5 ms·

My understanding is the models are an approximation but fed with real world data. You can't compare this to a law of physics. That's why we get a range and not

My understanding is the models are an approximation but fed with real world data. You can't compare this to a law of physics. That's why we get a range and not exact values, so don't take the 12 years literal - it's also an approximation. There is much more explained on the NASA website https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ RE: You should at least apply the same kind of skepticism to the climate change scientists as you do to the oil industry. What's in it for the climate scientists, e.g. what's in it for James Hansen (ex NASA climate scientist) to not be truthful about this? What's in it for him if he can convince the world that global warming has negative consequences for our habitat? Maybe the outcome would be that we would make a more concerted effort to get off fossil fuels and maybe try to have a more sustainable lifestyle? I don't think that's a bad outcome. There is a lot of profit for the oil industry to spread misinformation and for lobbying to keep the status quo. Exxonmobil's scientist already knew about climate change, but then Exxonmobil spread misinformation: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... RE: And I am saying there is plenty to worry about in your local environment which you can actually do something about and which is sustainable change. Our local environment is connected to the global environment - you can't separate the two. Stuff gets into the stratosphere and then around the whole world or our plastic straws end up in a turtle's nose. It's one big system.

ThomPete 8y ago
They are approximations using approximate data which isn't being checked for validity trying to predict consequences 50-80 years out. I am not taking it literally I am not even taking it seriously. Again I am well aware of the literature you still haven't been able to show actual proof of any claim of us having 12 or approximately 12 years left to avoid some catastrophe you haven't even substantiated what catastrophe or show that we can't deal with it. There are plenty of scientists who think Hansen is wrong and it's certainly been wrong that New York would be under water by 2010 as it was claimed by some. In fact, all claims about our inability to deal with climate change have so far been wrong. What do you mean what's in it for climate scientists? Their livelihood exactly the same as you claim is in it for the oil industry and which is in it for the Greentech industry. What do the scientists who are skeptical about the claims have to gain from this? You are only applying ill intent to one side not the other. There is plenty of NASA scientists who are skeptics too. Of course, I can separate the two when it comes to what I can do something about and what I can't. I can do something about whether someone should pollute in my backyard I can't do anything about whether China decides to build yet another coal factory. I would really urge you to spend the time and dig into this. Read both sides of the argument and then tell me that you don't come back much less confident in anything you hear.
- uxcolumbo 8y ago
  Yes, I'd like to dig into this, so I can better understand where you're coming from. Can you share your sources, scientists, reports etc? Thx
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I assume you know plenty of places that argue like you do so I will give you a couple of other places that actually discuss this with both and cons. But keep in mind the debate isn't actually whether climate change is real. It is how accurate are the predictions and what if anything should we be worried about. Just so we are clear on the premise here. You will find very few people who say that climate change is not real that's not the discussion and it's never really been the discussion. So here are a couple of good debates that lay out some of the skepticism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-gLLxk-u78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-gLLxk-u78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass I would also recommend reading Alex Epstein's book The moral case for fossil fuel: he offers another way to think about this problem which is also what I am trying to get across. The climate debate we are having is mostly political and thus about priorities rather than about science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmL9hRrpIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmL9hRrpIQ
    - uxcolumbo 8y ago
      Thanks. My sources are science journals and talks by those climate scientists mentioned previously. I watched the 1st and 3rd video. The first one was good but it was a bit all over the place, I wish they had more time to discuss this in more detail. The way I understood is that Prof Lindzen argues that there is no man made climate change that's an existential threat and the other scientist are alarmist and says they are heavily biased and suggested that there is even conspiracy, but wouldn't say who is behind this conspiracy. He even urged Trump to withdraw from the climate accord. What is wrong with investing more heavily in renewable tech? What about gradually decreasing oil subsidies and funneling those to clean tech. For example what if those climate scientist are right, we only have one biosphere. The 3rd with Epstein - he isn't a scientist and he didn't present any evidence either (maybe he does in this book). But I get his point, of course fossil fuels were and are useful and helped to build our civilization. But the counterpoint is that we need to get off it and ensure that we use the cleanest form of fossil fuels. Even if it's confirmed at a later stage that there is no man made climate change that's a threat, the fossil fuel industry creates pollution that's not healthy for humans and other life on this planet. We have the know how, but not enough is being done to make the shift. Of course it's not realistic to suddenly ban the use of fossil fuels. But more needs to be done to invest in clean tech. Again, what if those models and scientists are right that man made climate change is a threat. We don't really want to experiment with our only habitat. LIke the moderator from the rubin report, since I'm not a scientist in these matters, I need to take what the majority of scientist are saying more seriously vs some fringe scientist who only say the others didn't prove anything therefore we can continue as usual. Better be safe than sorry. Anyway, thanks for posting those links - but I'm not convinced yet and I rather err on the cautious side and try to continue reducing my carbon footprint, even if Lindzen thinks it's just a symbolic gesture PS: I didn't watch the 2nd video, only the first few minutes. This format looked a bit more promising, but the debate is from 2007 - that's over 10 years ago - new data and maybe new models have emerged since then to give us a better understanding of climate change. I parked this for now.

