s the point of this?
Is this a metaphor?
Crucchiola: “Storms that have the power to level cities, blacking out the sky and causing permanent darkness.”
<snip>
Kehe: Right.
Crucchiola: “I still don’t see any way we could survive.”
That’s it.
That’s the takeaway.

Source wired website: A Comprehensive Gchat Recap of This Week’s The Newsroom Episode
By Jordan Crucchiola and Jason Kehe 11.24.14

I honestly think this is something that everyone needs to take very seriously and make radical changes. I also know people, who I love dearly, but they honestly believe that this is all some conspiracy to bring the downfall of freedom in America! Any thoughts??

Additional info from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...NGERREPORT.pdf

.
.

If it happens and we tried our best but we still all die, what is there to worry about really? There was nothing more we could have conceivably done, and honestly I'm not afraid to die because I'm going to die one day regardless. It's regrettable that future generations (given that this isn't some wild conjecture or something, I haven't begun reading into it yet to see if it is) will no longer to be born, but honestly a day is going to come where humans will no longer exist. Until then, we are just prolonging the inevitable, it's the way things have to be. We should still take steps to prevent it if we can, but squandering our time here worrying our asses off about it is pretty useless and counter-productive in my eyes.

Lol - am I the only one old enough to remember the alarmist warnings by scientists in the 70's about the so-called new ice age that was going to wipe us all out?? Or the equally alarmist predictions by scientists that Y2K was going to destroy civilization because the computers didn't know how to switch over to a new millennium. There is no scientific consensus concerning climate change and especially whether or not it could be caused ( or more importantly fixed) by human intervention. One thing we do know about it for sure is that left wing environmental groups use it to try to fear-monger their way into more power.

And of course it wouldn't affect the earth in the slightest if it does happen - only that thin film on the surface known as life.

Do you know TV shows such as Alphas and X-Men about humans with mutations that provide superhuman abilities? Why do you think we have autism, depression, attention deficit disorder, etc? Human brains are mutating or evolving. We are also expanding our abilities through activities such as lucid dreaming and meditation. Learning to think outside the box in abnormal non-mainstream ways because that is what it will take to have a chance to save ourselves. If we can evolve and are able to overcome catastrophic failure. And I am confident that we can.

^ It could happen - or it might be time for humans to go the way of the dinosaurs and let a new species rise to dominance. Either way, life on earth continues. Maybe this weirdly expanded intelligence turns out not to be such a great mutation after all, but gives us the ability to wipe out much of existing life, thus performing a valuable and necessary function like forest fires do in the life cycles of nature.

Well, it is possible that it will not matter since maybe this is all a dream or maybe we are actually all one, and then whether it is humans or dinosaurs or dragons might not matter in the end. :)

Umm yes there is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is man made. Pretty much all scientists have known about this for years. Scientists knew the earth was warming even in the 70's. It is was just random journalist talking about the ice age stuff to sell papers, and most scientists then knew about global warming and knew the earth wasn't cooling. Also the Y2K thing was a real concern but people fixed all the problems.

Climate change is real and it is quickly getting to the point where we can do little to change things back. It will likely result in millions, perhaps billions of deaths. However it is mostly going to be due to famine and stuff in Africa and Asia, and lets be honest here. People in the US don't give a shit if a billion people die over seas due to climate change. That is why as a country we are not doing very much.

It is already predicting that hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year from the impact of climate change we are already experiencing, and we are still pretending that nothing is happening. So it is a pretty fair assessment to say that people are not going to get their act together any time soon. We will probably be well into a billion deaths before people start taking it as a serious threat and by then, there isn't going to be any way to stop it. We are just going to have to live through the harsh weather conditions and reduced water supplies.

All that said, I don't think humans are going to get wiped out. People will move to Canada, which will have a much warmer weather, making it a nice place to live and grow crops and we will pay the costs to put desalination plants along the coast to get water. It will suck, especially for the overpopulated areas that are already poor, but I really don't think this stuff will kill off humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Umm yes there is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is man made...

---

Funny, but climate scientists don't agree with you on that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYKggC5VOzA

The scientist pushing climate change hysteria - the one who refuses to debate as so many do, comes across as extremely political, while the others honestly seem open and very scientific. Notice the hysteria supporter even refuses to answer any of Stossel's questions, essentially just like the way politicians talk.

It's good to know the world is actually getting greener thanks to use of fossil fuels. We also know climate change is a constant - it's always in flux, and the most likely outcome is that it warms for a while and then begins to cool again,as it always has.

fogelbise, in a weird coincidence, I actually saw that episode of Newsroom. It's weird because I don't normally watch that show, but it was on and I happened to be in the room. Two points I would make:

1) The EPA person was literally an alarmist. Even the people in the newsroom were worried about how cooky he sounded.

2) The show itself is probably the most liberally biased show on television today. You will not find a more slanted view of the world than that of the writers of that show.

As for your fears about the world ending due to climate change...you're going to feel really, really stupid in a few years when you're a little older and you realize that nothing happened. Believe me, when I was younger I was totally on board with it. The film An Inconvenient Truth had just come out, and I was convinced that the world would end very soon. And then nothing happened, and I felt silly to say the least.

Thank you all for your responses so far. I would like to present some counter-points. I added the numbers inside the quotes to separately address the points with out needing separate sub-quotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

1. If it happens and we tried our best but we still all die, what is there to worry about really? 2. There was nothing more we could have conceivably done, and honestly I'm not afraid to die because I'm going to die one day regardless. It's regrettable that future generations (given that this isn't some wild conjecture or something, I haven't begun reading into it yet to see if it is) will no longer to be born, 3. but honestly a day is going to come where humans will no longer exist. 4. Until then, we are just prolonging the inevitable, it's the way things have to be. 5. We should still take steps to prevent it if we can, but squandering our time here worrying our asses off about it is pretty useless and counter-productive in my eyes.

---

1. We are doing nowhere near our best...that is the problem. 2. True, we are all going to die but I think the majority of those with children may feel a little more sense of obligation to do their part to make a better future for those "future generations." 3. Why hasten our demise? 4. Prolonging the inevitable for sure, agreed, though it is not the way things have to be for the next million years perhaps if we can enact significant change now. 5. True, worrying for worrying's sake is useless but the first step to correcting a problem is realizing that there is a problem in the first place. Unfortunately the PR firms and lobbyist that protect the "live fast and hard" attitude we often take with our planet are very good at making people look the other way. More on that further down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

1. Lol - am I the only one old enough to remember the alarmist warnings by scientists in the 70's about the so-called new ice age that was going to wipe us all out?? Or the equally alarmist predictions by scientists that Y2K was going to destroy civilization because the computers didn't know how to switch over to a new millennium. 2. There is no scientific consensus concerning climate change and especially whether or not it could be caused ( or more importantly fixed) by human intervention. 3. One thing we do know about it for sure is that left wing environmental groups use it to try to fear-monger their way into more power.

And of course it wouldn't affect the earth in the slightest if it does happen - only that thin film on the surface known as life.

---

1. Those warnings were mostly media driven. "1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2." - SkepticalScience (survey of peer reviewed papers from 1965 to 1979 regarding warming or cooling of the Earth, found that 42 out of 49 predicted warming not cooling). 2. Absolutely incorrect...see the article "Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made" (survey of over 12,000 peer reviewed science papers) in the Guardian and elsewhere. These are peer reviewed papers. 3. There definitely could be some using it as propaganda to promote their political party or similar but they are still using facts as opposed to the smoke and mirrors and redirection propaganda that is often put out by some of these companies that put profit above the well-being of the customers, or at the very least, above the well-being of the locals where there operations are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

^ It could happen - or it might be time for humans to go the way of the dinosaurs and let a new species rise to dominance. Either way, life on earth continues. Maybe this weirdly expanded intelligence turns out not to be such a great mutation after all, but gives us the ability to wipe out much of existing life, thus performing a valuable and necessary function like forest fires do in the life cycles of nature.

---

I can see this. Perhaps humanity is just too far gone that it is time for a reboot. Then again, those with children will often want to go down fighting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoannaB

Well, it is possible that it will not matter since maybe this is all a dream or maybe we are actually all one, and then whether it is humans or dinosaurs or dragons might not matter in the end. :)

---

You know, I lean toward believing that we are all interconnected...but that is why we should care. Half of the Earth's populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and birds were lost over the past 40 years! See CBSNews article "Half the world's wildlife gone over last 40 years"

I see there are some other posts that I will review as soon as I can, though a quick scan indicates that at least one of my responses has already addressed one of the points (on consensus).

The problem with this whole thing is that it's all prediction - we have a pretty dismal track record for that. And it's an area where there are way too many variables to make any accurate long-term predictions. Another problem is that because of the nature of the whole debate it's a politically supercharged issue, so it's hard to find anything that isn't pushing one agenda or the other. Yes, it was mostly media pushing the ice age thing - they're also the main driving force (along with politicians) behind the current global warming trend. Well, also factor in that so much funding is tied in with politics too or comes from universities, most of which are overwhelmingly left wing, and the fact that scientists who publicly speak out against it run the risk of being ostracized.

It's clear what we have is a big indecipherable mishmash - it's pretty well impossible to tell what's really going on. What we do have for sure is a very extreme prediction of melting ice caps, and that's the part this thread is concerned with. Most likely scenario as I see it (in my completely unscientific way) as I said before, it warms for a while, maybe we get some polar melt, and then the trend again reverses itself as it has throughout all of time.

If you look at a lot of sources you'll find plenty of dissenting opinions from good reputable scientists. It's what's called reasonable doubt in legal terms, and it's all that's needed to discredit such an extreme prediction. If they can ever show some more reliable evidence that these things will come to pas then there's something to sink our teeth into. But until that time I refuse to get worked up about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

1. Funny, but climate scientists don't agree with you on that:
2. <video>

---

1. Actually, very few don't agree. Refer back to my earlier comments regarding the overwhelming 97% figure. 2. Video: Simple dog and pony show. It even featured a corny empty chair gag. You will always be able to find a few scientists that will say that there is nothing to worry about...keep on pumping toxins into the environment...the Earth can take it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

1) The EPA person was literally an alarmist. Even the people in the newsroom were worried about how cooky he sounded.

2) The show itself is probably the most liberally biased show on television today. You will not find a more slanted view of the world than that of the writers of that show.

B. As for your fears about the world ending due to climate change...you're going to feel really, really stupid in a few years when you're a little older and you realize that nothing happened. Believe me, when I was younger I was totally on board with it. The film An Inconvenient Truth had just come out, and I was convinced that the world would end very soon. And then nothing happened, and I felt silly to say the least.

---

1. There were some looks of "he must be joking" but after he held is ground with further statements and facts most of the people were portrayed with a look of worry or fear. Either way, it is just how the episode portrayed reactions. 2. Perhaps somewhere between the liberal portrayals and the Inhofe's of the world we will all realize the truth. Just look at the picture in my signature or search "Air pollution in Beijing" to get an idea of how man is affecting our environment - and that is just one aspect - I have other examples.
B. I am not expecting this to happen "very soon" but rather "within the lifetime of someone alive today" as stated in the title of the OP. There is almost surely someone that was born today that will live to over 100 years of age. That is more along the lines of the time period I am seriously considering this becoming a reality within.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

1. The problem with this whole thing is that it's all prediction - we have a pretty dismal track record for that...

2. <examples of indecipherable mishmash>

It's clear what we have is a big indecipherable mishmash - it's pretty well impossible to tell what's really going on. What we do have for sure is a very extreme prediction of melting ice caps, and that's the part this thread is concerned with. 3. Most likely scenario as I see it (in my completely unscientific way) as I said before, it warms for a while, maybe we get some polar melt, and then the trend again reverses itself as it has throughout all of time.

4. If you look at a lot of sources you'll find plenty of dissenting opinions from good reputable scientists...

---

1. There is an alarming amount of evidence. Sure it is a prediction, but there is a good track record for predictions that are backed up by a preponderance of evidence and 97% consensus. Here's a prediction: at least 97% of the people who put a fully loaded gun to their head and pull the trigger are going to die. Yes I am being a bit flippant...and regarding your reasonable doubt analogy...I would hardly consider 3% as reasonable doubt especially when the 3% can be cross-examined and shown to be unreliable witnesses (versus 97% supporting proof of climate change) 2. climate change deniers will try to convince you of this mishmash the same way opponents of legitimate propositions every election cycle will introduce a mishmash of deliberately deceiving information to confuse the voters to not support a particular proposition. One side stands on facts and scientific proof, the other hides behind smoke and mirrors. Lobbyist Richard Berman was secretly recorded giving a presentation to energy executives revealing a lot of their dirty tricks. Just google it.

Well, time for me to focus on lucid dreaming for the rest of the night. Nice dreams to all...even those who don't agree with me. :)

Sure, there's plenty of evidence for some parts of it - and I don't deny any of them. I'm just not worried about the destruction of civilization from polar melt. Could it happen - of course! The rather extreme sounding prediction might actually turn out to be right - it happens sometimes. Any number of other extreme predictions might also turn out to be true, or maybe something we never even thought about will destroy civilization before any of it gets a chance to happen. So I choose not to worry about all these predictions - that's all I'm saying.

