Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[Vya Domus]

Yeah, to confirm, nobody here's saying humans are the sole cause.

Except the guy I'm replying to, it seems he can't admit that the climate changes outside our intervention.

 

[qubit]

No. That was religion. The Earth was believed to be the centre of the Universe. It was heretical to say otherwise. Luckily for us, scientific thinking began to turn the dogma around.

Damn, beat me to it.

 

[claes]

You're forcing me to think you're either an elaborate troll or just really unintelligent.

Except the guy I'm replying to, it seems he can't admit that the climate changes outside our intervention.

Yeah, I think you’re confusing me with someone else, being dishonest because of a poor choice in language, or just an asshole lol. I never said that, and I haven’t been throwing around ad homs without knowing what they are (see that pun?), plus I’ve been pretty nice given how nasty you’ve been!

The climate changes without our intervention != Humans can't influence the climate. Humans can influence the climate, those two ideas are not mutually exclusive as shown by the data and take place simultaneously.

Temperatures changed as a function of time before we existed, so did CO2 by the way. The climate changes without our intervention, we can influence it, but it's gonna change regardless.

Right... Did you read my last post? I emphasized as much throughout — why do you think I wrote a paragraph about “global warming” being a misnomer?

I feel like I’ve been pretty clear that my only grievance with your arguments was your claim that the climate changes “irregardless” of human behavior.

Irregardless means without concern for prevailing circumstances, meaning “the climate changes without concern for the prevailing circumstances of humans,” implying that humans don’t have an “influence” (from the quoted post) on climate change. This claim is only partially true and incredibly misleading, and so I took argument with it.

Given that you are now saying that “(humans) can influence (climate change),” or the climate can change in regard of humans, it’s clear that we don’t have a disagreement and that you simply misspoke — kind of ironic given that your whole line seems to be something about consensus being misleading due to poor rhetoric! I’m still curious about what you’re talking about here if you’re game — I don’t actually understand. What “new ideas” do scientists need in order for “things to change” regarding climate change?

Anyway, after posting that the climate changes irregardless of humans and then making a bunch of vague posts about how scientists are full of themselves and need to be more skeptical of consensus, you might understand how one might assume that the statement was climate change denial and why you attracted so many negative responses. Glad to see you just misspoke!

 

[Vya Domus]

Irregardless means without concern for prevailing circumstances, meaning “the climate changes without concern for the prevailing circumstances of humans,” implying that humans don’t have an “influence” (from the quoted post) on climate change. This claim is only partially true and incredibly misleading, and so I took argument with it.

Given that you are now saying that “(humans) can influence (climate change),” or the climate can change in regard of humans, it’s clear that we don’t have a disagreement and that you simply misspoke — kind of ironic given that your whole line seems to be something about consensus being misleading due to poor rhetoric! I’m still curious about what you’re talking about here if you’re game — I don’t actually understand. What “new ideas” do scientists need in order for “things to change” regarding climate change?

So it turns out you just aren't that bright, it hurts seeing the sort of mental gymnastics you perform to come up with this stuff and twist every single word and idea that was said. That's a relief, being a troll is much worse.

Off to the ignore list you go, I read enough of your nonsense.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Only thing I can say is thank God people on this forum aren't actual researchers.

Speak for yourself. Some of us here are scientists..

You're forcing me to think you're either an elaborate troll or just really unintelligent.

LOL! Perhaps somewhere in the middle?

 

[Vya Domus]

Some of us here are scientists..

Somewhat of a disappointment.

 

[claes]

So it turns out you just aren't that bright, it hurts seeing the sort of mental gymnastics you perform to come up with this stuff and twist every single word and idea that was saidi. That's a relief, being a troll is much worse.

Off to the ignore list you go, I read enough of your nonsense.

Okay

you might understand how one might assume that the statement was climate change denial and why you attracted so many negative responses. Glad to see you just misspoke!

