Normally I like to avoid the hot topics, but I got triggered by Greta. It really was more about the debate than the messenger though.
The Science Is Settled!
(I wasn't aware that science gets settled)
My question is this... Why should I care what a sobbing 16 year old with no special qualifications has to say about Climate Change?
Whenever I ask why someone will always answer with the word Science.
They never mention any Science though, just the word. "Science".
For the benefit of the argument let's say that there is Scientific Consensus that humans are impacting the climate. Does that mean that whatever legislation they are trying to pass in the name of fixing it has been studied? Is there consensus on that? (The answer is no)
While there maybe a lot of agreement that we have some impact, there is very little agreement on how much and what the solutions might be.
However since I am not an expert on the Climate Change Science and you all are, here are my questions.
- What are a few of your favorite studies on Climate Change?
- Were there any weaknesses in your opinion on the study?
- Who funded the study?
- Who peer reviewed it?
- Where was it published?
If you don't know the answer to any of the questions above should you be screaming about Science?
What is the source of your opinion?
I totally think we should treat the planet better, but no I don't take your crying spokes child seriously.
I don't take the campaign of the Science is Settled seriously, in fact I do want to talk about it and understand.
You will notice in my post I have not once attacked the idea that humans might be impacting Climate Change, but watch in the comments...
I am not saying the media handed lines about the topic and it is likely to trigger both sides. I am supposed to say it is all a lie or that it is all totally true, and no one knows how to deal with an question that doesn't fit into one of those situations.
Climate Change is a political topic not a Earth topic. I do care about our planet and I do want to know what we can do to clean it up. I just don't buy into the way we are having the discussion and who is fueling it.
Let's change the conversation.
serious climate change studies are those studies written by climate science scientists about climate change.
97% of the studies that check those boxes find that there is human caused climate change.
everything else is crap.
here you can find a list of that crap with the explanation why it is crap:
https://skepticalscience.com/
and Greta knows probably more than 99% of all those people who are giving their 5 cents on TV or on social networks...
so my 5 cents: people should stop bullying her for trying to save our world.
and here is a nice little story about why and how we fucked up:
https://steemit.com/nature/@solarwarrior/losing-earth-the-decade-we-almost-stopped-climate-change
have a great day
You too. lol, did you test her and the others on that 99% thing you said. That doesn't seem very scientific at all.
what are you talking about?
I actually read und study those studies, books and IPCC reports for more than a decade now.. so probably I know a bit about what's written in there..
but I never would say I can contribute something from a science standpoint.. I leave that to the scientists..
and Greta just voices what the climate scientists are actually demanding.
Check it.. you are clever and have internet access...
having not done that and still attacking Greta like that doesn't look good in my eyes...
Oh, I've read the propaganda on both sides.
I also survived the Ozone Layer Scare which was caused by my hairspray.
I don't think it looks good to bring a child to a political event and have her scream and glare. Nor is it compelling.
sorry.. I really do not know what I should reply to that..
I beg you to read at the two links I posted or at least whats written on wikipedia.. also about the Ozon whole...
Don't waste your time... Anti-climate change is the same as flat-earthers and anti vaxxer.
No matter how perfect the proof is, if it doesn't fit their narrative they say its a lie, fabricated, propaganda, etc etc...
Posted using Partiko Android
Except I didn't say any of those things and Solar is actually providing information.
You are the one who is just repeating the MSM lines in a thoughtless manner.
Lol.Hahaha😂😂😂
Posted using Partiko Android
I will read them.
Thank you!
I was reading an article about her the other day. A person with the form of Aspergers she has tends to fixate on a topic and will dig into it in an all consuming manner. She has studied the topic in depth which is why she's able to speak knowledgeably.
If you want to really understand climate change I invite you to check out the videos of potholer: https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/videos
He is actually a journalist which makes these videos in his free time, he bases all his videos on scientific facts and cites all used articles in the description.
(You can find a vast number of videos of his debunking the pseudo science of anyone which does not believe in man made climate change, until now, there was no one which could prove him wrong, and he was able to debunk all arguments of anyone trying to debunk him)
One of the things I like about his videos is that he does all these videos completely free of polemic and exaggerations. He bases all them on the scientific evidence and criticizes both sides of the political debate.
Short TL;DR:
I disagree that climate change is political. The first people talking about climate change were conservatives all over the world. The same people which now deny it ever existed because it would cost them some money during their livetime.
Thanks for a calm rational suggestion. I appreciate it.
Does potholer consider the theories of the electric universe proponents?
Remember a fellow named President Nixon? Although a late supporter of the conservation movement; in 1970 he formed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It may have been for political reasons, or maybe just concern. Not a mind reader so I don't know. Never met the man.