If this is such a concern to humans then why are we still not producing technology that significantly reduces the amount of fossil fuels we rely on, or find better energy sources altogether? I know what you're thinking, we already do, but it's progress is not being stymied because partisanship or because people do not agree on if humans are causing climate change, it's because we all care about money more than we do about being wiped off the planet. If you're still trying to convince people that climate change is occurring (which I am making no statement towards in anyway with this post, because honestly it doesn't matter), you're fighting the wrong battles. It's just like the Ferguson and Michael Brown case, they were in the right to not indict the police officer because all the evidence for the shooting being illegal was based off of hearsay and the evidence from the autopsies, etc., all pointed to what being reported as happening as being the truth or mostly the truth. Our justice system has a process, and just because people are angry doesn't mean we can break the law ourselves and indict this guy (not to mention go looting and rioting). They all had a point, cops need to be under more surveillance and better controlled, but they were fighting the wrong battle, they chose the wrong case to publicize and wound up making themselves look bad in the process.

Same here, what you shouldn't be concerned with is convincing people that we are putting out too much CO2, but that if we continue using the same energy resources we will likely run out fairly soon. Not only that, but it isn't efficient, we could improve our energy consumption/output rates and could also find more sustainable fuels that happen to cause less emissions as well, but all you are doing is making the cause for it look bad, in fact those who profit from this debate continuing (oil tycoons, various energy corporations, etc.) would like nothing more than add fuel to the fire on this debate because it keeps them making money longer, stifling humanity's progress because they are going to die one day and care more about living a lavish lifestyle and holding power than the lives of future generations. Don't play into their underhanded tactics. They aren't the only ones at fault here, but you need to realize you aren't helping anything by arguing about it any longer, you're simply wasting energy and time that could be used to develop newer technology and are turning people off of the issue because they disagree with your conclusion.

Snoop makes a good point. If you really care about global warming and think it's that much of a problem, then why aren't you designing a newfangled solar panel (or something better)?

Personally, I think global warming has become more of an identity, or a 'cause-of-the-month' for rich liberals, than an actual concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Funny, but climate scientists don't agree with you on that:.

---

Even the person you used as an example for denying climate change admitted that climate change is happening and is caused by us. He said he wasn't sure how much was from us but believes we are playing a part in it. When you hand pick someone to support your position and even they say you are wrong, that is pretty bad.

fogelbise already pointed out how it was like 97% agree that climate change is real and man made. That is a scientific consensus. Most of the scientist who say climate change isn't real are petroleum scientist who work for oil companies, and gee I wonder what sort of agenda they have. Nearly universally, every other scientific field has everyone agreeing climate change is real, and why wouldn't they? The facts are clear.

1. We are putting a ton of green house gases into the air. More than ever before. Way more than occurs naturally.

2. We know green house gases warm the planet by trapping heat.

3. We know that global temperatures are increasing at rates faster than ever happened historically.

4. We know ice is melting all around the world at record pace.

These are all facts. They are undeniable and easily proven. So you look at these fact, and you take in all the other information we have and it leads to global warming. It is silly to try to argue against global warming at this point, especially without any evidence to support any other theory of why the earth is warming up so much. Just because you don't want global warming to be destructive doesn't mean it isn't going to be. That isn't really how the world works, just because something sucks, doesn't mean you can make it go away by pretending it isn't happening.

There are some people who make extreme arguments about the dangers of global warming, but that is no reason to pretend it isn't happening. New York for example is probably not going to flood. They will likely bring dump trucks in and pour sand and stuff along the sea coast as a buffer against raising water. It will probably cost billions to adapt some coastal regions to the raising water levels, but such things are entirely possible.

I don't believe global warming is an apocalyptic scenario, but it is going to really really suck for a lot of people. Mostly for people in poor third world nations who can afford to adapt to climate change but it will affect us some what as well.

Lol ok - I'm not going to get dragged into one of these endless arguments. I've already said my piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Even the person you used as an example for denying climate change admitted that climate change is happening and is caused by us. He said he wasn't sure how much was from us but believes we are playing a part in it. When you hand pick someone to support your position and even they say you are wrong, that is pretty bad.

---

Hold up there man, don't you think that's what you are doing? If you think you've viewed all the sources, credible or otherwise, and made an educated decision about it by picking your stance, don't forget that anybody worth their salt in a debate has probably already done the same. Honestly, if you knew DarkMatters at all, I would guess that he's already looked at multiple sources and still came to the conclusion he has come to, just like I have, cmind has, and you have.

Honestly you're picking at straws here, don't deflect attention from what you're actually trying to argue for, it just makes you look less credible, and personally, I can't take someone like that seriously, lol.

A person can 'look at all the facts' and come to the conclusion that they believe the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. That doesn't make them any less wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

A person can 'look at all the facts' and come to the conclusion that they believe the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. That doesn't make them any less wrong.

---

And now you see the issue, neither side is willing to back down because they both believe they are right. So, like I mentioned in an earlier post, it makes a lot more sense to do something about it rather than waste time and energy trying to convince people you are right, don't you think? You need to pick and choose your battles if you want to win a "war" or a "game" or solve a problem. There is a difference between strategy and tactics.

I really have no idea what this thread is about. You're worried because some guy was on a fictional TV show talking about the end of the world? I don't follow.

Climate change is real, and will slowly start to cause some serious problems for humans, or at least certain populations of humans. But these problems are far from apocalyptic. We're talking in terms of population displacement and some economic upheaval. Not the atmosphere catching fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Lol ok - I'm not going to get dragged into one of these endless arguments. I've already said my piece.

---

I think calling it an "argument" is giving yourself a bit too much credit. You were just making statements and ignoring the responses.

Look at when you trotted out that hackneyed line about "scientists forty years ago were telling us the world was going to end because of an ice age". When somebody pointed out to you that that was just media bullshit, you didn't give any counter argument (say, by giving an actual example of a scientist making an apocalyptic statement about the ice age, given that you claim to vividly remember this). No, you just ignored it.

And in a few month's time when the argument comes up again, you'll forget that you don't have a leg to stand on and just repeat the same claim over again.

I'm old enough (and have a long enough memory) to remember very distinctly the climate scientists a decade ago saying that there would be massive, catastrophic, climate changes by now (2014). Yet a decade has passed, the climate is the same, the north pole is still home to Santa, the oceans haven't turned red, etc., and we somehow still have a "chance" to prevent the catastrophe, as long as we give certain people lots of money. And don't forget to vote Democrat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denziloe

I think calling it an "argument" is giving yourself a bit too much credit. You were just making statements and ignoring the responses.

---

I said "I don't want to get caught up in an endless argument" - what you describe would be doing exactly that. Comprende? If I'm not caught up in the argument, then why would I still be involved here in months?

So far people are misrepresenting what I've said, and I'm not interested in continually having to clear it up. All I've really said is that not all climate scientists are in agreement about it, and that I'm not worried about catastrophic failure of human civilization until and unless it starts to seem more likely. And people are acting like I've denied that global warming is happening! We also have people posting statistics and acting as if they're unaware of how easily statistics can be and frequently are manipulated, especially when there's a strong political motivation to do so.

Hopefully that clears it up a little better - I'm not some kind of climate change denier or anything. I hate these politically supercharged topics because if you have a nuanced position people will ignore it and try to cast you as the enemy.

^I don't think you are the enemy Darkmatters and I appreciate your participation in this thread. I think it does show how good the fossil fuel based energy companies are at muddying the waters and keeping the public on the sidelines and doubting whether we should switch away from their product.

Does anyone really trust those energy companies more than scientists? Simply compare the motives of the groups that are funding the two sides: energy companies wanting to protect their huge profits versus the idea that 97% of scientists are somehow sell-outs because they want more funding from Universities who are trying to promote a false case for some reason? Huge numbers of educational institutions are actually behind a conspiracy? What is their motive? *Won't you be angry when you realize how the energy companies are trying to manipulate you?

Lobbyist Richard Berman was secretly recorded giving a presentation to energy executives:

-(He was talking about) how the public doesn't have "the time or the brain to understand initiatives."

-On changing public understanding of policies whether it is a lie or not: "That's common knowledge. And that comes from people hearing something enough times from enough different places, people repeating it to each other, that you reach a point where you have solidified your position.

If we can solidify the position on drilling, fracking, etc. We have achieved something the other side cannot overcome because it's very tough to break common knowledge.

It's very tough to break first opinions. You know the guy that gets to make the first opinion, the first impression, has a huge advantage because people don't want to admit they were wrong the first time."

(from DailyKos and a detailed article in the New York Times)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Sure, there's plenty of evidence for some parts of it - and I don't deny any of them.

---

Thank you :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Same here, what you shouldn't be concerned with is convincing people that we are putting out too much CO2, but that if we continue using the same energy resources we will likely run out fairly soon.

---

Sure, this angle could help and it leads to the same answer: We need to stop burning through so much fossil fuel...it will run out and it is polluting our environment causing some significant irreversible damage. The argument that it will run out may not be as strong of an argument to those looking out for the children and grandchildren.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

I'm old enough (and have a long enough memory) to remember very distinctly the climate scientists a decade ago saying that there would be massive, catastrophic, climate changes by now (2014). Yet a decade has passed, the climate is the same, the north pole is still home to Santa, the oceans haven't turned red, etc., and we somehow still have a "chance" to prevent the catastrophe, as long as we give certain people lots of money. And don't forget to vote Democrat.

---

Please provide evidence that the majority of peer reviewed science papers thought we only had 10 years before catastrophic changes would occur. Until then, this is just one person's recollection of what they heard back then and somehow I have a hard time imagining that you got a large sample of opinions back then or certainly anywhere near the over 12,000 papers that were surveyed to find that 97% figure.

By the way, I am just an ordinary guy (who also loves lucid dreaming). I am just tired of seeing lies perpetuated by big corporations and special interests who don't give a darn about the little guy. I am especially irked by the way I have seen those lies trick people who I truly care about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

I'm old enough (and have a long enough memory) to remember very distinctly the climate scientists a decade ago saying that there would be massive, catastrophic, climate changes by now (2014). Yet a decade has passed, the climate is the same, the north pole is still home to Santa, the oceans haven't turned red, etc., and we somehow still have a "chance" to prevent the catastrophe, as long as we give certain people lots of money. And don't forget to vote Democrat.

---

Ditto to what fogelbise just said, basically.

It beggars belief that you thought that the appropriate response to a criticism of unsourced anecdotes about climate scientists would be another unsourced anecdote about climate scientists. What exactly did you think your comment would achieve other than making yourself look obstinate? If you honestly want to make a contribution to the discussion, what you need to do is get a source.

Love the weasel words by the way - referring to climate scientists as "the climate scientists", as if they were a homogeneous, conspiratorial mass, unanimously predicting a climate catastrophe in 2014. It will be entertaining watching you try to find a source for this ridiculous idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I said "I don't want to get caught up in an endless argument" - what you describe would be doing exactly that. Comprende?

---

I was referring to your existing posts in this thread, not your hypothetical future conduct. You made claims, but when they were questioned you just made new claims. You were trying to make various points, but never followed through with them.

Quote:

---

If I'm not caught up in the argument, then why would I still be involved here in months?

---

I'm not talking about this thread, I'm talking about the general global warming discussion. The next time you get involved in it, with whoever, you'll probably repeat the same thing about an ice age, despite the fact you declined to give any evidence for it here.

Quote:

---

Hopefully that clears it up a little better - I'm not some kind of climate change denier or anything.

---

I'm sure, but you were still making misleading statements and will probably continue to make them, which can only have a negative impact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Ditto to what fogelbise just said, basically.

It beggars belief that you thought that the appropriate response to a criticism of unsourced anecdotes about climate scientists would be another unsourced anecdote about climate scientists. What exactly did you think your comment would achieve other than making yourself look obstinate? If you honestly want to make a contribution to the discussion, what you need to do is get a source.

Love the weasel words by the way - referring to climate scientists as "the climate scientists", as if they were a homogeneous, conspiratorial mass, unanimously predicting a climate catastrophe in 2014. It will be entertaining watching you try to find a source for this ridiculous idea.

---

I don't need sources. The burden of proof is on you.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, back in the late seventies/early eighties the conjured monster was a new ice age. Then, in Europe, in the early ninetees it was the ultimate destruction of all the European woods and forrests due to acid rain (from coal driven power plants, and car fuel). Then came the annihilation of life on Earth due to the ozon layer disappearing.

After that came Global Warming, which would raise the sea levels and devastate civilisation. This later morphed into Climate Change (because the sea levels didn't change, and the winters got even colder than they used to be).

These days only the very politically correct still have much belief in that conjured monster, so its replacement must be in the final stages of preparation, before it is released into the wild via CNN and all the government-run newscasters.

Nothing ever changes.

By the way, the ice age didn't happen. The trees in Europe were dying from an infection (but recovered nicely - nature has a trick or two up its sleeve). The ozone layer is fine. Global temperatures are not climbing, and the climate is changing exactly like it has always been doing over the past two billion years.