Honestly, I still feel like this is the bush @Vya Domus was beating around, and why they were so worried about “annoying” people here with their superior “reasoning” and healthy “skepticism,” inviting themselves out the door because this is a “place where only certain popular ideas are accepted and anything that deviates form that is rejected,” not wanting to “anger” an alleged mob that doesn’t have the “humility” and lack of “arrogance” needed to navigate such complex science, and then not having anything interesting to say about the problems of consensus or global warming anyway, being uninterested in addressing questions or criticisms when engaging in the “discussion” allegedly not allowed here, and seemingly unable to read... but maybe not!

The burden of proof is on them, but given this thread and a similar “skepticism” over in the Covid thread, I know where my money is!

Signed,
Fellow “I read and interpret things very carefully” lol who says that out loud

(all quotes belong to @Vya Domus, typos included)

 

[lexluthermiester]

Somewhat of a disappointment.

How so?

(Hush up Cletus....err....Claes)

 

[Vayra86]

Except the guy I'm replying to, it seems he can't admit that the climate changes outside our intervention.

The guy clearly explained everything in a very normal way just now, I'm not sure what haze is clouding your visions here tbf...

So it turns out you just aren't that bright, it hurts seeing the sort of mental gymnastics you perform to come up with this stuff and twist every single word and idea that was said. That's a relief, being a troll is much worse.

Off to the ignore list you go, I read enough of your nonsense.

Aren't you the one doing all those gymnastics here? First its not possible without any further explanation from your end, now you're saying we can influence it after all.

Didn't you both agree all along but are still keen to make it ignore-list material? The whole idea about combating climate change is reducing our influence on it. I believe this is a consensus. Simple. To what degree you can influence it, perhaps opinions differ. But there is an influence. We want to limit greenhouse gases, and yes, numerous other gases that are related or similar in effect, to dampen a rapidly climbing temperature. Nobody in the whole world is saying we're going to reduce the temperature or that we are somehow going to escape that graph you placed. We won't. But what we're doing now, is escaping that graph in the worst way: by adding a little bit more than the natural curve would.

So what ARE you really talking about, Vya, when you present that graph everybody knows that goes back to the ice ages? You're not really making any point whatsoever. Just trying to find ways to disagree.

Or, I'm missing it too and you'll have to explain it better.

 

[Vya Domus]

First its not possible without any further explanation from your end

When the hell did I say that ?

 

[lexluthermiester]

When the hell did I say that ?

You didn't. You're being baited. Don't play that game..

 

[Vya Domus]

I know, but I still can't quite believe everyone on here is either trolling or just playing dumb.

 

[Vayra86]

When the hell did I say that ?

Except the guy I'm replying to, it seems he can't admit that the climate changes outside our intervention.

Right here, and a few more times earlier on. I think what claes, and myself, and some others are saying, is that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

The scientific consensus about periodic temperature changes on a long term scale is just that. Nobody I think is contesting that fact - its pretty hard to deny ice ages and all that. The contest is about how much influence humans have on that curve. You've just admitted that there is some influence to be had. This is also what claes, I believe, is saying.

Its about what your starting position is, more so than the actual argument. The idea that we can't influence that curve 'enough' for anything to matter, is a nihilistic view, and if we place that in the perspective of the actual human output and effect on the Earth and its ecosystems - all of them not present in the same (long term) historical curve we all believe in - and the way this ramps up and correlates with shorter term temperature increases AND accompanying effects on ecosystems that cascade on, its very hard to deny what we're doing doesn't at least amount to something substantial.

In the end I think it all comes down to how much belief we feel we can place in human ingenuity to keep systems going and still not blow shit up.
Or, put differently: do you choose the path of least resistance and keep doing what you always did, or do you try your hardest to make a change to improve.

 

[Vya Domus]

Right here, and a few more times earlier on. I think what claes, and myself, and some others are saying, is that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Explain how exactly is what I said equivalent to "it's not possible for humans to influence the climate" because this isn't cutting it.

