Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[Vya Domus]

I'm always amazed by people who dismiss - not science - but the overwhelming majority consensus.

I know I said I will shut up but I couldn't help myself when I saw this.

Thinking that whichever is the most popular theory must be the right one is a class A felony in fallacious reasoning.

 

[robot zombie]

@the54thvoid Exactly, it's about trends. Exceptions are blips. We do the same thing with the economy, where the way it's set-up is basically predicated on bubbles and crashes. But when the economy has an uptick, people talk about it like it's a trend and not a temporary peak in a greater decline stretching over a very long period of time, scattered across different metrics. "Record lows today!" suggesting the overall climate situation is better is like saying "The stock market is HIGH today." to suggest that the economy is doing well in the middle of a covid-induced unemployment crisis.

I try to stay away from this thread because it reminds me that while we argue all of these different sociopolitical issues as though the fate of the world depends on them, an actual existential threat that is essentially guaranteed to drastically disrupt our whole way of conducting societies is approaching us largely unhindered and undiscussed. Blows my mind, it's the actual end of life (as we've known it, anyway) and nobody gives a shit. I try and explain it to my parents all of the time. My dad is pretty shrewd, he definitely gets it. But he's also got that "I'm old, I won't be here." attitude about it. My mom is an extremely impressionable and mentally ill creationist (not a dig on creationists, but she actually has things wrong with her to where children sometimes understand things better than she does) and to her the whole concept of climate change is basically the stuff of fairy tales. It's like no matter what I do, I can't get through to them that the shit they think matters now will never matter again if we can't figure out how to use energy resources much more efficiently than is even possible given our overall understanding of and ability to interface with the universe. It is a legitimately daunting problem. The biggest problem. It is arguably mankind's biggest and most definitive endeavor in modern history. It's the fight to continue existing. Everything that we cling to will be the reason we ultimately lose it all.

 

[claes]

I know I said I will shut up but I couldn't help myself when I saw this.

Thinking that whichever is the most popular theory must be the right one is a class A felony in fallacious reasoning.

Not when all evidence suggests it’s true — by your reasoning it’s a fallacy to believe in gravity, too.

 

[A Computer Guy]

I agree, warming/cooling cycles throughout the ages have always been associated with a corresponding increase/decrease in carbon dioxide and I am sure as hell there were no coal power plants or cars 100 000 years ago, for instance.

Do humans have something to do with it ? Seems like it but is it "100%" because of us ? No way, that simply can't be proven, historical data over the last hundreds of thousands of years shows that CO2 levels rise and fall without human intervention.

By the way, it has also being shown that CO2 emissions lag immensely an increase in temperature, by thousands of years sometimes, so even that is questionable.

Personally I think there is too much focus on CO2 and not enough consideration to changes in Solar activity, geomagnetics, and geological effects.

 

[Aquinus]

Personally I think there is too much focus on CO2 and not enough consideration to changes in Solar activity, geomagnetics, and geological effects.

You mean like the methane being released into the atmosphere due to areas that used to be permafrost now thawing? CO2 contributes to warming, but CH4 is a far more potent greenhouse gas. Not to mention the leaks from natural gas pipelines.

 

[Space Lynx]

It's not ironic at all, he knew this would happen or least would've known to some extent. Elon Musk, much like Bezos ~ the richest man on earth before him, knows what he's doing & he of course enjoys doing it.

you kind of missed my point by what I meant from ironic... tesla investing in bitcoin nullifies all the positive environment effects/advertising that tesla did with electric cars. that is the ironic part. tesla was first major company to invest so much, giving the currency the legitimacy it needed to propel. Elon Musk single handedly reversed all gains from electric cars in climate change with that decision. if you don't understand why that is not ironic then I can't help you. and before you reply back with but but but lithium batteries are also unhealthy for the environment, yes true, but the electric cars longevity made it so it was still a net gain by the time the end of life for said car was using them. that net gain is now revoked due to bitcoins legitimacy as it has also encouraged the mining of more alt coins, exacerbating the effects.

 

[Vya Domus]

Not when all evidence suggests it’s true — by your reasoning it’s a fallacy to believe in gravity, too.

The person which I was quoting clearly put more emphasis on popular opinion rather than science, and therefore evidence, by the way he phrased that sentenced. I read and interpret things very carefully.

 

[A Computer Guy]

You mean like the methane being released into the atmosphere due to areas that used to be permafrost now thawing? CO2 contributes to warming, but CH4 is a far more potent greenhouse gas. Not to mention the leaks from natural gas pipelines.

Sure the contributions of other gases is also important. Periods of increased solar activity or weakening in the geomagnetic field can result in increased absorption of radiation in the permafrost. Also leaks of gases don't just occur from permafrost, pipelines, and cows but from the earth itself in other forms volcanoes, fissures, and other tectonic activity.