Merry pre-Christmas!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

I don't need sources. The burden of proof is on you.

---

But... it's a positive claim and you're the one making it.

Are you trolling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

As mentioned earlier in the thread, back in the late seventies/early eighties the conjured monster was a new ice age. Then, in Europe, in the early ninetees it was the ultimate destruction of all the European woods and forrests due to acid rain (from coal driven power plants, and car fuel). Then came the annihilation of life on Earth due to the ozon layer disappearing.

After that came Global Warming, which would raise the sea levels and devastate civilisation. This later morphed into Climate Change (because the sea levels didn't change, and the winters got even colder than they used to be).

These days only the very politically correct still have much belief in that conjured monster, so its replacement must be in the final stages of preparation, before it is released into the wild via CNN and all the government-run newscasters.

Nothing ever changes.

By the way, the ice age didn't happen. The trees in Europe were dying from an infection (but recovered nicely - nature has a trick or two up its sleeve). The ozone layer is fine. Global temperatures are not climbing, and the climate is changing exactly like it has always been doing over the past two billion years.

Merry pre-Christmas!

---

1. Global warming references to the average global temperatures, and climate change describes the effects of that warming. They are not two different thing, one causes the other and they are related. No one changed global warming to climate change because global warming didn't happen.

2. Climate change and global warming were known about well before the seventies and isn't new.

3. Sea levels are increasing.

4. The ozone layer got seriously damaged but we stopped the damage because we passed laws severely restricting the stuff that was causing the problem. The ozone problem didn't go away by it self, we solved it with laws.

5. Global temperatures are indeed increasing.

6. Scientists weren't talking about an ice age being a real threat in the seventies.

Your entire post is pretty much garbage. I can't believe you are spouting such ignorance and I have to wonder if you are just trying to spread propaganda on purpose. How can a person be so totally misinformed on a subject?

Much to the contrary, I'm very well informed about the subject. I have particular interest in the "hockey stick" hypothesis, which was either brought about by complete ineptitude, or by an outright desire to deceive. I'm a mathematical modelling expert, and I have seen the data, so I know. (If you are interested: the temperatures swing up and down incessantly, and have been doing so as far back as measurements go. This is to an extreme degree precipitated by the actions of the sun).

By the way, the ozone-freaks stated very clearly that it would take 40 years for the freon-gasses to reach the height, where they would cause damage. It has not been forty years since the laws were enacted, so by the ozone-freaks own admission, the effects of the laws are not going to be seen for a long time still.

I have seen the whole development in the movement against capitalism over the past 40 years (yes, this is about capitalism - it was NEVER about the environment), and when I say that the replacement for "Climate change" is being produced right now, it would be safe for you to believe it. It will happen, because "climate change" doesn't work any more. Reality took its thunder away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denziloe

But... it's a positive claim and you're the one making it.

Are you trolling?

---

The original claim is the positive claim in question. Usually I think the "burden of proof" concept is horseshit because both sides should be ready to provide evidence to support their claims and exclaiming that a lack of evidence or proof on one side being evidence for the opposite argument being true, or at least the other being false, is a logical fallacy. However, as long as you are going to try and play that game, know that the original claim was that global warming is occurring, and as such the burden of proof would in fact lie with those making that claim. The claim to the case being otherwise is not a positive claim unless you treat the situation as if global warming has already been proven and one is trying to disprove it. That is where you are mistaken, because global warming makes a specific statement in regards to climate change where as climate change in general refers to... well, it's rather obvious, is it not? So, given that the entire debate here is hinging on whether or not global warming is indeed a thing, his claim is not to the positive, but the negative, thus the burden of proof lies on the side claiming it exists. Do not get it twisted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

The original claim is the positive claim in question. Usually I think the "burden of proof" concept is horseshit because both sides should be ready to provide evidence to support their claims and exclaiming that a lack of evidence or proof on one side being evidence for the opposite argument being true, or at least the other being false, is a logical fallacy. However, as long as you are going to try and play that game, know that the original claim was that global warming is occurring, and as such the burden of proof would in fact lie with those making that claim. The claim to the case being otherwise is not a positive claim unless you treat the situation as if global warming has already been proven and one is trying to disprove it. That is where you are mistaken, because global warming makes a specific statement in regards to climate change where as climate change in general refers to... well, it's rather obvious, is it not? So, given that the entire debate here is hinging on whether or not global warming is indeed a thing, his claim is not to the positive, but the negative, thus the burden of proof lies on the side claiming it exists. Do not get it twisted.

---

This makes no coherent sense. That's simply not the claim at hand. Yes, global warming is a positive statement and the burden of proof for that lies on the claimant... but my post isn't talking about that. It's referring to the claim that "the climate scientists were were saying there would be catastrophic changes by 2014". This is a separate claim, and whoever makes it should clearly be able to back it up with more than an anecdote.

Quick questions: how many of us here have actually read any papers addressing climate related issues? How many of us have gone to a conference, or even know the name of a climate journal offhand? For those who have read a paper or gone to a conference, did you have the years of education and training in that one particular niche required to make sense of it? Better yet, were you able to read the whole thing without falling asleep due to boredom?

IMO trying to debate over climate change is like going to 100 different doctors just to find the one that will tell you your cholesterol levels aren't dangerously unhealthy. You might think you know better than the folks who's job it is to figure this stuff out, but you really don't...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denziloe

This makes no coherent sense. That's simply not the claim at hand. Yes, global warming is a positive statement and the burden of proof for that lies on the claimant... but my post isn't talking about that. It's referring to the claim that "the climate scientists were were saying there would be catastrophic changes by 2014". This is a separate claim, and whoever makes it should clearly be able to back it up with more than an anecdote.

---

This all started because of the original post and the topic at hand. I agree if he wants to use that argument he should back it up, but the fact of the matter is you are doing a poor job picking and choosing your battles right now, because no matter the outcome of your little sub-argument, neither argument stands to gain any supporting evidence. It's a waste of time and the longer both of you argue about it, the stupider both of you, your opinions, and the side of the argument your originally supported look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

I don't need sources. The burden of proof is on you.

---

I think that this shows that you "don't have a leg to stand on" here. Thank you for exposing one of the many weaknesses of the deniers...namely throwing out unsourced or weakly sourced claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

As mentioned earlier in the thread, back in the late seventies/early eighties the conjured monster was a new ice age.
...
Merry pre-Christmas!

---

This was also addressed "earlier in the thread" by me:

Those warnings were mostly media driven. "1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2." - SkepticalScience (survey of peer reviewed papers from 1965 to 1979 regarding warming or cooling of the Earth, found that 42 out of 49 predicted warming not cooling).

And as far as global warming...see the article "Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made" (survey of over 12,000 peer reviewed science papers) in the Guardian and elsewhere. These are peer reviewed papers.

And a sincere early Merry Christmas to you. We can still agree on some lucid dreaming points I'm sure and I have in the past Vodmer. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Much to the contrary, I'm very well informed about the subject. I have particular interest in the "hockey stick" hypothesis, which was either brought about by complete ineptitude, or by an outright desire to deceive.
...
I have seen the whole development in the movement against capitalism over the past 40 years (yes, this is about capitalism - it was NEVER about the environment), and when I say that the replacement for "Climate change" is being produced right now, it would be safe for you to believe it. It will happen, because "climate change" doesn't work any more. Reality took its thunder away.

---

It is very hard to convince conspiracy theorists. At least we know why you feel so strong. For some reason 97% of scientist want to see the downfall of capitalism...is that what you are saying? As far as the hockey stick...that has been shot down: What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

The original claim is the positive claim in question.

---

Again 97% of climate scientists agree global warming is happening and that it is man made.

This quick response will have to do for now...super busy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fogelbise

Again 97% of climate scientists agree global warming is happening and that it is man made.

This quick response will have to do for now...super busy.

---

Not good enough, I don't care what your excuse is. You might as well save yourself the time if you are going to put in the minimal effort. I'm finished wasting my own time stating that it's a waste of time to continue trying to convince anybody otherwise about what climate scientists say. I'm fine with wasting my time in ways I want to do so, so as long as you are going to keep pursuing this argument, then I'm going to hold you to it and if you try and take any shortcuts I will point any of them out and destroy what fragments of possible truth you are trying to get out there and definitely any of the false information you think you can get away with trying to confuse us with. Do a thorough job, or you are just going to wind up looking at best, ignorant, and at worse, trying to manipulate others into believing a controversial subject to push some hidden agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Much to the contrary, I'm very well informed about the subject. I have particular interest in the "hockey stick" hypothesis, which was either brought about by complete ineptitude, or by an outright desire to deceive. I'm a mathematical modelling expert, and I have seen the data, so I know. (If you are interested: the temperatures swing up and down incessantly, and have been doing so as far back as measurements go. This is to an extreme degree precipitated by the actions of the sun).

---

If you are so well informed on the subject, why are you saying things that are blatantly untrue? Like saying sea levels have not gone up, when we can easily prove they have.

Gais, there are literally thousands upon thousands of papers out there on this stuff. Here's what most of them cite, since it's the most thorough and authoritative.

Those're also the sources policy makers pretend to understand when making policy decisions and casting votes and what has you.

Edit: 20 points says no one here reads one end to end without skimming/skipping. XP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

If you are so well informed on the subject, why are you saying things that are blatantly untrue? Like saying sea levels have not gone up, when we can easily prove they have.

---

Why aren't you posting links from reputable sources proving that it's already proven instead of making an equally worthless and baseless statement? Sorry, no one is going to just believe you, and since you are on the defensive it's clear you need to actually do something other than saying that we're wrong to get taken seriously at all.

If you're so well informed on the subject, show us the sources for the evidence you keep claiming you can easily provide us with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Not good enough, I don't care what your excuse is.
...
Do a thorough job, or you are just going to wind up looking at best, ignorant, and at worse, trying to manipulate others into believing a controversial subject to push some hidden agenda.

---

Wow! How disingenuous! I have quoted no less than 6 different sources in this thread. The 97% comment that you quoted me referring to had the source cited in that very same post further up! What are you talking about? And are you really insinuating that some ordinary Dreamviews member (myself) is trying to "push some hidden agenda"??...or "looking at best, ignorant" when I have cited almost all of the sources that appear in this thread and also provided a source for the line that you quoted me on in your rebuke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Why aren't you posting links from reputable sources proving that it's already proven instead of making an equally worthless and baseless statement? Sorry, no one is going to just believe you, and since you are on the defensive it's clear you need to actually do something other than saying that we're wrong to get taken seriously at all.

If you're so well informed on the subject, show us the sources for the evidence you keep claiming you can easily provide us with.

---

I have already posted the sources that support most of Alric's arguments. Are you saying he needs to regurgitate sources that are already provided in this very thread?

A few questions answered with sources.

Are temperatures rising?

Quote:

---

NOAA: 2014 is shaping up as hottest year on record

CNN) -- The first ten months of 2014 have been the hottest since record keeping began more than 130 years ago, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That may be hard to believe for people in places like Buffalo, New York, which saw a record early snowfall this year.

But NOAA says, despite the early bitter cold across parts of the United States in recent weeks, it's been a hot year so far for the Earth.

With two months left on the calendar, 2014 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record.
The average global temperature between January and October has been 0.68 degrees Celsius (1.22 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than the 20th century's average global temperature of 14.1 C (57.4 F).
NOAA's analysis is an important "health gauge" indicating an ominous trend for the planet, says CNN meteorologist Derek Van Dam.

"It's becoming increasingly more difficult to be a skeptic of the causes of our warming planet," he says.

Hottest October

This October was the hottest October on record globally, NOAA data showed. The mercury climbed more than one degree Fahrenheit above the 20th century average of 57.1 F.
It was the fourth warmest October on record for the United States, NOAA said.

"The record high October temperature was driven by warmth across the globe over both the land and ocean surfaces and was fairly evenly distributed between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres," the agency said.
That's significant, says Van Dam.

"Most notably, this record warmth is not contained to any specific part of the world. Meaning, we are all in this together," he says. "So far this year, record-breaking warmth has been observed in at least every continent and major ocean basin of our planet. This is something we cannot ignore."

Important benchmark

NOAA's analysis breaks down global temperatures into two categories -- land and ocean -- then an average that includes both. The record high temperatures in October were recorded across both land and sea.
The surface temperature on land approached an important scientific benchmark. It was almost 2 degrees Celsius higher than the 20th century average for October of 9.3 C (48.7 F).

Scientists have long predicted that a change in global average temperature of just 2 to 3 degrees higher could spell disaster for the planet, contributing to catastrophic storms, sea level rise, dangerous storm surges and melting polar ice.

According to the non-binding international agreement on climate change -- the Copenhagen Accord, reached in 2009 -- any temperature increase above the 2 degree Celsius mark is "dangerous."
NOAA said the ocean temperatures were also the warmest on record in October with an increase of 1.12 F over the 20th century average of 60.6 degrees.
Hot spots

"Record warmth for the year-to-date was particularly notable across much of northern and western Europe, parts of Far East Russia, and large areas of the northeastern and western equatorial Pacific Ocean, " NOAA said. "It is also notable that record warmth was observed in at least some areas of every continent and major ocean basin around the world," the agency added.