And in the meantime spare me the blocks of texts for now, I just want a clear example of where I denied the fact that humans can change the climate before I can go any further with this.

 

[Vayra86]

Explain how exactly is what I said equivalent to "it's not possible for humans to influence the climate" because this isn't cutting it.

And in the meantime spare me the blocks of texts for now, I just want a clear example of where I denied the fact that humans can change the climate before I can go any further with this.

What view ?


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.

The stance you're taking is an impossible one, you know that? I've read back a bit. You are challenging the current ideas about climate change, based on ideas that are outside of the consensus - whatever they are. Then you think you're speaking from some sort of elevated position that you're the critical thinker here because by denying the truth of the consensus, you're saying there is more to it. Fine! Then explain, the 'more', in your view, so we can talk about substance.

All you're doing now is defending an empty idea that something isn't exactly in line with the consensus. And everyone is left to guess what you're really thinking of.

And do you know what that is? That's exactly the same as the good old social media attention whore stance of 'Asking questions'... because in some way the sender's tiny mind can't grasp the answers. If you're not doing that, you need to provide substance. Otherwise its not science, its religion. Like a flat earther or an antivaxxer.

 

[Vya Domus]

I doubt you read anything of what I wrote or, if you did, you paid no attention to it because you're failing to accomplish my simple request. I'll keep asking, where did I say that humans can't change the climate. It's very simple, just point to it.

because by denying the truth of the consensus

What truth did I deny ? Man, this is so grand, here I am supposedly committing unspeakable crimes against the scientific community of climate change and you guys can't point to a single damn thing. Just that I am somehow wrong.

And just so we're on the same page, all of this began because I questioned the idea that majority consensus validates a theory. That's it, there should have been nothing outrageous about that but somehow I managed to trigger the lot of you.

 

[R-T-B]

The Earth was flat as believed by a majority concensus, science said so at the time.

And if you at the time believed the earth was a pickle, my advice to you would still be the same.

You are missing the point. The point is: If you aren't smarter than the sages of the time and don't have ACTUAL evidence to back that up, quit trying to challenge things. Most here don't qualify for that status. Likewise, 1000 years ago Mr. Numnut is better off believing the earth is flat than ranting about pickles all day without evidence.

Somewhat of a disappointment.

The only scientist I'm aware of here is @xkm1948, anyone else could be a clown claiming to be a scientist for all I know.
Hell he could be too, but he offered to turn me into a frog so I won't talk bad about him and his gene splicing thing.

 

[xrobwx71]

Incorrect. That is only a theory and not a very good one. That theory is based on the same principles that fail to explain why the Universe is expanding and accelerating.

I get the expansion but not the acceleration.

 

[R-T-B]

Incorrect. That is only a theory and not a very good one.

Best one we have right now to my knowledge by scientific consensus. SInce I am not qualified to know more, I defer to it. Doesn't mean it's right, but I won't claim to know more and try and overthrow it either. Cause I don't have time for that headache inducing shit, frankly. I got PCs to fix.

 

[Space Lynx]

Boy I am glad I stopped reading this thread, here I can help all of you.

Do what you can on your end to help the environment, and those that will refuse to believe or care about any of it will continue to do so, so ignore them and go enjoy your life.

I just made a 100 page long thread into one sentence. ez pz. time to game for me

 

[lexluthermiester]

I get the expansion but not the acceleration.

Allow me to explain. The Universe is currently expanding out in all directions from the estimated central point of the Big Bang. This expansion is accelerating, IE it is expanding out at an ever increasing rate of speed. General and Special Relativity strongly predict that the Universe should be decelerating and even collapsing back in on itself. This is however not what we are observing. Additionally, Relativity does not and can not explain the inner workings of a black hole. The math breaks down. But we know black holes exist, we have observed the presence & effects of them. Simply put, either relativity is correct and the Universe is misbehaving(BAD UNIVERSE, NAUGHTY UNIVERSE ) or Relativity is not correct. One has to ask ones self: Which is more likely given the history of how often the human race has been wrong about things?