 

[claes]

The person which I was quoting clearly put more emphasis on popular opinion rather than science, and therefore evidence, by the way he phrased that sentenced. I read and interpret things very carefully.

Actually they posted a bunch of scientific evidence to support their claim of “overwhelming majority consensus.” Think you may missed the rest of their post...

 

[qubit]

I know I said I will shut up but I couldn't help myself when I saw this.

I started this thread waay back in 2015 and can tell you that you're very welcome here, no need to leave. We disagree on the climate issue, but that's fine. If nothing else, it helps us to articulate the science better. @the54thvoid seems to be particularly adept at this.

 

[R0H1T]

that net gain is now revoked due to bitcoins legitimacy as it has also encouraged the mining of more alt coins, exacerbating the effects.

And my point is/was that it isn't necessarily to do with BTC, it's about the person Elon Musk has become much like Bezos ~ the all powerful, mighty & rich are pretty much the same with certain exceptions like Gates?

 

[Vya Domus]

Actually they posted a bunch of scientific evidence to support their claim of “overwhelming majority consensus.”

You're trying really hard but no matter how you spin it you can't use a positive to justify a clearly erroneous method of reasoning, I think it's time you let go of this and admit that wasn't the smartest thing one could have said.

There are a lot of cases in history where there was overwhelming evidence and majority support for theories which were later proved to be wrong. In fact, a lot of people don't realize this but most theories to have ever existed were wrong/inaccurate for various reasons. Most research that is done in any field is largely irrelevant, inconsequential or plain wrong with few breakthroughs in between and wrong conclusions often propagate like wildfire. You know why ? Because people are more interested in gaining cred points from their peers rather than seeking the truth and the best way to do that is to adhere to the majority consensus.

You know, there was a time when literally all physicists believed in a thing called the ether, a medium through which light would propagate , everyone would write about and devise experiments to prove that it was a real thing. Looking back it looked like a circus and one would wonder how could individuals so intelligent work on this for so long ? The answer : "overwhelming majority consensus"

What I am trying to say is that there is too much arrogance and confidence when talking about this subject and that can only have negative consequences.

 

[Space Lynx]

And my point is/was that it isn't necessarily to do with BTC, it's about the person Elon Musk has become much like Bezos ~ the all powerful, mighty & rich are pretty much the same with certain exceptions like Gates?

yeah Gates and Buffet are really the only two exceptions. I see what you mean now, I misread your previous statement.

 

[the54thvoid]

You're trying really hard but no matter how you spin it you can't use a positive to justify a clearly erroneous method of reasoning, I think it's time you let go of this and admit that wasn't the smartest thing one could have said.

There are a lot of cases in history where there was overwhelming evidence and majority support for theories which were later proved to be wrong. In fact, a lot of people don't realize this but most theories to have ever existed were wrong/inaccurate for various reasons. Most research that is done in any field is largely irrelevant, inconsequential or plain wrong with few breakthroughs in between and wrong conclusions often propagate like wildfire. You know why ? Because people are more interested in gaining cred points from their peers rather than seeking the truth and the best way to do that is to adhere to the majority consensus.

You know, there was a time when literally all physicists believed in a thing called the ether, a medium through which light would propagate , everyone would write about and devise experiments to prove that it was a real thing. Looking back it looked like a circus and one would wonder how could individuals so intelligent work on this for so long ? The answer : "overwhelming majority consensus"

What I am trying to say is that there is too much arrogance and confidence when talking about this subject and that can only have negative consequences.

Lol.

Edit. Sorry. Not forum etiquette. You post and believe what you want. I'll listen to the science. You listen to your inner monologue. I know you'll respond with something based on BS bit it's cool. You're allowed your opinion.

But I'll believe NASA. Not you.

 

[Vya Domus]

Not you.

Huh ? What did I even said ? Oh my God, see this is what I am talking about, you guys are obsessed with arguing, trying to prove you're right no matter what even when nobody directly disagrees with something you said. This is why I said this isn't a really a discussion, excuse me for not posting the same stuff you did I guess.

I am sorry but this is kind of cringe, no need to cite NASA here, I didn't even said anything remotely controversial.

 

[the54thvoid]

Huh ? What did I even said ? Oh my God, see this is what I am talking about, you guys are obsessed with arguing, trying to prove you're right no matter what even when nobody directly disagrees with something you said. This is why I said this isn't a really a discussion, excuse me for not posting the same stuff you did I guess.

I am sorry but this is kind of cringe, no need to cite NASA here, I didn't even said anything remotely controversial.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll try not to provoke you.

You have mentioned how ether was propsed as a scientific explantion. However, that was never based on scientific principles of cause and effect. It was a scientific 'philosophy' (rampant in early 20th century discussion). Ether was never tested. We have the hindsight to use both data (via things such as core samples) and advanced computer modelling to explain possible outcomes of current trends. This is scientific exploration based on best estimates. Unlike Victorian ether ideology, contemporary science deals with vast data sets from accumulated sources, from a global network to provide a best estimate of future outcomes.