Of particular note, several countries have already seen an average temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius in October 2014 compared to 20th century averages, including Australia, Germany, France, Switzerland, and Sweden.

There was also one notable cold spot on the map.
The average temperature this year in the midsection of the United States, which saw a severe winter, has been below the 20th century average.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOAA National Climatic Data Center

Global Highlights

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for October, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F).
The global land surface temperature was 1.05°C (1.89°F) above the 20th century average of 9.3°C (48.7°F)—the fifth highest for October on record.
For the ocean, the October global sea surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.9°C (60.6°F) and the highest for October on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–October period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.4°F). The first ten months of 2014 were the warmest such period on record.

Temperatures

With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature averaged across the world's land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average. This also marks the third consecutive month and fifth of the past six with a record high global temperature for its respective month (July was fourth highest).

The record high October temperature was driven by warmth across the globe over both the land and ocean surfaces and was fairly evenly distributed between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere was record warm overall with a record high land surface temperature for the month. The Northern Hemisphere was third warmest on record for October, with a record high average sea surface temperature.

Globally, the average land surface temperature was the fifth highest on record for October, at 1.05°C (1.89°F) above the 20th century average. Record warmth in much of southern South America and large parts of southern and western Australia contributed to the record high average land surface temperature in the Southern Hemisphere. In the Northern Hemisphere, record warmth was also observed in parts of southern Europe, the western coastal regions of the United States, and much of Far East Russia. On the other hand, parts of central Siberia observed temperatures 4–5°C (7–9°F) below average, as indicated by the Land & Ocean Temperature Departure from Average map above.

---

Has there been a catastrophic impact due weather and changing weather?

Quote:

---

Catastophe definition: an event causing great and unsually sudden damage or suffering

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World Meteological Organization

Disasters caused by weather-, climate- and water-related hazards are on the rise worldwide. Both industrialized and non-industrialized countries are bearing the burden of repeated floods, droughts, temperature extremes and storms. The escalating impact of disasters is due not only to their increasing frequency and severity but also to the growing vulnerability of human societies, especially those surviving on the margins of development.

Geneva, 11 July 2014 (WMO) - Weather, climate and water-related disasters are on the rise worldwide, causing loss of life and setting back economic and social development by years, if not decades. From 1970 to 2012, 8 835 disasters, 1.94 million deaths, and US$ 2.4 trillion of economic losses were reported globally as a result of hazards such as droughts, extreme temperatures, floods, tropical cyclones and related health epidemics, according to a new report.

The Atlas of Mortality and Economic Losses from Weather, Climate and Water Extremes 1970-2012 describes the distribution and impacts of weather, climate, and water-related disasters and highlights measures to increase resilience. It is a joint publication of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) of the Catholic University of Louvain (UCL) in Belgium.

The Atlas aims to provide decision-makers with actionable information for protecting life and property.

It is also highlights the need for stronger efforts to report, standardize and analyze data on weather, climate, and water-related hazards to improve understanding of disasters and reinforce the platform for prevention.

The report was published ahead of the First Session of the Preparatory Committee Meeting (Geneva 14-15 July) for the Third United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction. It seeks to inform debate on the post-2015 framework both for disaster risk reduction and sustainable development.

Storms and floods accounted for 79 per cent of the total number of disasters due to weather, climate and water extremes and caused 55 per cent of lives lost and 86 per cent of economic losses between 1970 and 2012, according to the Atlas. Droughts caused 35 per cent of lives lost, mainly due to the severe African droughts of 1975 and 1983–1984.

The 1983 drought in Ethiopia ranked top of the list of human casualties, claiming 300 000 lives, as did Cyclone Bhola in Bangladesh in 1970. Drought in Sudan in 1984 killed 150 000 people, whilst the Cyclone locally known as Gorky killed 138 866 people in Bangladesh in 1991.

Hurricane Katrina in the United States of America in 2005 caused the worst economic losses, at US$ 146.89 billion, followed by Sandy in 2012 with a cost of $ 50 billion.

The worst ten reported disasters in terms of lives lost occurred primarily in least developed and developing countries, whereas the economic losses were mainly in more developed countries.

“Disasters caused by weather, climate, and water-related hazards are on the rise worldwide. Both industrialized and non-industrialized countries are bearing the burden of repeated floods, droughts, temperature extremes and storms,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.

“Improved early warning systems and disaster management are helping to prevent loss of life. But the socio-economic impact of disasters is escalating because of their increasing frequency and severity and the growing vulnerability of human societies.”

The report highlighted the importance of historical, geo-referenced information about deaths and damages to estimate risks before the next disaster occurs. This information can support practical decisions on reducing potential impacts by, for example, improved early warning systems, retrofitting critical infrastructure, or enforcing new building codes.

“Collecting global loss data that are comparable and complete is a major challenge. Climate and weather services are working with disaster-impact researchers and data centers to meet this challenge. This partnership is producing analyses that support practical decisions on reducing the human consequences of disasters, for example by investing in early warning systems or targeting the most vulnerable communities,” said CRED Director, Prof. Debarati Sapir.

The United Nation’s Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2013 concluded that direct and indirect losses from natural hazards of all kinds have been underestimated by at least 50 per cent because of the data collection challenges. Because better reporting of disaster impacts is vital for strengthening disaster risk reduction, the international community should help vulnerable countries improve their capacity for developing and maintaining high-quality damage and loss databases.

Another challenge for users of risk information is the changing characteristics (frequency, location, severity) of weather-, climate- and water-related hazards. Natural climate variability is now exacerbated by long-term, human-induced climate change, so that yesterday’s norms will not be the same as tomorrow’s.

The WMO-CRED-Louvain report seeks to raise awareness of these and other challenges to collecting and analyzing disaster risk information. It presents a worldwide analysis of extreme weather, climate and water events drawing on the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT), compiled by CRED. The Atlas compares the reported impacts of meteorological, climatic and hydrological extremes (as categorized by CRED) on people and economies at both the global and regional levels.

In addition to global statistics and maps, the Atlas also provides details on disasters at the regional level.

Africa: From 1970 to 2012, there were 1 319 reported disasters caused the loss of 698 380 lives and economic damages of US$ 26.6 billion. Although floods were the most prevalent type of disaster (61 per cent), droughts led to the highest number of deaths. The severe droughts in Ethiopia in 1975 and in Mozambique and Sudan in 1983–1984 caused the majority of deaths. Storms and floods, however, caused the highest economic losses (79 per cent).

Asia: Some 2 681 disasters were reported in the 1970–2012 period, causing the loss of 915 389 lives and economic damages of US$ 789.8 billion. Most of these disasters were attributed to floods (45 per cent) and storms (35 per cent). Storms had the highest impact on life, causing 76 per cent of the lives lost, while floods caused the greatest economic loss (60 per cent). Three tropical cyclones were the most significant events, striking Bangladesh and Myanmar and leading to over 500 000 deaths. The largest economic losses were caused primarily by disasters in China, most notably by the 1998 floods.

South America: From 1970 to 2012, South America experienced 696 reported disasters that resulted in 54 995 lives lost and US$ 71.8 billion in economic damages. With regard to impacts, floods caused the greatest loss of life (80 per cent) and the most economic loss (64 per cent). The most significant event during the period was a flood and land and mudslide that occurred in Venezuela in late 1999 and caused 30 000 deaths. This single event skews the loss of life statistics significantly for the entire region.

North America, Central America and the Caribbean reported 1 631 disasters that caused the loss of 71,246 lives and economic damages of US$ 1 008.5 billion. The majority of the reported disasters in this region were attributed to storms (55 per cent) and floods (30 per cent). Storms were reported to be the greatest cause of lives lost (72 per cent) and of economic loss (79 per cent).

The South-West Pacific region experienced 1 156 reported disasters in 1970–2012 that resulted in 54684 deaths and US$ 118.4 billion in economic loss. The majority were caused by storms (46 per cent) and floods (38 per cent). The most significant reported disasters with regard to lives lost were tropical cyclones, mainly in the Philippines, including the event of 1991, which killed 5956 people. The 1981 drought in Australia caused US$ 15.2 billion in economic losses and the 1997 wildfires in Indonesia caused nearly US$ 11.4 billion in losses.

In Europe, 1 352 reported disasters claimed 149 959 lives and caused US$ 375.7 billion in economic damages. Floods (38 per cent) and storms (30 per cent) were the most reported cause of disasters, but extreme temperatures led to the highest proportion of deaths (94 per cent), with 72 210 lives lost during the 2003 western European heat wave and 55 736 during the 2010 heat wave in the Russian Federation. In contrast, floods and storms accounted for most of the economic losses during the period.

You can read the whole 42 page report on casualties and damages here:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/drr/tr...las_120614.pdf

---

Is awareness of global climate change having a negative impact on capitalism? (Specially for Voldmer)

As far as I can see, apart from providing employment to scientists, the awareness of climate change, global warming and efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions worldwide have resulted in greater product innovation, new industry development and job creation in number of areas. Here are two graphs from the Economist, relating to those areas. I also recommend reading the whole article from Sept. 2014 "Curbing Climate Change" on the Economist's website.

Attachment 7904

Attachment 7905

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyxCC

Is awareness of global climate change having a negative impact on capitalism? (Specially for Voldmer)

As far as I can see, apart from providing employment to scientists, the awareness of climate change, global warming and efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions worldwide have resulted in greater product innovation, new industry development and job creation in number of areas. Here are two graphs from the Economist, relating to those areas. I also recommend reading the whole article from Sept. 2014 "Curbing Climate Change" on the Economist's website.

---

It's impossible to assess in detail the influence of a chosen political course, like the "climate change crusade", on society, because you cannot say how society would have developed without that political course. All you can do is identify some very broad effects.

But specifically, to your points: 1) most of the employment has not gone to scientists but to people from other backgrounds. Even the "climate scientists" tend to be chosen amongst people with other backgrounds than hard science. An awful lot of economists, for example. 2) Greater product innovation/new industry development/job credation cannot be assessed, because ressources were taken away from other fields and given to "climate science", which has resulted in lesser activity/possibilities in these other fields than would otherwise have happened. 3) "The Economist" is a very socialist-oriented publication. I would not trust them, if my life depended on it.

Moreover, the issues mentioned (employment/innovation/industry development) are not particularly tied to capitalism; the exist in communism as well (at least for at time).

Quote:

---

It's impossible to assess in detail the influence of a chosen political course, like the "climate change crusade", on society, because you cannot say how society would have developed without that political course. All you can do is identify some very broad effects.

---

Okay, I agree that it would be very difficult to measure jobs under the "what would have been if scenario". Perhaps you meant something else by "global warming trying to go against capitalism?" I fail to see your capitalism/communism connection to global warming.

Quote:

---

most of the employment has not gone to scientists but to people from other backgrounds. Even the "climate scientists" tend to be chosen amongst people with other backgrounds than hard science. An awful lot of economists, for example

---

My comment about providing employment to scientists was semi-serious. Should have added an emoticon there to distinguish it from the rest of the comment about new industries and products for which there is info on the graphs and the article. Again, awaiting clarification on the capitalism concern you have.

Quote:

---

The Economist" is a very socialist-oriented publication. I would not trust them, if my life depended on it.

---

I am truly amazed by this particular viewpoint. The newspaper has quite often openly expressed its opinion on diverse political issues in some of its articles. I have not seen any indications of supporting socialist agenda. In fact, I recall the Economist received heavy criticism on one of its special reports on socialist France. Moreover, they produce sound research, published as special reports in the magazine or available for a fee (Economist Intelligence Unit).

I like the last sentense though, a good warning relating to any media for that matter. :P

Last night I actually watched the episode of The Newsroom that the thread talks about. It is a load of rubbish, don't worry. Aaron Sorkin's writing can be brilliantly witty in itself, but in terms of the actual content, he seems to be rather ignorant about a lot of things. I remember an episode last season where they stated straight-faced that "American elections are the envy of every other country in the world", which is hilariously parochial, totally inaccurate, and somewhat insulting. Last night, among other stupid statements, they referred straight-faced to CO2 as a "poison gas", when of course it's actually biologically harmless and in fact essential to our ecosystem.

I should point out that this isn't evidence against global warming; no more than it's evidence for global warming. It's a silly TV show. It's utterly irrelevant to the actual science. Anybody who tries to use it to support an argument for or against global warming is being dishonest or just plain silly.

Denziloe, please go back and read the OP carefully before insinuating that I am being being "dishonest or just plain silly." More later. Good job pushing some great replies further back up the thread with this insinuation based on faulty analysis of the OP.

Please read my post carefully before insinuating that I was insinuating that you were being dishonest or just plain silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Anybody who tries to use it to support an argument for or against global warming is being dishonest or just plain silly.

---

Ah - come on! What Fogelbise did here was making a meaningful thread about an important topic, anchoring it in that episode, but otherwise arguing soundly, replying intelligently, unfortunately not to much avail - and esp. important - he brings lots of sources and hard numbers.
While I do think a lot like you, Denziloe, and I don't know the episode - this sounds unfair to me. Cheer up a bit, hm?
Extended Discussion is rather an Intensive Care Patient on here lately, just about hanging on...:wink:
Really nice it's here, this thread, thanks Fogelbise!