Hope that helps you understand.

Best one we have right now to my knowledge by scientific consensus. SInce I am not qualified to know more, I defer to it.

Actually, it's not the best, it's just the most widely accepted. There is a theory currently being researched that shows a lot of promise which does fit observations.

Cause I don't have time for that headache inducing shit, frankly. I got PCs to fix.

Whereas I live this kind of thing.

 

[claes]

Explain how exactly is what I said equivalent to "it's not possible for humans to influence the climate" because this isn't cutting it.

And in the meantime spare me the blocks of texts for now, I just want a clear example of where I denied the fact that humans can change the climate before I can go any further with this.

Here you are @Vya Domus:

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.

I’ll spare you all of the text where I agreed with you that the discourse is imprecise and problematic precisely because climate change has been happening forever... Here’s where I disagreed with your use of the word “irrespective” in the context of language being imprecise:

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.
...
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.

I point out that the word irrespective is misleading because that’s what we’re talking about — using precise language:

You have to be exact and paint a picture as close to the truth as possible because if you're not people will, rightfully so, assume you have some sort of malicious intent for not doing so.

At this point you just started insulting me; I tried to responded generously:

I appreciate your condescension (how thoughtful!), but I think you need to reread. Aside from all of the non-copy-pasted, patent pending Claes thoughts I offered, I actually pointed out that you weren’t arguing against climate change in my previous post in order to help you get out of the weeds. I was trying to steelman your strawman so others didn’t misrepresent your claim, and generally agreed with you...

My criticism is directed to your other claim, that “the climate changes irregardless of humans.” That’s the only real disagreement I have with you, and you aren’t defending that claim/haven’t responded to my counter-claims, so as far as I can tell I’m just a generous participant in this discourse!

I mean this earnestly — please consider reading those two articles! They’ll help sharpen your argument and maybe help clarify what exactly you mean when you dismiss scientists as having “no desire to pursue new ideas because consensus on climate change” while you simultaneously argue that those ideas they need to shift away from are true. Plus I taught the author logic while they were getting their masters so in a way you’ll be doing me a favor (especially if you think they’re wrong!).

You post a chart showing that the climate changes as a response, I say:

Sorry, I don’t understand — what’s your argument?

If you’re arguing that the climate changes, I agree.

If you’re arguing that we’re at a warming peak, I agree.

This is exactly why scientists reached a consensus that “global warming” wasn’t a helpful way to talk about climate change and engaged in an effort to shift discourse away from that language. It might be accurate to say that humans are contributing to the current warming, but they also contribute to the eventual cooling, as both are processes of climate change. It’s not about whether the earth is getting hotter or colder, it’s about how CO2 emissions are effecting those shifts.

If you’re arguing that human CO2 emissions don’t effect the climate, I disagree, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the scientific consensus is inaccurate in some way. That graph doesn’t warrant that claim, it just shows that we’ve been in an unusually long and erratic warming period, and correlation being what it is, one might infer that (fill in the blank)...

What new ideas do you think you are needed?

At this point I can’t help you — you’re either unwilling to admit that your language was imprecise or you don’t believe in science :shrug:

How so?

(Hush up Cletus....err....Claes)

Oh, lex — don’t you realize that Vya is making fun of you? Better shine those boots!

(damn you are a physicist, a legal scholar, a trained killing machine, worked in a court for a decade, a vigilante in your spare time, *and* you own a PC repair shop? Where do you find the time?)

 

[Vya Domus]

General and Special Relativity strongly predict that the Universe should be decelerating and even collapsing back in on itself.

Actually GR can model a universe that is accelerating, ironically, Einstein himself hated that when he added the cosmological constant because he was looking to make the universe static.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Now if there were only a way to remove CO2 from the air that could be run off of personal exercise equipment during a persons workout.

 

[Hachi_Roku256563]

I will say that in the op you said ice age was due
its actually like overdue
from what i understand