Discussion in 'Politics & Current Affairs' started by Hatham, Jan 12, 2020.
This climate changing thing must be confusing in parts of the World.
Yeah pretty much is a fact that is happening and the thing is even if you insist that is natural you can deny that the constant use of fossil fuels and the destruction of the different biomes have caused a acceleration in those changes. In the long run, the actions of humans have affected the planet.
I believe in climate change - in the winter, it's cold. In the summer, it's hot. Climate change right there, people!
But more seriously, I would term myself a climate change sceptic. It's not so much that I don't believe climate change is happening at all, it's more that I am unconvinced about how much of it is really due to manmade effects. I mean, a decent volcanic eruption can cause significant climate change, at least for a period of time. In fact, there are a lot of active volcanoes that are right now belching greenhouse gases and other kinds of toxic gases into the atmosphere. No one is trying to pass laws against volcanoes though, as far as I am aware. But the thing is, volcanoes are a completely natural phenomenon. Nothing manmade about them at all. Yet a volcano can heavily influence the climate. If Yellowstone ever had a major eruption, the climate would certainly change markedly!
However, we should certainly take whatever reasonable steps we can to reduce pollution - not because of its effect on the climate as such, but more its general effect on our everyday health and well-being. But many laws to counteract climate change are, IMO, excessively repressive.
One of the refrains we're hearing lately, not only for climate change but also this pandemic, is "trust the science" or "believe the science". Now, we should certainly not dismiss science out of hand. In fact, too much dismissal of reasonable scientific advice has got America in the terrible situation with the pandemic that it is now. But science is not omniscient. Many things that were commonly accepted science a hundred years ago have now been debunked. Going even further back in time, George Washington "trusted the science" when he allowed himself to be bled when suffering an illness. It killed him. The science of the day said that bleeding an ill person removed toxins from their body. In actual fact, it weakened them further and in Washington's case, completely drained their life away.
Not all scientists agree on things either. We see many countries imposing lockdowns or restrictions because they "trust the science" that it is the right course of action. But then we see Sweden take a completely different approach and try for herd immunity. Why? Because they also "trust the science". It's just that their scientific experts take a rather different view to the scientific experts of most other countries. So how can you "trust the science" when science often contradicts itself? It's the same with climate change. Some scientists are more alarmist about it than others. Who do you believe?
Moreover, there are scientists who are themselves climate change sceptics. David Bellamy is one (or was - I think he's died now). He used to be a very popular presenter with the BBC. But then he disappeared from the screens. Why? Because he disputed the climate change alarmism. His scepticism didn't fit the official narrative. And so he became persona non grata with the BBC.
So that's basically where I'm at on climate change. Not a denier, but nor do I believe a lot of the official narrative. I think there are a few agendas being pushed, and climate change is a convenient smokescreen for these. And while I certainly don't reject science, I also don't believe that it is "the fount of all knowledge" that the mainstream media often like to portray it as. "Science knows", as Joe Biden said yesterday - but it most assuredly doesn't know everything. Especially, IMO, when it comes to climate change.
There's a lot of talk about people saying to "Trust the science". But when the science shows two different outcomes, which outcome do you believe. I believe you should go with the science that does the best at predicting future events. There has been enough time to evaluate the science predicting "Climate Change". Between the science put forth by the Climate Change Alarmist and the Climate Change Deniers, the predictions made by the Alarmist are horribly inaccurate and wrong. The main problem with the Alarmist is that they are not following the science, they are looking at the results of their investigations and making wildly inaccurate predictions based on the worst possible outcome and making claims of the future based on the desired reaction they want to get, rather than the most likely outcome. The Deniers science is not 100% accurate, but their predictions are more in line with observed results. As long as the Alarmists keep pushing their apocalyptic rantings, they will keep getting opposition to their cause.
EggHead, thank you for that post. There has been so much absolute nonsense and propaganda posted on this thread that it's nice to see someone take the time to construct a reasonable and well thought out position (one that I mostly agree with, but that's beside the point).
When people say "trust the science" what they mean is "trust the very human, very fallible scientists without question". Or to put it more simply "Obey".
Great post Neophyte. What I don't understand about all the "Trust the Science" sayings is how can people actually trust this science that is telling us prodictions years headed when the weather forcasters have trouble telling what the weather is going to be tomorrow accurately. Also from what I understand from what I've read is the science is looking for patterns in the weather going back 1 million years or so, but the Earth is near 4.5 billion, so are they basing there science only going back .02% of the total time earths has been around. I don't know that doesn't seem enough to tell us any patterns in the weather.
Also remember, most of us do not get our 'science' directly from the source. By the time we hear it, the media have done their manipulating, and so for example there are still people out there who believe that somebody called Einstein
invented the entire universe with his bare hands !
It is easier to predict long range climate than it is to predict daily weather. There is an element of uncertainty, aka chaos, involved in daily forecasting, which makes it very difficult. In long range forecasting the chaos tends to offset itself and predictions become more reliable. Like we can predict that winter will be cooler and summer warmer, just can't tell what will happen on a given individual day. In extremely long range predictions a second chaos effect comes into play, which makes it difficult to predict like 100 years in the future, but 5 or 10 years is not that difficult.
Current data has shown a upward rising trend in global average temperature and some people are predicting a disastrous change in climate from this. So these people want to drastically alter the course of our current civilization, in order to change this. These same people are ignoring historical evidence of warming trends in the past. For a time these same people were predicting a coming ice age, because archaeological evidence shows previous ice ages occurred when a rapid increase in global temperature occurred. Also archaeological evidence shows that there is a maximum temperature increase. In other words then temperature reaches a certain level, other factors come into play that moderates the increase. The Climate Change people have made there predictions based on the increase in temperature going on forever, this is not historically true.
I believe in climate change but I don't see why we can't live in the arctic instead.
We may not be that close, but we sure are that small in comparison. Imagine how small we billions who live on that dot must be.
Our Sun is a regular variable star, just like billions of other stars. And it occasionally has random outbursts as well, and some of those can last a while by human standards.
So I have a hard time believing that the tiny things on that tiny green dot can do anything of significance to our climate
compared with what that big orange thing that we orbit can do, has done, and will continue to do.
That green dot is Texas on an average Summer day. lol
"Dale, you giblet-head, we live in Texas. It's already 110 in the summer. And if it gets one degree hotter, I'm gonna kick your ass."