Climate Change Denial galls me, maybe later more.
:alien:

Like I said... you misunderstand me. I wasn't thinking of fogelbise when I wrote that. What I had in mind were comments along the lines of "the show made obviously false statements, and it's also notably left-leaning, therefore global warming is a liberal conspiracy" - or something slightly more subtle but to the same effect. Such nonsensical conflation tends to pop up in threads like these, from - shall we say - select personalities. I'm sure you've experienced the kind of thing I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denziloe

It's a silly TV show. It's utterly irrelevant to the actual science.Anybody who tries to use it to support an argument for or against global warming is being dishonest or just plain silly.

---

How else am I supposed to take this statement that is in this very thread? You broke my heart. ;) And again, for anyone who was misled by Denziloe's statement, feel free to reread the OP.

Edit: Thank you Steph & Nyxcc! And thank you to Denziloe for the clarification.

Edit#2: I would also like to extend my apologies for assuming what you meant Denziloe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fogelbise

I have already posted the sources that support most of Alric's arguments. Are you saying he needs to regurgitate sources that are already provided in this very thread?

---

The sources you posted were not about quite the same thing, but thank you for taking the time to post more relevant sources. About Denziloe's post, you have to admit, wasn't it kind of the wrong idea to include the story in your main post if you didn't want people mistaking what you were saying about it? It's clear now that you mentioned it because it was what got you thinking about the topic in the first place, but it can easily be mistaken as you hearing a sensationalist statement on a silly news show and taking it far too seriously, don't you think? I'm willing to give you a break because obviously that's not the case, but you need to be a bit more patient and understand why people are getting confused in the first place, you practically begged for people to take it the wrong way by including it in your OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Why aren't you posting links from reputable sources proving that it's already proven instead of making an equally worthless and baseless statement? Sorry, no one is going to just believe you, and since you are on the defensive it's clear you need to actually do something other than saying that we're wrong to get taken seriously at all.

If you're so well informed on the subject, show us the sources for the evidence you keep claiming you can easily provide us with.

---

Sure. All of these talk about the sea level raising.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educati...eets/issea.pdf

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/...chapter_09.pdf

NASA

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Sea Level

Climate institute

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise

Climate Change Information Resource from New York

http://ccir.ciesin.columbia.edu/nyc/pdf/q1c.pdf

Yale Forestry and environmental studies.

Rising Waters: How Fast and How Far Will Sea Levels Rise? by Nicola Jones: Yale Environment 360

Scientific America

Greenland's Glaciers Loom Larger as Source of Sea Level Rise - Scientific American

Old Dominion University

ODU Researchers Find New Evidence of Accelerated Flooding « News @ ODU

World Maritime News

Continuing Sea Level Rise Threatens Coastal Areas, Study Shows | World Maritime News

Florida State University

http://artsandsciences.fsu.edu/In-th...gical-evidence

Journal of Coastal Research

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Articles published in American Association for the Advancement of Science

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5694/255.short

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/215/4540/1611.short

Nature Publishing Group

Thermal expansion of sea water associated with global warming

Social Science Research Network

The Impact of Sea Level Rise on Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis by Susmita Dasgupta, Benoit Laplante, Craig M. Meisner, David Wheeler, David Jianping Yan :: SSRN

Here is another article, this time from the Guardian, citing a 90 page study published in Nature Geoscience journal (link to full study below).

Quote:

---

Record CO2 emissions 'committing world to dangerous climate change'

Global greenhouse gas emissions on course to reach record high of over 40bn tonnes in 2014, study in Nature Geoscience says

Children born today will see the world committed to dangerous and irreversible levels of climate change by their young adulthood at current rates, as the world poured a record amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere this year.

Annual carbon dioxide emissions showed a strong rise of 2.5% on 2013 levels, putting the total emitted this year on track for 40bn tonnes. That means the global ‘carbon budget’, calculated as the total governments can afford to emit without pushing temperatures higher than 2C above pre-industrial levels, is likely to be used up within just one generation, or in thirty years from now.

Scientists think climate change is likely to have catastrophic and irreversible effects, including rising sea levels, polar melting, droughts, floods and increasingly extreme weather, if temperatures rise more than 2C.They have calculated that this threshold is likely to be breached if global emissions top 1,200 billion tonnes, giving a “carbon budget” to stick to in order to avoid dangerous warming.

Dave Reay, professor of carbon management at the University of Edinburgh, said: “If this were a bank statement it would say our credit is running out. We’ve already burned through two-thirds of our global carbon allowance and avoiding dangerous climate change now requires some very difficult choices. Not least of these is how a shrinking global carbon allowance can be shared equitably between more than 7bn people and where the differences between rich and poor are so immense.”

The study, by the Global Carbon Project, also found that China’s per capita emissions had surpassed those of Europe for the first time, between 2013 and 2014.

It comes ahead of a climate summit on Tuesday in New York, at which the UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon will bring together heads of state and government from more than 120 countries to discuss climate change, and encourage them to make commitments on emissions reductions in the run-up to a crunch meeting in Paris late next year, at which a new global agreement on emissions is expected to be signed.

Emissions for 2014, according to the research, are set to rise to 40bn tonnes. That compares with emissions of 32bn tonnes in 2010, showing how fast the output is rising.

The rising trend has continued despite increasingly alarming warnings from scientists over the future of the climate, and commitments by developed countries to cut their carbon and from major developing economies to curb their emissions growth. There was a brief blip in global emissions growth at the time of the banking crisis, but this “breathing space” was quickly overtaken by an expansion in fossil fuel demand.

The growth in emissions also comes despite the much-vaunted contribution of shale gas to the world’s energy mix. Some supporters of the technology claim it will bring down emissions, because gas produces less carbon than coal when burned. But studies have shown that although this may dent the rate at which emissions rise, it is unlikely by itself to produce an absolute fall in carbon output levels. US emissions rose by nearly 3% in 2013, after falling in the previous five years, despite its shale gas boom.

As much as half of the world’s proven reserves of all fossil fuels will need to be left in the ground if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change, the research suggested.

The study, published as a paper in the peer-review journal Nature Geoscience, called “Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets”, is a collaboration of research groups around the world.

The overtaking of Europe by China in terms of emissions per person - about 7.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person per year, the study found, compared with Europe’s 6.8 tonnes per person - is politically significant.

China has long argued that it should take on far less of the burden of emissions cuts than developed nations, because it bore less responsibility for the stock of carbon poured into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and because its emissions per person were lower. China’s president, Xi Jinping, has indicated he will not attend Ban Ki-moon’s meeting next week, as has Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister.

The change in the make-up of emissions contributions will be a difficult topic at next year’s Paris conference on the climate.

China and India were the only two nations to hold out almost to the last minute in the talks in 2011 at which governments set the deadline of the Paris talks for the sign-off of a new pact on the climate, to replace current national emissions targets that expire in 2020. India’s per capita emissions are still low, at 1.9 tonnes, but the country’s total emissions are likely to overtake those of the EU by 2019.

---

And to add to that, a few weeks ago Chinese officials pointed to 2030 as the year when their CO2 emissions will peak.

The full 90 page research article: ESSDD - Abstract - Global carbon budget 2014

I hear you Snoop. Thank you for interpretting my intention correctly. :)

Nice, I see some more great posts have come in. Thank you Alric and Nyx! Do we have any climate change deniers left?

Seems cold outside right now. Therefore global warming isn't real.

Also I went to the beach earlier this year. Doesn't seem any higher than last year.

Guess all those science things ya posted are wrong and just a conspiracy to prevent me from enjoying the luxuries of Pickups, Hummers, and all those lovely Unilever products. Who'd want to drive one of them fancy-pants Tesla-mobiles anyhow? Nerds, that's who. So if we just get rid of all the nerds, we can get rid of all this global warming nonsense too.

Global Warming might be a threat to the world. But global warming is more like a turtle that have decided to take on the noble task to become a sucidebomber, compared to the REAL global warming. The global warming of the ego.

There is many signs that egoistic minds today are getting more and more heated up all around the world. Just look at how many tsunamis of "selfies" that are destroying what could have been functional minds today. The narcissism and proudness is boiling closer and closer towards a big meltdown. Maybe this selfie-appocalypse will result in that the human race will elapsing back to the monkystage in the evolution. Until what once was the human race, then in the future will be this monkey staring down at it's own reflection of self-admiration in the seas of waste that is all there is left from what this self-admiring global mind had once created.:goodjob:

Oh, what the hell am I doing.. I forgot that I look so faboulus today, time for A SELFIE people! :horse:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyxCC

Okay, I agree that it would be very difficult to measure jobs under the "what would have been if scenario". Perhaps you meant something else by "global warming trying to go against capitalism?" I fail to see your capitalism/communism connection to global warming.

---

All the different crusades I mentioned first were - at a first glance - to do with the environment. But on closer inspection they were all misguided, and following them would not in any way have benefited the environment. There is a completely different agenda behind them however: doing whatever it takes to get free enterprise under government control (using ever tougher laws, and - importantly - ever increasing fees, payable to government, for doing business. Witness for example the CO2-allowances, that have to be paid for now - to governments of course).

It may well be argued, however, that the anti-free enterprise element is not at the heart of the matter. This aspect may only be part of the action in order to bring the pro-socialism crowd on board. Ultimately, what is behind it all is probably the perpetual quest for power and control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyxCC

I am truly amazed by this particular viewpoint. The newspaper has quite often openly expressed its opinion on diverse political issues in some of its articles. I have not seen any indications of supporting socialist agenda. In fact, I recall the Economist received heavy criticism on one of its special reports on socialist France. Moreover, they produce sound research, published as special reports in the magazine or available for a fee (Economist Intelligence Unit).

---

They pay lip service to free enterprise. Central banking cannot exist in a free economy, because central banks are given the solitary privilege of issuing money - and they may do so at their own leisure. Money printing, in a very direct way, controls what money is worth. And therefore the central banks exercise control over the value of peoples monetary holdings - and thereby over their subsequent spending ability. In other words: central banks control the economy, for as long as they hold the monopoly on issuing money.

This is a clear and massive obstruction to free enterprise, and every single person or organisation in favour of freedom and free enterprise should condemn central banking in the strongest terms possible.

Last time I looked, "The Economist" did not condemn central banking at all. In fact, they have a habit of applauding the insight and cleverness of central bankers, and the importance of central banking. Hence this journal, along with so many other media institutions, is formally pro-free enterprise, but practically socialist.

Thanks for the laugh DreamyBear! I almost want to say the same to Voldmer...if your only response to the deluge of sources is unsubstantiated conspiracy theories then this debate seems over. Feel free to back up your claims with reliable sources if you can though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

All the different crusades I mentioned first were - at a first glance - to do with the environment. But on closer inspection they were all misguided, and following them would not in any way have benefited the environment. There is a completely different agenda behind them however: doing whatever it takes to get free enterprise under government control (using ever tougher laws, and - importantly - ever increasing fees, payable to government, for doing business. Witness for example the CO2-allowances, that have to be paid for now - to governments of course).

---

Why do you think your opinions are so worthwhile? You simply don't know what you're talking about and you haven't bothered to invest any time in finding it out. CFCs were eating a massive hole in the ozone layer which was starting to have serious health consequences. The only reason it stopped worsening was because of a successful international campaign to ban CFCs. Your inference that it simply "got better", proving that it was all hype, is basically just a scientific embarrassment.

Thanks for the explanations, Voldmer.

Quote:

---

All the different crusades I mentioned first were - at a first glance - to do with the environment. But on closer inspection they were all misguided, and following them would not in any way have benefited the environment. There is a completely different agenda behind them however: doing whatever it takes to get free enterprise under government control (using ever tougher laws, and - importantly - ever increasing fees, payable to government, for doing business. Witness for example the CO2-allowances, that have to be paid for now - to governments of course).

---

But some of the policies have been effective in curbing CO2 emissions, as you can see from the graph which shows significant numbers. Protecting forests from being cut down for example, has an impact on absorption of CO2.

I don't know about the secret agenda behind policies. Politicians would advocate different things just to get re-elected. Unfortunately, by being against a particular politician or government policies, a lot of people disregard the issue of climate change altogether.

What matters is, in the very least to acknowlege that certain changes are taking place. If more people care about the environment and the impact our activies have, then we can start making changes in a positive direction.

Quote:

---

This is a clear and massive obstruction to free enterprise, and every single person or organisation in favour of freedom and free enterprise should condemn central banking in the strongest terms possible.

---

I understand you may have criticism regarding the effectiveness of certain central bank policies, but blaming them for being enemy of free enterprise is a bit too much.

While they are independent from government to prevent being influenced by short term political agenda, central bankers are usually appointed by goverment and still acountable to it. The monetary policies usually aim to tackle inflation or promote economic growth and not restrict businesses. In addition, their influence on the value of a currency is not as pronounced as you may think. Central banks can only offer a limited support of one currency (let it appreciate or depreciate it against another) as they have less reserves to intervene on foreign markets than do speculators (banks that trade in currencies for profit). What happens on both domestic and foreign markets has much more influence than actual bank policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fogelbise, signature

Backwards:
"My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
- Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) who is set to become the Republican's representative for, and Chairman of, the United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in January 2015.

