3 ms·

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 fa

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
  Being vegan is great for your consciousness and nothing else. If you truly believed what you are claiming you wouldn't be using your computer to discuss with strangers and a host of other things I am sure you are doing. If the politicians truly believed in catastrophic climate change they wouldn't have any problem changing things. But they don't, they just play lip service because it's a political debate more than anything else and that can be used to mobilize voters. The scientific consensus you are talking about isn't what you think it is. Do you know what they actually asked about? They asked primarily about two things. 1) Is the climate changing 2) Do humans affect the climate? Everyone even the so-called skeptics answers yes to that. That's your consensus. All the other stuff the catastrophy claims that's not science and there is no scientific consensus about that. I don't even know where to start on your claims about climate models but it just goes to show what I said before. You are not actually conducting in a scientific discussion but an ideological one. Better safe than sorry is not an argument because you don't have infinite money and you don't just have one threat to humanity. Again how far are you ready to go? Are you ready to go to war with china to hinder them burning coal? No you are not and thus nothing is going to change, there is no better safe than sorry here. We are safe, we can deal with these problems and again you haven't shown a single, not even a single example of something that is scientifically demonstrated to happen that we can't deal with. Despite that you still believe in some mediacreated hysteria very few scientists actually subscribe to. That's why environmentalism is modern religion like Scientology. Mixing half-truth with the made up interpretation of reality. But don't just listen to Lindzen and Epstein. There are plenty of other scientists out there like Lindzen look them up if you are truly interested in understanding the arguments.
  - uxcolumbo 8y ago
    RE: Being vegan is great for your consciousness and nothing else. This will take another whole new post to explain, but I already hinted why not supporting the large meat industry (factory farming) is a good thing, it's not just for feeling good about oneself. It's about not supporting an industry that is so destructive on so many level. You should watch this short talk by Ethan Brown (entrepreneur) offering real solutions: Beyond Meat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x8jfiaLCPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x8jfiaLCPY and the 'Earthlings' documentary: https://www.nationearth.com/ https://www.nationearth.com/ to learn more about the large scale meat industry. RE: I don't even know where to start on your claims about climate models but it just goes to show what I said before. You are not actually conducting in a scientific discussion but an ideological one. Those are not my claims. Here is just a couple of examples how models are used: https://phys.org/news/2018-01-effect-climate-crop-yields.html https://phys.org/news/2018-01-effect-climate-crop-yields.htm... https://ccafs.cgiar.org/fr/node/50593 https://ccafs.cgiar.org/fr/node/50593 RE: If you truly believed what you are claiming you wouldn't be using your computer to discuss with strangers and a host of other things I am sure you are doing. So if I don't live like pre-industrial people, I'm not reducing my carbon footprint? That's seems very black & white to me. Like I said it's gradual. I can live happily without meat. I can't live without a computer, as I wouldn't be able to do my job. RE: That's why environmentalism is modern religion like Scientology I think that's a bit strong. It's not that B&W. It's more on a spectrum, e.g. some environmentalists should probably be more open to newer and safe nuclear reactors or fusion tech. RE: we can deal with these problems Well, maybe we have the tech, but we weren't prepared, e.g. we couldn't really stop the fires in California or more severe floods and other extreme weather. Anyway, I get what you're saying, i.e. there is no consensus on the dangers and effects on climate change. But I think you also have to use your common sense. There were other examples in this thread - people observing how things changed for the worse in their lifetime. Investing more heavily in cleantech now and being more serious about doing things which don't pollute and destroy our environment can only be a good thing.

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
Being vegan is great for your consciousness and nothing else. If you truly believed what you are claiming you wouldn't be using your computer to discuss with strangers and a host of other things I am sure you are doing. If the politicians truly believed in catastrophic climate change they wouldn't have any problem changing things. But they don't, they just play lip service because it's a political debate more than anything else and that can be used to mobilize voters. The scientific consensus you are talking about isn't what you think it is. Do you know what they actually asked about? They asked primarily about two things. 1) Is the climate changing 2) Do humans affect the climate? Everyone even the so-called skeptics answers yes to that. That's your consensus. All the other stuff the catastrophy claims that's not science and there is no scientific consensus about that. I don't even know where to start on your claims about climate models but it just goes to show what I said before. You are not actually conducting in a scientific discussion but an ideological one. Better safe than sorry is not an argument because you don't have infinite money and you don't just have one threat to humanity. Again how far are you ready to go? Are you ready to go to war with china to hinder them burning coal? No you are not and thus nothing is going to change, there is no better safe than sorry here. We are safe, we can deal with these problems and again you haven't shown a single, not even a single example of something that is scientifically demonstrated to happen that we can't deal with. Despite that you still believe in some mediacreated hysteria very few scientists actually subscribe to. That's why environmentalism is modern religion like Scientology. Mixing half-truth with the made up interpretation of reality. But don't just listen to Lindzen and Epstein. There are plenty of other scientists out there like Lindzen look them up if you are truly interested in understanding the arguments.
- uxcolumbo 8y ago
  RE: Being vegan is great for your consciousness and nothing else. This will take another whole new post to explain, but I already hinted why not supporting the large meat industry (factory farming) is a good thing, it's not just for feeling good about oneself. It's about not supporting an industry that is so destructive on so many level. You should watch this short talk by Ethan Brown (entrepreneur) offering real solutions: Beyond Meat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x8jfiaLCPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x8jfiaLCPY and the 'Earthlings' documentary: https://www.nationearth.com/ https://www.nationearth.com/ to learn more about the large scale meat industry. RE: I don't even know where to start on your claims about climate models but it just goes to show what I said before. You are not actually conducting in a scientific discussion but an ideological one. Those are not my claims. Here is just a couple of examples how models are used: https://phys.org/news/2018-01-effect-climate-crop-yields.html https://phys.org/news/2018-01-effect-climate-crop-yields.htm... https://ccafs.cgiar.org/fr/node/50593 https://ccafs.cgiar.org/fr/node/50593 RE: If you truly believed what you are claiming you wouldn't be using your computer to discuss with strangers and a host of other things I am sure you are doing. So if I don't live like pre-industrial people, I'm not reducing my carbon footprint? That's seems very black & white to me. Like I said it's gradual. I can live happily without meat. I can't live without a computer, as I wouldn't be able to do my job. RE: That's why environmentalism is modern religion like Scientology I think that's a bit strong. It's not that B&W. It's more on a spectrum, e.g. some environmentalists should probably be more open to newer and safe nuclear reactors or fusion tech. RE: we can deal with these problems Well, maybe we have the tech, but we weren't prepared, e.g. we couldn't really stop the fires in California or more severe floods and other extreme weather. Anyway, I get what you're saying, i.e. there is no consensus on the dangers and effects on climate change. But I think you also have to use your common sense. There were other examples in this thread - people observing how things changed for the worse in their lifetime. Investing more heavily in cleantech now and being more serious about doing things which don't pollute and destroy our environment can only be a good thing.