You appear to decry such principles of scientific understanding by suggesting how it was so wrong in the past. I am not as arrogant as you suggest (thanks) but the evidence we have at hand does indicate with a high plausibility that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, which are exacerbated by human socio-economic activity, and is supported by not only scientific consensus but also by those who are accused of contributing to it (i.e. the petro-chemical giants). That is to say, empirical evidence, geological evidence and computer modelling based on such, all support the hypothesis of human contribution to the spike in global warming.

I appreciate you have a different view and that is your prerogative. But your view is not supported by the scientific, empirical, or evidential models.

 

[Aquinus]

Huh ? What did I even said ? Oh my God, see this is what I am talking about, you guys are obsessed with arguing, trying to prove you're right no matter what even when nobody directly disagrees with something you said. This is why I said this isn't a really a discussion, excuse me for not posting the same stuff you did I guess.

I am sorry but this is kind of cringe, no need to cite NASA here, I didn't even said anything remotely controversial.

I don't see what's so difficult about accepting the scientific consensus until there is a valid reason to reject it as false beyond the mere possibility that the science could be flawed or more likely, incomplete. There is a difference between being skeptical and being willfully ignorant. If new evidence presents itself, I'll listen, but just saying that science has been wrong in the past isn't refuting anything.

 

[Vya Domus]

You have mentioned how ether was propsed as a scientific explantion. However, that was never based on scientific principles of cause and effect. It was a scientific 'philosophy' (rampant in early 20th century discussion). Ether was never tested.

Please try to inform yourself better, it wasn't just a philosophy, people actually tried to model physical systems based on it. And yes it was based on scientific principles, waves needed matter to propagate themselves so it was believed the same must be the case for light. Even Maxwell himself when writing his famous equations was still doing so with the view in mind that electro-magnetic waves propagate through a medium. And for the record this was in fact tested, that's how eventually it was proven wrong.

But your view is not supported by the scientific, empirical, or evidential models.

What view ?

If new evidence presents itself, I'll listen, but just saying that science has been wrong in the past isn't refuting anything.

You appear to decry such principles of scientific understanding by suggesting how it was so wrong in the past.

You guys like evidence, right ? Well there is evidence a lot of research in various fields can and has been wrong, that's all I am saying. Skepticism can be useful but the "I wont be open to any ideas until there is evidence for it" attitude can't, it's just an elaborate way of saying I cannot contribute to anything in any way.

This thread should be renamed "Evidence for climate change", that would be more accurate in my opinion and perhaps I wouldn't have considered posting here and annoy you guys.

 

[Aquinus]

You guys like evidence, right ? Well there is evidence a lot of research in various fields can and has been wrong, that's all I am saying.

There is research in every field that has been wrong at one point or another, that's called the scientific method and we learn from those events. With that said though, there isn't a lot of data to suggest that climate change isn't something to be concerned about regardless of the reason for it.

 

[Vya Domus]

With that said though, there isn't a lot of data to suggest that climate change isn't something to be concerned about regardless of the reason for it.

Good, because I never said anything about that. Just that humans are not responsible exclusively for it, the climate changes irrespective of what we do.

 

[Mescalamba]

I know I said I will shut up but I couldn't help myself when I saw this.

Thinking that whichever is the most popular theory must be the right one is a class A felony in fallacious reasoning.

"overwhelming majority consensus."

Honestly I love this one. At certain point in time, people believe that witches are real and they hanged supposed witches (usually innocent women), drowned, put on stake, set a flame, tortured. And indeed "overwhelming majority consensus" back then was that witches are real !

Also Germany had overwhelming majority consensus that indeed Jews are not even people and its mighty fine to just kill them.

What else?

Earth rotating around sun? BLASPHEMY.

Smoking hurts health? Such a BS. Smoking is almost healthy!

Birth control pills? Super-safe!

Just cause something is "backed up by science" and has "overwhelming majority consensus" doesnt mean its real or right. It just means only what it says. It can also easily be completely wrong, especially if you convince enough ppl to back your story with "science" and convince rest that its real (usually done by fear, terror, chaos and pointing in vague direction while quoting "scientists").

Today science can be bought. Its nothing new. In Soviet Union, they believed only in stats they falsified themselves. History is literally full of science backed bullshit.


Does it mean global warming isnt real?

No, its most likely real.

Does it mean mankind is responsible for it?

Not entirely but its very likely we accelerated its course and made it a lot worse.

Can we do something with it?

For sure, big nope. We done.

Basically there is a lot that could/can be done, but given human nature and how much is world divided, it wont happen. Just sadly not possible.