---

Really? Oh dear...
America - please save yourself from your imaginary friend in the sky. :roll:
Seriously, a politician spouting something like this in public in Germany would be viewed as a nutter, for whom there is no place in politics.
Not even in the Christian Democratic Union, our center-right wing party. He'd get slaughtered by the media.

^It is scary to think that he will be the chairman next month! Here is a little more humor and information on global warming below (short and funny)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephL

Really? Oh dear...
America - please save yourself from your imaginary friend in the sky. :roll:
Seriously, a politician spouting something like this in public in Germany would be viewed as a nutter, for whom there is no place in politics.
Not even in the Christian Democratic Union, our center-right wing party. He'd get slaughtered by the media.

---

I know this is off-topic but belief in a God that wishes you to do nothing is to deny what would be His greatness in the first place. If you could be healed by prayer, why did God give the ability to learn about medicine, the power to reason, or to do the right thing?

Anyone who thinks we should ever do nothing because God exists needs to get socked in the face by somebody who looks like Jesus, shoots lots of heroin, and gives to lots of charities so they can realize exactly how fucking stupid they are acting. Preserving the earth and being good stewards should come naturally considering it is where we live. In fact, funny thing, but the Bible even says to be good stewards, so by all means yes, tell people we should continue to be as destructive toward ourselves as possible and think you are going to get rewarded by the all powerful consummate being that created you.

So sick of all these baseless arguments for the existence of science...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriendlyFace

So sick of all these baseless arguments for the existence of science...

---

@FriendlyFace: Could you clarify?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

I know this is off-topic but belief in a God that wishes you to do nothing is to deny what would be His greatness in the first place. If you could be healed by prayer, why did God give the ability to learn about medicine, the power to reason, or to do the right thing?

Anyone who thinks we should ever do nothing because God exists needs to get socked in the face by somebody who looks like Jesus, shoots lots of heroin, and gives to lots of charities so they can realize exactly how fucking stupid they are acting. Preserving the earth and being good stewards should come naturally considering it is where we live. In fact, funny thing, but the Bible even says to be good stewards, so by all means yes, tell people we should continue to be as destructive toward ourselves as possible and think you are going to get rewarded by the all powerful consummate being that created you.

---

It sounds like we are in agreement Snoop. That was my problem with Inhofe's infamous quote in my signature. If he believes in God, why does he think he should not use the brain he gave him to be a good steward of the Earth that he also gave him but instead thinks that we can do whatever foul things we want to the Earth and God will take care of it. Many religious or previously religious folks are likely familiar with the parable that I referenced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGMYdalClU

Okey let's face the facts here people. There is no signs of anything like global warming, so let's just get back to acting like a perfect normal person. And dont start to argueing with me whatever normal is, becase that would just disturb my factualy perfect balance of comon sense. So let's just drop all the thinking that is going on here and I will help you getting back to being a perfectly normal person again. So let's just chill down, watch some comic and just try to act like normaly happy persons instead.:nodyes:..

Quote:

---

So let's just chill down, watch some comic and just try to act like normaly happy persons instead

---

Ok, back to normal life then.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-53320dea/t...2048/2048x1365

Quote:

---

Ok, back to normal life then.

---

Exactly my point! (and I did notice the picture)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyxCC

But some of the policies have been effective in curbing CO2 emissions, as you can see from the graph which shows significant numbers. Protecting forests from being cut down for example, has an impact on absorption of CO2.

---

This would be commendable, if CO2 was a problem. But the thing is, CO2 levels today are extremely low by Earths historical standards, and additionally - and this keeps being forgotten in the debate - CO2 is what plants are made of. The more CO2, the more plant life. And the more plant life, the more animal life. That used to be considered a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyxCC

I understand you may have criticism regarding the effectiveness of certain central bank policies, but blaming them for being enemy of free enterprise is a bit too much.

While they are independent from government to prevent being influenced by short term political agenda, central bankers are usually appointed by goverment and still acountable to it. The monetary policies usually aim to tackle inflation or promote economic growth and not restrict businesses. In addition, their influence on the value of a currency is not as pronounced as you may think. Central banks can only offer a limited support of one currency (let it appreciate or depreciate it against another) as they have less reserves to intervene on foreign markets than do speculators (banks that trade in currencies for profit). What happens on both domestic and foreign markets has much more influence than actual bank policies.

---

I'd rather not get into a detailed debate about central banking, because that's not what I want to use DreamViews for. But let me just point out that a central bank like the FED can issue as much money as it wants, and give it to whom ever it pleases. This obvously increases the money supply, and causes prices to rise (which de facto is devaluation of the currency). All the central banks do that in historical measure these days. Famously, the German central bank did the same betweeen 1918 and 1923, which ended with the total collaps of the German currency. There have been many other cases in the last 100 years (most of them in South America). Such activity destroys the value of all monetary savings, and makes winners out of spenders, and loosers out of savers. This type of motivation steers directly towards economic collaps due to the lack of savings.

Also, whether this is all done for the most noble of purposes (which I don't for a second think it is), or not, is really not particularly important. As they say: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

This would be commendable, if CO2 was a problem. But the thing is, CO2 levels today are extremely low by Earths historical standards, and additionally - and this keeps being forgotten in the debate - CO2 is what plants are made of. The more CO2, the more plant life. And the more plant life, the more animal life. That used to be considered a good thing.

---

Incoherent uninformed rambling which can be dismissed with as little effort as you put into researching it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

This would be commendable, if CO2 was a problem. But the thing is, CO2 levels today are extremely low by Earths historical standards, and additionally - and this keeps being forgotten in the debate - CO2 is what plants are made of. The more CO2, the more plant life. And the more plant life, the more animal life. That used to be considered a good thing

---

It would be great if contra arguments are based on some data. :(

Here's a graph with historical levels of CO2 emissions and a few other quotes which show that plants and animals have been disappearing from our planet and not the other way around.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-10-26-CO21.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WWF

Forests cover 31% of the land area on our planet. They produce vital oxygen and provide homes for people and wildlife. Many of the world’s most threatened and endangered animals live in forests, and 1.6 billion people rely on benefits forests offer, including food, fresh water, clothing, traditional medicine and shelter.

But forests around the world are under threat from deforestation, jeopardizing these benefits. Deforestation comes in many forms, including fires, clear-cutting for agriculture, ranching and development, unsustainable logging for timber, and degradation due to climate change. This impacts people’s livelihoods and threatens a wide range of plant and animal species. Some 46-58 thousand square miles of forest are lost each year—equivalent to 36 football fields every minute.

Forests play a critical role in mitigating climate change because they act as a carbon sink—soaking up carbon dioxide that would otherwise be free in the atmosphere and contribute to ongoing changes in climate patterns. Deforestation undermines this important carbon sink function. It is estimated that 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions are the result of deforestation.

Deforestation is a particular concern in tropical rainforests because these forests are home to much of the world’s biodiversity. For example, in the Amazon around 17% of the forest has been lost in the last 50 years, mostly due to forest conversion for cattle ranching. Deforestation in this region is particularly rampant near more populated areas, roads and rivers, but even remote areas have been encroached upon when valuable mahogany, gold and oil are discovered.

---

Quote:

---

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) notes in a video that many species are threatened with extinction. In addition,

At threat of extinction are
1 out of 8 birds
1 out of 4 mammals
1 out of 4 conifers
1 out of 3 amphibians
6 out of 7 marine turtles
75% of genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost
75% of the world’s fisheries are fully or over exploited
Up to 70% of the world’s known species risk extinction if the global temperatures rise by more than 3.5°C
1/3rd of reef-building corals around the world are threatened with extinction
Over 350 million people suffer from severe water scarcity

Global issues website

---

Quote:

---

As explained in the UN’s 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook, the rate of biodiversity loss has not been reduced because the 5 principle pressures on biodiversity are persistent, even intensifying:

Habitat loss and degradation
Climate change
Excessive nutrient load and other forms of pollution
Over-exploitation and unsustainable use
Invasive alien species
Most governments report to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity that these pressures are affecting biodiversity in their country (see p. 55 of the report).

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) maintains the Red List to assess the conservation status of species, subspecies, varieties, and even selected subpopulations on a global scale.

Extinction risks out pace any conservation successes. Amphibians are the most at risk, while corals have had a dramatic increase in risk of extinction in recent years.

Global issues website

---

The quote below isn't related to global warming per se, but rather human activity. I decided to put this here as well, since you have an avatar with a lion and may be interested to learn more about the fate of these big cats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by National Geographic

Lions are dying off rapidly across Africa. These cats once ranged across the continent and into Syria, Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, and even northwest India; 2,000 years ago more than a million lions roamed the Earth. Since the 1940s, when lions numbered an estimated 450,000, lion populations have blinked out across the continent. Now they may total as few as 20,000 animals. Scientists connect the drastic decreases in many cases to burgeoning human populations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyxCC

It would be great if contra arguments are made based on some data, rather than weird logical thinking. :(

---

If we have let civilisation slip so far that logical thinking is seen as weird, then humanity is certainly doomed!

Incidentally, data for the past two billion years are bloody hard to come by. Our best shot is digging in the ground in really many different places. This has to some limited extent been done, and therefore we know that plant life and animal life is doing very badly in recent times (last several million years) compared to in the old days (before the dinosaurs). There was much more CO2 in the air back then (nowadays it is mostly buried in the ground as potential fossil fuels, and in the seas).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyxCC

Here's a graph with historical levels of CO2 emissions and just in case you don't know, both plants and animals have been disappearing from our planet and not the other way around.

---

It's a bit pointless to show such graphs, since they prove nothing else but the intention of whomever made the graph, to give those, who see the graph, a particular impression. You seem impressed by the graph; however it means nothing to me (I would need to know exactly the provenance of the data, to believe them - especially because of the endemic deceit in the "climate change"-movement).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyxCC

The quote below isn't related to global warming per se, but rather human activity. I decided to put this here as well, since you have an avatar with a lion and may be interested to learn more about the fate of these big cats.

---

We cannot disagree on the horrible faith of many of the larger species of animals on this planet. And, yes, man is responsible for their demise. Humanity is essentially a plague, which has infested the planet and will likely destroy much of it in time (including humanity itself). But "climate change" has got nothing to do with that; we humans destroy wild life, because we spread and take away the natural habitats of animals.

Please note that while you were writing your reply I edited a few things as well as added an extra quote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

If we have let civilisation slip so far that logical thinking is seen as weird, then humanity is certainly doomed!

---

Edit: I took out the weird logical thinking part while you were answering, as not to make it as personal but yes Voldmer, your conclusions are weird and again, not based on data.

Concluding that the Economist is a socialist publication because it does not condemn central banking is weird logical thinking.

Concluding that the more CO2 in the air, the more plants, and the more animals is also weird logical thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

It's a bit pointless to show such graphs, since they prove nothing else but the intention of whomever made the graph, to give those, who see the graph, a particular impression. You seem impressed by the graph; however it means nothing to me (I would need to know exactly the entire provenance of the data, to believe them - especially because of the endemic deceit in the "climate change"-movement).

---

Unfortunately, I have reached my argumentative limits. Since you believe that none of the scientists, publications, numbers and figures presented so far in this thread are credible, then there is nothing more to say. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyxCC

Unfortunately, I have reached my argumentative limits. Since you believe that none of the scientists, publications, numbers and figures presented so far in this thread are credible, then there is nothing more to say. :(

---

Why on Earth did it take so long to figure that out?

I have studied some of the original claims of the "climate change"-crowd, and found they simply are not true. Also, having worked in a university during the time when completely useless frauds were given "research" positions to advance claims established prior to the collection of the data, they should have been based on, and seen the frightening effects on actual research in the academic sector of the infatuation of politicians with the "climate change"-movement, I am fully aware of the lack of true science, which is the second most prominent aspect of contemporary "climate science" (the most prominent aspect being an insatiable appetite for power and influence).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyxCC

Concluding that the more CO2 in the air, the more plants, and the more animals is also weird logical thinking.

---

God almighty! Humanity is surely doomed. It'll be "death by ignorance".

You worked in a university? Surprising. What was your department and your position? Do you have a doctorate; what's your level of education?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

This would be commendable, if CO2 was a problem. But the thing is, CO2 levels today are extremely low by Earths historical standards, and additionally - and this keeps being forgotten in the debate - CO2 is what plants are made of. The more CO2, the more plant life. And the more plant life, the more animal life. That used to be considered a good thing.

---

Oh, come on! You can't seriously believe that rising CO2 is actually good for us? :o

:hug: to Nyx and everyone who responded with actual sources. I am confident that anyone who comes across this thread with an open mind will see:

Facts, data and sources from people who believe we need to curtail our emissions of green house gasses

vs.

Faulty, personal, unsubstantiated anecdotes from "climate change deniers"

Voldmer...you truly disappoint me. NyxCC is one of the great aspects of this site! I find your refusal to respond with sources disrespectful. :(

I was left with an overall positive impression from Voldmer's posts in on-topic ld-related areas. Not sure why we couldn't have a two sided evidence based discussion here.

