4 ms·

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
      I also try to have a wide variety of sources, hence why I asked you for your sources, since the oncce I found that argued against climate change being a threat were just weak opinions. And you're right... I didn't play back my understanding correctly about Epstein. But all I'm saying is we could do more to accelerate and fund discovery of clean tech solutions. Oil for example gets so much more subsidies than renewable energy. We could adjust those levers, but it seems the political will isn't there. A scientific consensus isn’t subject to a majority rule, so I don't think it's useless - scientific consensus is many different scientists from different backgrounds coming to a similar conclusion. This and meta-studies shouldn't be dismiised. Why is 'better safe than sorry' not a useful argument? Maybe an apt analogy would be our health. Say for example a doctor says you're susceptible to a certain illness. To decrease the chances of getting that illness the doctor presents some things that have been shown to work in the past with other patients, but it hasn't been proven to work every time, because bodies are complex. I would certainly do those things to try to avoid that illness. What I'm worried about is what if the consensus on man made climate change and its threat turn out to be true - in our lifetime sometime in this century. We don't really want to use our only habitat as a test lab to find out, because if it turns out the be true it will be too late. That's why I think the climate models are not useless. Climate models are being used to predict crop yields for example. Yes, it's not 100% accurate but the confidence of a certain outcome is high. So those climate models that are being used to demonstrate global warming and its effect shouldn't be dismissed just because it's not verifiable. What I'm doing is what some other people in this thread are doing, i.e. I don't consume animal products anymore, as it's not logical anymore to do and it's an ineffecient way to feed people. On top of that it's immoral, bad for the environment (cutting down forests and to have farmland, etc), bad for people working in that industry (e.g. would you want to kill and slaughter animals all day and breath in the air in a slaughterhouse?) and bad for your health (see dr neil barndard, dr greger, dr ellsworth etc). I use public transport, use my gadgets until they die or can't be repaired anymore, don't follow any fashion trends and buy higher quality clothes that lasts longer (i.e. not fast fashion). Anyway, I think we've reached the end - usually it's better to debate these type of things face to face and this forum doesn't lend itself very well to long term debates - running out of space - almost reached the end of the right margin ;) Thanks again for those links I'll checkout more stuff by Epstein and Lindzen and if you have any other sources or scientists who provide a counter argument then please feel free to share those.

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
    I also try to have a wide variety of sources, hence why I asked you for your sources, since the oncce I found that argued against climate change being a threat were just weak opinions. And you're right... I didn't play back my understanding correctly about Epstein. But all I'm saying is we could do more to accelerate and fund discovery of clean tech solutions. Oil for example gets so much more subsidies than renewable energy. We could adjust those levers, but it seems the political will isn't there. A scientific consensus isn’t subject to a majority rule, so I don't think it's useless - scientific consensus is many different scientists from different backgrounds coming to a similar conclusion. This and meta-studies shouldn't be dismiised. Why is 'better safe than sorry' not a useful argument? Maybe an apt analogy would be our health. Say for example a doctor says you're susceptible to a certain illness. To decrease the chances of getting that illness the doctor presents some things that have been shown to work in the past with other patients, but it hasn't been proven to work every time, because bodies are complex. I would certainly do those things to try to avoid that illness. What I'm worried about is what if the consensus on man made climate change and its threat turn out to be true - in our lifetime sometime in this century. We don't really want to use our only habitat as a test lab to find out, because if it turns out the be true it will be too late. That's why I think the climate models are not useless. Climate models are being used to predict crop yields for example. Yes, it's not 100% accurate but the confidence of a certain outcome is high. So those climate models that are being used to demonstrate global warming and its effect shouldn't be dismissed just because it's not verifiable. What I'm doing is what some other people in this thread are doing, i.e. I don't consume animal products anymore, as it's not logical anymore to do and it's an ineffecient way to feed people. On top of that it's immoral, bad for the environment (cutting down forests and to have farmland, etc), bad for people working in that industry (e.g. would you want to kill and slaughter animals all day and breath in the air in a slaughterhouse?) and bad for your health (see dr neil barndard, dr greger, dr ellsworth etc). I use public transport, use my gadgets until they die or can't be repaired anymore, don't follow any fashion trends and buy higher quality clothes that lasts longer (i.e. not fast fashion). Anyway, I think we've reached the end - usually it's better to debate these type of things face to face and this forum doesn't lend itself very well to long term debates - running out of space - almost reached the end of the right margin ;) Thanks again for those links I'll checkout more stuff by Epstein and Lindzen and if you have any other sources or scientists who provide a counter argument then please feel free to share those.