 

[claes]

You're trying really hard but no matter how you spin it you can't use a positive to justify a clearly erroneous method of reasoning, I think it's time you let go of this and admit that wasn't the smartest thing one could have said.

I wasn't trying at all, just a casual observation that "scientific consensus" is in fact "scientific consensus"

What @the54thvoid posted is in fact logically sound -- as you noted, your argument, if I'm reading correctly, doesn't even contest @the54thvoid's claim.

There are a lot of cases in history where there was overwhelming evidence and majority support for theories which were later proved to be wrong.

This is a guilt by association fallacy/ad hom. The "scientists" studying ether are not the scientists studying climate change.

In fact, a lot of people don't realize this but most theories to have ever existed were wrong/inaccurate for various reasons. Most research that is done in any field is largely irrelevant, inconsequential or plain wrong with few breakthroughs in between and wrong conclusions often propagate like wildfire. You know why ? Because people are more interested in gaining cred points from their peers rather than seeking the truth and the best way to do that is to adhere to the majority consensus.

Please read Thomas Kuhn. Yes, breakthroughs often break our conceptions of what is true, but not because of scientists scoring "cred points." Any serious scientist is a sceptic -- that's why their hypotheses, which aren't "true," are peer reviewed and tested before accepted as a legitimate hypothesis, which is to say that it is the best idea that research can verify to explain some phenomenon. Peer review is key in this, as Kuhn points out -- those scientists studying ether (and generations after) were looking for an explanation for the universe (Universal capital T Truth, like Hawking and Einstein searching for an equation to explain the whole universe), not localized phenomena that may or may not be reproducible universally (studying localized phenomena to develop explanations for the universe, small t truth).

What does this mean? When climate science says that the consensus is that human CO2 emissions have effected climate change it's not because they're trying to prove that the climate changes, but because all observations show that the humans have had an effect on a process of observed climate change.

What I am trying to say is that there is too much arrogance and confidence when talking about this subject and that can only have negative consequences.

This I totally agree with -- it's unfortunate that the language has become so partisan.

You guys like evidence, right ? Well there is evidence a lot of research in various fields can and has been wrong, that's all I am saying. Skepticism can be useful but the "I wont be open to any ideas until there is evidence for it" attitude can't, it's just an elaborate way of saying I cannot contribute to anything in any way.

When you say things like "humans aren't the only contributor to climate change" you are correct, and it is a nuance that is underappreciated in the discourse around climate change. That's good science -- the majority of evidence suggests that humans have an impact on climate change, but they are not the only contributor, we are in a warming cycle, a dozen other externalities, etc.

Still, the goal of a hypothesis is not to establish truth, which is why the consensus agrees with the premise that humans aren't the only contributor to climate change.

Good, because I never said anything about that. Just that humans are not responsible exclusively for it, the climate changes irrespective of what we do.

This is where it becomes problematic -- you are right, humans are not responsible exclusively for it, but all evidence suggests that the climate changes with respect to what we do...

Again, that doesn't mean that's the only causation, but it is in fact scientific consensus.

Here's a good read from a friend if you actually like logic:

Global warming isn’t natural, and here’s how we know

The cornerstone argument of climate change deniers is that our current warming is just a natural cycle, and this claim is usually accompanied by the statement, “the planet has warmed naturally befo…

thelogicofscience.com

Edit: Another good one:

The overwhelming consensus on climate change

The climate is changing, and we are the primary cause. These are simple facts that are supported by a vast body of evidence and agreed upon by virtually allcr experts. Nevertheless, many people con…

thelogicofscience.com

Edit 2: A previous version of this post gave the wrong user credit for @the54thvoid’s comment — my apologies!

 

[lexluthermiester]

It's the exact same principle for gun sales. People kill people. Guns are harmless until used. Oil doesn't cause increased atmospheric CO2. Burning it does.

And is a perfect statement. Guns do not kill people. They are inanimate objects that do nothing until used. You can not blame those guns or the makers of same for a problem people make. Guns are only a tool. Likewise, oil companies only provide a product for people to use. The people using said product are the cause of it's byproduct(pollution/CO2 emissions). People have a choice to use, or not to use, oil based products.

 

[claes]

Well, sure, but lying about what your own research shows about that use is a different question... It’s not like people are suing gun companies and Smith and Wesson’s defense is “well our research actually shows that our weapons are completely safe and play no role in harm to others.”

 

[Caring1]

And is a perfect statement. Guns do not kill people. They are inanimate objects that do nothing until used. You can not blame those guns or the makers of same for a problem people make. Guns are only a tool.

Yes it is reasonable to hold gun manufacturers liable for the product they make.
They are weapons designed to injure or kill, nobody can deny that fact, not even the people that make or sell them.
Not restricting the general population from being in charge of fire arms is ludicrous as the odds increase of shootings the more weapons are in the public's hands.