5 ms·

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 litera

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
      My sources are all sorts of things however as you said yourself if you are not a scientist you don't really have the ability to know what is true and what is false here and so it's much better to see these debates as they flush out the actual disagreements. No new models have emerged that changes things in any fundamental way again. You are more than welcome to point to it if you think it exist but you won't find it because it's mostly speculation not science. Epstein is not saying we shouldn't get of fossil fuels he is saying we shouldn't do it before we have a better alternative solar and wind is not that. They won't be delivering more than 2-3% even with heavy heavy investments and they are unreliable they are not clean. They are not solutions to getting of fossil fuel and that exactly the problem. So why on earht would any sany person support something that isn't going to solve the problem just because it's green if its not going to be able to deliver enough energy? That's a waste of taxpayer money which could be used for R&D into proper solutions. That's the problem. Even if we do everything that's in the paris agreement it's estimated that we will only be able to adjust the temperature with less than 1 degree. In what world is that a sane investment? Better safe than sorry is not a useful argument. The majority of scientists are not saying what you think they are thats the point. They are saying all sorts of things which then get packaged into a catastrophist viewpoint through the media. You are taking what the media says as truth not the scientists as they science do not make any such predictions what so ever it can't. Even the person who is arguing against lindzen agrees that the idea of consensus is stupid it's not science. Science is falsifiable the other thing is a mix of speculation and politics. The real question you should be asking yourself is exactly what you are prepared to do to reduce carbon footprint. There is no solution out there that will get us off it or even reduce is drastically besides R&D no one is arguing against that. So again what exactly are you worried about and how far are you prepared to go? You gonna go to war with china over coal plants? If not then it's purely gestures and you go into any government in the world and you will quickly realize that they don't really prioritize it as high as they say they do because they don't either know what exactly they should worry about and what to do about it.

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
    My sources are all sorts of things however as you said yourself if you are not a scientist you don't really have the ability to know what is true and what is false here and so it's much better to see these debates as they flush out the actual disagreements. No new models have emerged that changes things in any fundamental way again. You are more than welcome to point to it if you think it exist but you won't find it because it's mostly speculation not science. Epstein is not saying we shouldn't get of fossil fuels he is saying we shouldn't do it before we have a better alternative solar and wind is not that. They won't be delivering more than 2-3% even with heavy heavy investments and they are unreliable they are not clean. They are not solutions to getting of fossil fuel and that exactly the problem. So why on earht would any sany person support something that isn't going to solve the problem just because it's green if its not going to be able to deliver enough energy? That's a waste of taxpayer money which could be used for R&D into proper solutions. That's the problem. Even if we do everything that's in the paris agreement it's estimated that we will only be able to adjust the temperature with less than 1 degree. In what world is that a sane investment? Better safe than sorry is not a useful argument. The majority of scientists are not saying what you think they are thats the point. They are saying all sorts of things which then get packaged into a catastrophist viewpoint through the media. You are taking what the media says as truth not the scientists as they science do not make any such predictions what so ever it can't. Even the person who is arguing against lindzen agrees that the idea of consensus is stupid it's not science. Science is falsifiable the other thing is a mix of speculation and politics. The real question you should be asking yourself is exactly what you are prepared to do to reduce carbon footprint. There is no solution out there that will get us off it or even reduce is drastically besides R&D no one is arguing against that. So again what exactly are you worried about and how far are you prepared to go? You gonna go to war with china over coal plants? If not then it's purely gestures and you go into any government in the world and you will quickly realize that they don't really prioritize it as high as they say they do because they don't either know what exactly they should worry about and what to do about it.