Anyways, in the least we have provided important information for consideration even to non-believers.

Nyx, I agree with everything you just said. :)

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

A simple thought experiment can put your world into perspective within minutes, enough to warrant the potential danger that climate change does present.

We often consider, what are the odds that climate change is anthropogenic. Perhaps a more suitable question would be, what are the chances that climate change is non anthropogenic, IE non man-made.
Expand that question to, What is the probability that a slow and repeating natural climate change could occur severely amplified within a 200 year timeframe at the exact moment of Industrialization.

Now let's link up a few figures. The Milankovitch cycles are approximately 26000 years in length. It takes this whole time to complete a single precession of earths axis. In this period of time, the PPM of c02 in the atmosphere only fluctuates by 100 ppm at highest. This is a time in which ice ages occur, oceans deposit and attract huge volumes of CO2, plant life and volcanic activity fluctuates wilding and react diversely to the climate change. Yet, the atmospheric co2 content only fluctuates by 100 PPM!

All of a sudden an era of industrialization happens, and Co2 concentrations spike to 650 PPM. For 400000 years the earth has progressed through various natural cycles, not once has co2 concentration exceeded 300 PPM. 30 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide is added to the 780 gigatonnes already present within 200 years.

It seems to me some people would choose to be skeptical of climate change to justify their own actions.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fogelbise

Voldmer...you truly disappoint me. NyxCC is one of the great aspects of this site! I find your refusal to respond with sources disrespectful. :(

---

You are obviously free to see things whichever way you choose.

I am under no obligation to deliver sources in this debate, and certainly will not do so, since I have better uses for my time. And even if I did provide sources, you, and any "climate change"-minions who might see this, would not change position one bit. Therefore it would be as meaningless as it is, when your side provide sources.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

You are obviously free to see things whichever way you choose.

I am under no obligation to deliver sources in this debate, and certainly will not do so, since I have better uses for my time. And even if I did provide sources, you, and any "climate change"-minions who might see this, would not change position one bit. Therefore it would be as meaningless as it is, when your side provide sources.

---

First, on those last two lines, you are wrong again Voldmer. I am interested in the truth. I am open minded and I am sometimes faulted by family for considering other's points of view, especially when backed up by sources I can review. When I hear something that sounds possible, even if it sounds a little far fetched, I will research it if it is on a subject that I am interested in or is important. And you call myself and the rest "minions"...Are there two Voldmers? Before this thread I may have been thinking of a different DV member with a similar name. By the way, I don't mind admitting when I am wrong. I see it as a virtue, so I am often quick to admit when I am wrong. I am far from perfect.

I made sure to quote you entirely because that was a beauty Voldmer...your quote shows what truth is up against all the time!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fogelbise

First, on those last two lines, you are wrong again Voldmer. I am interested in the truth. I am open minded and I am sometimes faulted by family for considering other's points of view, especially when backed up by sources I can review. When I hear something that sounds possible, even if it sounds a little far fetched, I will research it if it is on a subject that I am interested in or is important. And you call myself and the rest "minions"...Are there two Voldmers? Before this thread I may have been thinking of a different DV member with a similar name. By the way, I don't mind admitting when I am wrong. I see it as a virtue, so I am often quick to admit when I am wrong. I am far from perfect.

I made sure to quote you entirely because that was a beauty Voldmer...your quote shows what truth is up against all the time!

---

Yes it does. But not for the reason you imagine!

And there is just one Voldmer. If you find a dichotomy there, then I strongly encourage you to contemplate the matter thoroughly. You might become enlightened.

I specifically refrained from calling you a minion, for the reason that I am not adequately acquainted with your approach to the CO2-issue in order to categorise you yet. But there certainly are minions.

If you are interested in truth, then I also encourage you to contemplate what plants are made of. You don't have to alert me, when you're done with it.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

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.

---

I actually agree with this almost all the time. I think the scientific method and reason should be adhered to at all times.
I'll reply to your other comment once I figure out exactly how to put my thoughts into words, or what exactly my full thoughts on this are.

A small thing I'd like to point out though is that while science provides us with tests to measure our confidence, it gives us no concrete manner in which to interpret the confidence level received. From what I've read of other people, studies would show that we are 90% confident that climate change is occurring to the extent we predict. It's a pretty bad level of confidence to be at in general, because there is a huge margin of error. That's where a lot of scientific methods fall short, because there is no easy way to formulate a necessary confidence level taking priority into account.

I definitely agree with you that we should never assert that our beliefs are absolute fact. At any rate though, I believe that the priority and importance of climate change indicates that we should be willing to accept a lower level of confidence. This is probably where you and I disagree, with yourself choosing to wait until a higher level of confidence is reached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

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.

---

That sounds all well and good, except it is utter bullshit. We are talking about observations and fact. You can argue and debate on if you think humans are the main cause or not but it is silly to argue over the observable facts. The sea level is raising, humans put a lot of carbon dioxide in the air, there is more of it in the air now than before, carbon dioxide is a green house gas that can trap heat, the earth is getting warm, land ice is melting all over are all facts.

If I use a ruler and I measure a piece of wood thirty times and find that the length of the wood is around 5 inches and someone comes by and says it is really 15 feet long, it isn't closed minded to say they are wrong. Nor is it religious like or dogmatic to say that the wood is 5 inches long because you measured it multiple times and that is what it is. But you know what? You are a not 100% sure, maybe your ruler is incorrectly marked. So you use 6 more rulers of different make and model and have seven friends all try to measure the wood. And everyone agrees and find it is 5 inches. Yet that one other guy still goes, "Well you are all wrong it is 15 feet."

Then you ask them what that idea is based on and they give some illogical reason that makes no sense. That is pretty much how this debate goes. We have all this data that clearly says something, and some people just ignore the data because they have their own opinion.

Now if you want to say no one can ever know anything in this world, and that we could be imagining everything or stuff like that, that is philosophy not science and it would be silly to deny global warming based off the philosophical idea that a person can never know anything because there is a possibility they are just a brain hooked up to a simulator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I actually agree with this almost all the time. I think the scientific method and reason should be adhered to at all times.
I'll reply to your other comment once I figure out exactly how to put my thoughts into words, or what exactly my full thoughts on this are.

A small thing I'd like to point out though is that while science provides us with tests to measure our confidence, it gives us no concrete manner in which to interpret the confidence level received. From what I've read of other people, studies would show that we are 90% confident that climate change is occurring to the extent we predict. It's a pretty bad level of confidence to be at in general, because there is a huge margin of error. That's where a lot of scientific methods fall short, because there is no easy way to formulate a necessary confidence level taking priority into account.

I definitely agree with you that we should never assert that our beliefs are absolute fact. At any rate though, I believe that the priority and importance of climate change indicates that we should be willing to accept a lower level of confidence. This is probably where you and I disagree, with yourself choosing to wait until a higher level of confidence is reached.

---

No I agree with you guys, at least mostly. What I have a problem with is flat out calling others wrong and calling yourselves right. You are not guilty of this. Somebody like Alric, however, is. I can trust your judgment, his on the other hand is as valuable as somebody who flat out denies climate change because he is unwilling to even consider that the information is being misinterpreted or that there is more information to be found and the implications of such information might well change what we believe about climate change. If you insist on calling others wrong, illogical, or that what they think is utter bullshit then you are a danger to your own cause and you might as well shut up before nobody can take what you are saying seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

That sounds all well and good, except it is utter bullshit. We are talking about observations and fact. You can argue and debate on if you think humans are the main cause or not but it is silly to argue over the observable facts. The sea level is raising, humans put a lot of carbon dioxide in the air, there is more of it in the air now than before, carbon dioxide is a green house gas that can trap heat, the earth is getting warm, land ice is melting all over are all facts.

If I use a ruler and I measure a piece of wood thirty times and find that the length of the wood is around 5 inches and someone comes by and says it is really 15 feet long, it isn't closed minded to say they are wrong. Nor is it religious like or dogmatic to say that the wood is 5 inches long because you measured it multiple times and that is what it is. But you know what? You are a not 100% sure, maybe your ruler is incorrectly marked. So you use 6 more rulers of different make and model and have seven friends all try to measure the wood. And everyone agrees and find it is 5 inches. Yet that one other guy still goes, "Well you are all wrong it is 15 feet."

Then you ask them what that idea is based on and they give some illogical reason that makes no sense. That is pretty much how this debate goes. We have all this data that clearly says something, and some people just ignore the data because they have their own opinion.

Now if you want to say no one can ever know anything in this world, and that we could be imagining everything or stuff like that, that is philosophy not science and it would be silly to deny global warming based off the philosophical idea that a person can never know anything because there is a possibility they are just a brain hooked up to a simulator.

---

I feel as though you have missed the entire point of my posts and you should probably refer to my answer to dutchraptor above. You might just see what I am talking about now. I don't care about what the data is saying, I'm not even arguing about that. I'm arguing with your attitude and opinion toward others because they do not understand or interpret the data as you do. If you took the time to calmly respond to them with logic and quit using over-the-top phrasing and sometimes flat out insulting others, I could actually take what you are saying seriously. Since you seem totally unrepentant and insist on saying everything I am saying is bullshit when the point of my post is quite obviously flying right over your head, you just keep digging yourself a bigger hole. I honestly just can't take you seriously man, grow up a little bit, post like a mature human being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

I don't care about what the data is saying, I'm not even arguing about that.

---

That is pretty much your problem right there. You don't care what the data is saying. Honestly, it seems like you are just trolling and maybe if you stopped trolling, people would have a more friendly attitude towards you. I am not sure how being obnoxious and insulting people is supposed to get people to move towards your stated goal.

Would be nice if you could post like a mature human being, and stick to the data relating to the actual topic, instead of constantly going off on pointless rants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

That is pretty much your problem right there. You don't care what the data is saying. Honestly, it seems like you are just trolling and maybe if you stopped trolling, people would have a more friendly attitude towards you. I am not sure how being obnoxious and insulting people is supposed to get people to move towards your stated goal.

Would be nice if you could post like a mature human being, and stick to the data relating to the actual topic, instead of constantly going off on pointless rants.

---

No! take a step back and think about what's being said here. The further you try to push this argument the more you are proving his point.
I read his responses from the last two pages and he doesn't actually oppose climate change. He opposes the notion of taking a radical stance and neglecting logic in favour of fervent belief.
You are a perpetrator of this, stating that skepticism of a data is inherently bad because we are discussing climate change. It's a grey area of asserting fact vs imposing beliefs.

As backward as it might seem, there is still valuable criticism to be found in the arguments that some skeptics propose. Morally I don't agree with their lack of willingness to take action, but ultimately it is there choice whether or nor to be satisfied with the current level of confidence behind the various climate change principles.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

No! take a step back and think about what's being said here. The further you try to push this argument the more you are proving his point.
I read his responses from the last two pages and he doesn't actually oppose climate change. He opposes the notion of taking a radical stance and neglecting logic in favour of fervent belief.
You are a perpetrator of this, stating that skepticism of a data is inherently bad because we are discussing climate change. It's a grey area of asserting fact vs imposing beliefs.

As backward as it might seem, there is still valuable criticism to be found in the arguments that some skeptics propose. Morally I don't agree with their lack of willingness to take action, but ultimately it is there choice whether or nor to be satisfied with the current level of confidence behind the various climate change principles.

---

OK, I know you're skeptic about this. But, logically, this is dangerous. You think that there is a chance these studies aren't accurate, but c'mon, who's willing to take that chance?

I'm sorry if I missed something, I didn't go through all the previous posts.

Tl;dr : These studies are scientifically overwhelmingly probable. I think we should solve this. I would never even take a 1% chance of danger when it comes to my life . I really do take heavy procedures when it comes to health and fitness for example.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LouaiB

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.

---

The only way to know for sure would be for unbiased outsiders to scrutinize their papers carefully. There would probably be needed both people knowledgeable in statistics, and in various other areas, in order to perform an in-depth review.

This, by the way, would take both a lot of time, money, and much effort, because the "climate scientists" have been very prolific.

But at the end of the day, which ever results these unbiased outsiders arrived at, there would still be public doubt. But at least they themselves would know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

The only way to know for sure would be for unbiased outsiders to scrutinize their papers carefully. There would probably be needed both people knowledgeable in statistics, and in various other areas, in order to perform an in-depth review.

This, by the way, would take both a lot of time, money, and much effort, because the "climate scientists" have been very prolific.

But at the end of the day, which ever results these unbiased outsiders arrived at, there would still be public doubt. But at least they themselves would know.

---

Sounds fair enough.
Wait, is the doubt that climate change isn't true or that it's exaggerated?

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... :hrm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LouaiB

Sounds fair enough.
Wait, is the doubt that climate change isn't true or that it's exaggerated?

---

Different people have different doubts. Some think the idea of climate change is meaningless, because climates always change, and always have done so. Others think the "climate change"-community is exaggerating.