ThomPete 8y ago

They are approximations using approximate data which isn't being checked for validity trying to predict consequences 50-80 years out. I am not taking it literally I am not even taking it seriously. Again I am well aware of the literature you still haven't been able to show actual proof of any claim of us having 12 or approximately 12 years left to avoid some catastrophe you haven't even substantiated what catastrophe or show that we can't deal with it. There are plenty of scientists who think Hansen is wrong and it's certainly been wrong that New York would be under water by 2010 as it was claimed by some. In fact, all claims about our inability to deal with climate change have so far been wrong. What do you mean what's in it for climate scientists? Their livelihood exactly the same as you claim is in it for the oil industry and which is in it for the Greentech industry. What do the scientists who are skeptical about the claims have to gain from this? You are only applying ill intent to one side not the other. There is plenty of NASA scientists who are skeptics too. Of course, I can separate the two when it comes to what I can do something about and what I can't. I can do something about whether someone should pollute in my backyard I can't do anything about whether China decides to build yet another coal factory. I would really urge you to spend the time and dig into this. Read both sides of the argument and then tell me that you don't come back much less confident in anything you hear.

uxcolumbo 8y ago
Yes, I'd like to dig into this, so I can better understand where you're coming from. Can you share your sources, scientists, reports etc? Thx
- ThomPete 8y ago
  I assume you know plenty of places that argue like you do so I will give you a couple of other places that actually discuss this with both and cons. But keep in mind the debate isn't actually whether climate change is real. It is how accurate are the predictions and what if anything should we be worried about. Just so we are clear on the premise here. You will find very few people who say that climate change is not real that's not the discussion and it's never really been the discussion. So here are a couple of good debates that lay out some of the skepticism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-gLLxk-u78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-gLLxk-u78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass I would also recommend reading Alex Epstein's book The moral case for fossil fuel: he offers another way to think about this problem which is also what I am trying to get across. The climate debate we are having is mostly political and thus about priorities rather than about science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmL9hRrpIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmL9hRrpIQ
  - uxcolumbo 8y ago
    Thanks. My sources are science journals and talks by those climate scientists mentioned previously. I watched the 1st and 3rd video. The first one was good but it was a bit all over the place, I wish they had more time to discuss this in more detail. The way I understood is that Prof Lindzen argues that there is no man made climate change that's an existential threat and the other scientist are alarmist and says they are heavily biased and suggested that there is even conspiracy, but wouldn't say who is behind this conspiracy. He even urged Trump to withdraw from the climate accord. What is wrong with investing more heavily in renewable tech? What about gradually decreasing oil subsidies and funneling those to clean tech. For example what if those climate scientist are right, we only have one biosphere. The 3rd with Epstein - he isn't a scientist and he didn't present any evidence either (maybe he does in this book). But I get his point, of course fossil fuels were and are useful and helped to build our civilization. But the counterpoint is that we need to get off it and ensure that we use the cleanest form of fossil fuels. Even if it's confirmed at a later stage that there is no man made climate change that's a threat, the fossil fuel industry creates pollution that's not healthy for humans and other life on this planet. We have the know how, but not enough is being done to make the shift. Of course it's not realistic to suddenly ban the use of fossil fuels. But more needs to be done to invest in clean tech. Again, what if those models and scientists are right that man made climate change is a threat. We don't really want to experiment with our only habitat. LIke the moderator from the rubin report, since I'm not a scientist in these matters, I need to take what the majority of scientist are saying more seriously vs some fringe scientist who only say the others didn't prove anything therefore we can continue as usual. Better be safe than sorry. Anyway, thanks for posting those links - but I'm not convinced yet and I rather err on the cautious side and try to continue reducing my carbon footprint, even if Lindzen thinks it's just a symbolic gesture PS: I didn't watch the 2nd video, only the first few minutes. This format looked a bit more promising, but the debate is from 2007 - that's over 10 years ago - new data and maybe new models have emerged since then to give us a better understanding of climate change. I parked this for now.