But really the central issues are whether CO2 has the alleged effects, and whether mankind is responsible for changing climates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LouaiB

OK, I know you're skeptic about this. But, logically, this is dangerous. You think that there is a chance these studies aren't accurate, but c'mon, who's willing to take that chance?

I'm sorry if I missed something, I didn't go through all the previous posts.

Tl;dr : These studies are scientifically overwhelmingly probable. I think we should solve this. I would never even take a 1% chance of danger when it comes to my life . I really do take heavy procedures when it comes to health and fitness for example.

---

You misunderstood, I agree wholeheartedly with this. I was just referring to Alric and snoop's discussion about Alric being to assertive, making absolute claims.

One of my ultimate life goals is to create as much forest as I can around the area I live. I think it's very important to think per-emptively and always assume the worst when it comes to a fragile and beautiful system like nature.

@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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

No! take a step back and think about what's being said here. The further you try to push this argument the more you are proving his point.
I read his responses from the last two pages and he doesn't actually oppose climate change. He opposes the notion of taking a radical stance and neglecting logic in favour of fervent belief.
You are a perpetrator of this, stating that skepticism of a data is inherently bad because we are discussing climate change. It's a grey area of asserting fact vs imposing beliefs.

As backward as it might seem, there is still valuable criticism to be found in the arguments that some skeptics propose. Morally I don't agree with their lack of willingness to take action, but ultimately it is there choice whether or nor to be satisfied with the current level of confidence behind the various climate change principles.

---

No, what he is saying is that all positions are valid and so you can never tell who is right and wrong, which is silly. There is legitimate and illegitimate arguments. If I said humans naturally glow bright orange in the dark, that isn't a legitimate statement that should be taken seriously.

So we have a position backed by facts and science and a position that is based out of ignorance of science and being scared(either of the world being damaged or being taxed to try to fix it). You can not put them both at equal levels and say both are equally valid claims because they are not. One is based on facts and the other isn't. They are not equally valid arguments.

It doesn't take a lot of knowledge of statistics to understand what I'm saying. There is no "valid" method of interpreting a confidence interval, just general guidelines. As far as climate change goes the scientific evidence is extremely strong (95% according to the ipcc), but not as absolute as most scientific principles. Choosing at what confidence interval you feel comfortable is down to each person, preferably based on a rational formula taking various factors such as priority into account.

Science doesn't say differentiate between these claims, because neither is valid/invalid, there is merely a confidence interval. It is naive to assume a 95% confidence interval doesn't represent strong evidence, but at the same rate there is still a large enough margin of error. Some people wish to wait until that error is smaller, a completely scientific thing to do.

Edit: This does not represent my opinion. This is the way science works, because science is merely a collection of knowledge in the form of probabilities. It does not make assertions as to what constitutes a legitimate or illegitimate statement, as all statements are worthy of scientific analysis, even if the conclusion opposes the statement completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

It doesn't take a lot of knowledge of statistics to understand what I'm saying. There is no "valid" method of interpreting a confidence interval, just general guidelines. As far as climate change goes the scientific evidence is extremely strong (95% according to the ipcc), but not as absolute as most scientific principles. Choosing at what confidence interval you feel comfortable is down to each person, preferably based on a rational formula taking various factors such as priority into account.

Science doesn't say differentiate between these claims, because neither is valid/invalid, there is merely a confidence interval. It is naive to assume a 95% confidence interval doesn't represent strong evidence, but at the same rate there is still a large enough margin of error. Some people wish to wait until that error is smaller, a completely scientific thing to do.

Edit: This does not represent my opinion. This is the way science works, because science is merely a collection of knowledge in the form of probabilities. It does not make assertions as to what constitutes a legitimate or illegitimate statement, as all statements are worthy of scientific analysis, even if the conclusion opposes the statement completely.

---

That percentage isn't in reference to the earth warming or humans putting a lot of pollution into the atmosphere. So when people deny the earth is warming that isn't a matter of confidence but ignoring data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

That percentage isn't in reference to the earth warming or humans putting a lot of pollution into the atmosphere. So when people deny the earth is warming that isn't a matter of confidence but ignoring data.

---

The percentage is the confidence that climate change is at least 50% anthropogenic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

You misunderstood, I agree wholeheartedly with this. I was just referring to Alric and snoop's discussion about Alric being to assertive, making absolute claims.

One of my ultimate life goals is to create as much forest as I can around the area I live. I think it's very important to think per-emptively and always assume the worst when it comes to a fragile and beautiful system like nature.

---

Oh, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

So there is doubt about the credibility of these papers.
OK, since I know nothing about the subject of climate change, I'm better off not disturbing your conversation. But it's good to have people watching over subjects like these! I'm sure this conversation will produce fruitful information! You're all intelligent people here, the kind of people I would call mindful!

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

No! take a step back and think about what's being said here. The further you try to push this argument the more you are proving his point.
I read his responses from the last two pages and he doesn't actually oppose climate change. He opposes the notion of taking a radical stance and neglecting logic in favour of fervent belief.
You are a perpetrator of this, stating that skepticism of a data is inherently bad because we are discussing climate change. It's a grey area of asserting fact vs imposing beliefs.

As backward as it might seem, there is still valuable criticism to be found in the arguments that some skeptics propose. Morally I don't agree with their lack of willingness to take action, but ultimately it is there choice whether or nor to be satisfied with the current level of confidence behind the various climate change principles.

---

Thank you so much, I knew I always liked you man. You see Alric, when I said that I don't care what the data say, I didn't mean that in the sense of this debate at all. I already expressed in several of my other posts that I believe climate change is real and that humans have a large impact on it. What was debating the whole time afterwards, which you never seemed to get (which granted I was being a raging dickhead too and not explaining myself very well), was your attitude and your willingness to flat out call others right or wrong in any sense of anything (or worse, your confidence in believing whatever you hold to be true is true without question). Our entire reality is based on logical assumptions that may or may not prove to be false the more information is discovered. Claiming any one thing is the truth is foolish and close-minded, and is worse than being flat out ignorant or stupid. People of lower intelligence cannot help it, they are stuck that way more or less, but somebody like you and the others that post on this forum are obviously intelligent and capable of change and adaptation: the very thing you are advocating by saying we are destroying the earth continuing on as we are. But your incessant labeling of people is part of the issue in the first place, it's why nobody agrees on the subject. There is too much shit and mud-flinging going on by the common folk, politicians, scientists, and corporations to even know what the possible truth could even be (let alone why we should even care considering other human beings like that exist). Being divisive is what is causing literally all the human and global issues we face on a daily and yearly basis. By taking part in it, you are doing more to destroy what you are trying to save than saving it. Can't you see?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

No, what he is saying is that all positions are valid and so you can never tell who is right and wrong, which is silly. There is legitimate and illegitimate arguments. If I said humans naturally glow bright orange in the dark, that isn't a legitimate statement that should be taken seriously.

---

This is exactly why I am warning you not to be so sure of yourself. That is not what I meant at all, but to you it must have been, because in your self-propagating close-minded outlook on the world I must be claiming that none of the data could ever mean anything at all and we shouldn't possibly hope to interpret it. On the contrary, the fact that the data can be conflicting so much is exactly why you should always pay attention to it, assume the most logical of the set, and keep in the back of your mind the other data that suggested something otherwise. Not only do you leave open the possibility that you were mistaken, but it can help you with creative reasoning and allow you to make some brilliant connections you otherwise wouldn't make. What if reality were all in your head and everyone was a projection of yourself meant to bring you to self-actualization. Well, okay, but that would mean you could fuck off and do anything right? Well, since there are conflicting sets of data here, meaning we don't know whether either case of reality being internal or external, entirely subjective or if an objective one exists or not, what would be the safest course of action to take? To act as though there were an objective reality in which other beings besides you inhabit, and that you should probably seek to understand and befriend them rather than mindlessly argue, hurt, or kill them. You can live fantasies in video games, by watching movies, listening to music, dreaming, and reading novels.

Are you starting to get what I am saying now? I have never been saying that you should ignore the data. I am saying that you are willingly ignoring data yourself and that in doing so are being just as silly, self-detrimental, and even harmful to others around you.


One last tidbit Alric, because I think you are worth the time. What makes you so sure that what you are ever being told by anybody can be regarded as factual at all? The world governments, local governments, news outlets, and other forms of media are known to be pretty dishonest and very misdirecting on purpose, they will feed you all sorts of misinformation if it means controlling your actions and what you believe. The internet is the closest thing to real, honest information as you can get, and any crazy old fuck can post whatever they want on it. It really says a lot about the information circulating through your television set, laptop, and other stuff. It suggests it is almost all entirely false, and you should only make useful assumptions, and remember the possibilities in the back of your mind. Where is your natural skepticism? I'm not claiming you have none at all, but you sure don't act like it. I've been trying to get you to admit you have some and to admit that you might be acting extremely offensive to those that might actually be open to the fact that climate change exists and those are just that many more people determined to label you as wrong too, or even just spite you and go litter as much as they can.

I know exactly what you are saying, but you are wrong. What you are not factoring into this discussion is that the first person saw that human polluting might cause global warming in 1896. They showed evidence that carbon dioxide was absorbing more heat in 1940. They had clear evidence of global warming in the 1980's. This is all before I was even born. I was born in 83, and before I was born there was already evidencing supporting global warming. 30 years later the evidence is still piling up at an obscene rate.

It isn't like this is some obscure, rarely studied topic where there isn't much evidence to support either side. There isn't conflicting data. I have read all the counter arguments against global warming, and they never have data that goes against global warming. What they usually have is data which is being misrepresented, and when you look into the data you see that the data isn't saying what they believe it does.

I look at every single piece of evidence that people who are against climate change have. I have to, because you have to understand what it is saying before you can refute it. However you never find new and original things in these discussions, it is always the same old stuff that has been proven wrong a million times. At some point you have to say enough is enough. Saying things like the earth is cooling and that proves global warming is untrue, which is common for people who are arguing against climate change, is blatantly untrue. That is not an argument that should be allowed in any serious discussion. At some point you have to say something is just wrong and isn't a legitimate argument because it makes no sense or is based on faulty or misunderstood data.

Also, I am pretty skeptical of the claim that you seem to think people are against global warming based off being labeled. I am not sure where you get that from. It seems like the reason people are against global warming is because of big oil companies lobbing the government to push anti climate change ideology, because laws to restrict pollution and find green energy alternatives may hurt them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I know exactly what you are saying, but you are wrong..

---

Okay now I just feel like you're trolling me man, what the fuck. I finally give up, you win, congratulations. I read the rest of your post, but your absolute unwilling to come to any kind of resolution is honestly stunning, and again, I can't even take the rest of what you said seriously. Is it really so hard to tone yourself down a notch and make yourself more appealing to others? It's an unfortunate world we live in that one must do that because others are, like you, similarly unable to show any sort of humility at all. Good luck getting only the smart people on board with voting on things that can affect future CO2 emissions, I'm sure since they can understand where you're coming from it ought to be enough without the rest of the commonfolk (which yeah, again, it sucks you have to cater to them, but seriously it's not that hard). I really don't care that you act this way per se, it's just I figured you would since you seem so much more concerned with saving the planet than me (I'm not saying that to be an asshole, I actually don't care that much what happens--obviously I want things to change, but change takes time and the minds of others agreeing with you. And honestly with you leading the forefront, this might take a really long time).

It's entertaining to pretend that this is a thread about the theory of gravitation, and then read all of the waffle in the last page or so.

I hear you Snoop. I think that any labelling is borne out of frustration that the lobbyists behind anti-climate change are so good at creating enough doubt to keep the general public from taking serious actions to better our environment...at least that is how it is for me. I can't speak for anyone else. I labelled someone as wrong, in this thread, about their judgement of me:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer
...And even if I did provide sources, you, and any "climate change"-minions who might see this, would not change position one bit. Therefore it would be as meaningless as it is, when your side provide sources.

---

I responded that he was wrong...about me...I would look at any sources which resulted in no sources being provided by him. I asked again for some sources on the last page promising to be open minded. What happened instead...he got into a side conversation with a member new to this thread who came in feeling maybe we do need to take this seriously and effectively created enough doubt in that members mind, muddying the waters with only his personal anecdotes and still not a single source. This is very disappointing. I have considered several times during this thread that I may be wrong but after researching some of the better sounding arguments against man made climate change, I only reaffirmed my beliefs that we need to take climate change seriously and not let doubt to get us stuck in the mud of inaction.

I appreciate your reminder and take it to heart. Sometimes I may also come across as too adamant to be understood and heard and that is an important reminder. Some of that reminder comes with additional muddying of the waters, but I accept that in this case as it brings the whole discussion back up a notch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fogelbise

@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

---

First of all, I have stated before that I don't want to spend so much time on this thread, so googling for sources is out of the question (though you may yourself wish to google the research of Henrik Svensmark, whom I would otherwise quote). Secondly, you appear not to get it: I don't trust your sources further than I can throw them! So they mean nothing to me.

No worries. I do recall that you feel that those sources (that show a 97% consensus among climate experts are from thousands of peer reviewed science papers) are mostly backed by Universities who together are fabricating the data possibly just to keep their jobs and funding. That is your right to believe that of course and we can agree to disagree. Cheers.