Even earlier there was a fellow, President Theodore Roosevelt, who was a lifelong conservationist, according to the history we have written of his life.
For those that are concerned about the political overtones of the climate change conversation, both the Presidents mentioned above were members of the Republican Party. Given, the Republican Party line was much different during the Administrations of these two Presidents.
In the past the conservatives were all over the world concerned about the environment. This changes more recently when conservatives became neo-liberalists.
Thank you for adding to my vocabulary, I will now go and check out a number of dictionaries and encyclopedia to see if their is consensus as to the proper definition of neo-liberalist.
It is so difficult now-a-days to give a thoughtful, politically correct, non-ambiguous, reply. So I will just say, thank you for replying.
Funny thing is, pollution is often characterized as a "free market failure" but the reality is, in a truly free market there is no tragedy of the commons. In a free market, someone's private property rights were violated by pollution of someone else, and there would be market pressure to address it.
I think we could make great strides in protecting the planet if there was some moral method of enforcing private property rights. If my neighbor is burning his trash and it messes up the air quality for me, it's understandable for me to complain. I'd probably win in some kind of adjudicational venue.
I don't even think I'd need too much science to win. "What my neighbor is doing smells really bad." Enter that as evidence. Case closed.
But this notion isn't very scalable under the current system. Meaning, if my neighborhood attempts to complain about a nearby factory, just doing the same thing as the previous example, there's a lot more of a process that protects the factory.
Then try to scale that up even further to regions and continents, it's just impossible, even with all the scientific evidence in the world.
In attempting to address this, government institutions call this process "tort reform" and "privatization". I'm not convinced they actually want to reform or privatize anything. That's why I'd be keen on a decentralized analogs to tort reform and privatization. But looking at the current state of crypto, that's still 200 years away.
Therefore, the moral way to fix the environment is centuries away, regardless of any scientific assertions.
you are bang on with your description...
if a production factor is not priced correct or not priced at all, capitalism does not work
It all has to do w/ money. Politicians want to squeeze every last cent of every human being. I look at the people in congress do they look like they care about Climate change? lol ...
Some look like they've been hogging out at the trough of McDonalds.
I just want to see if one of these outraged people can actually speak intelligently to a study that they have studied. :)
That would be nice. Maybe they're signing up right now!!
you understand that no one ever invites scientists to speak to the UN.
there are too many people who make too much money on Oil and Gas, to ever listen to Climate Scientists.
As a result, it's easy to invite Great, and then, pick on her for speaking to the issue.
I'm just saying, I raised 5 kids, 4 girls. Good kids too, kids who received scholarships in both athletics and academics.
I know a spoiled teen having a fit when I see one. :) Her sad lost childhood is not compelling to me. I think it was divisive.
It did however start a conversation. Just not about the topic. I did however over react, I was triggered by using a 16 teen year old dressed as a 12 year old trying to give people a lecture. If some found it moving in some way... that's nice.
So, here you have it. I over reacted and I should have just done what I do with most political topics and ignored it.
I am very interested in treating Earth in a more respectable manner and I am really concerned about our rivers, lakes and oceans. So, I will just focus on those topics and leave the hysterical crying to teen girls. :)
In the 1700s Thomas Malthus nailed the problem by mentioning overpopulation. Things have only gotten worse and it is now off the agenda for political reasons. Hollywood just introduced usball to Thanos who did something insane to deal with the problem.
It doesn't matter how small our carbon foot print is, if we keep expanding the global population we are done.
I could site the census I guess, but I don't really hear anyone arguing more and nore and more people will solve the problem (well the more people the mpre climate scientists I guess).
The problem is not overpopulation. The biggest part of the pollution on our planet comes from countries with relatively low population grow rates for a long time (Europe and North america).
China and India which pollute a lot mostly do this to produce products which go to these countries as well. And even China and India are not growing as rapidly anymore.
Yes population growth is slowing down. However, it is not happening fast enough.
Do you think the current population and population projections aren't adding to the stress?
Pretty much everyone in the world desires to live by US and European standards hence global migration patterns.
Restrictions against migration and global resource distribution are the only reasons matters aren't already worse.
The chinese and indians dont pollute less and impoet our pollution to export us stuff because they want to. Believe me they want to consume just as much as we do. And they have every right.
So, we have to be the first to show them how great it is to consume decent amounts.
It's not like obesity is a good thing after all.
Population is gonna top out around 9-10 billions anyway, where most additional is just due to the extended live expectancy.
All of us in the north will have to learn how to live with less.
All this plastic stuff, changing phones every year, cars every 5 years. Our economy is based on an ever-growing model.
A German scientist once said it will. There is only one thing that grows consistently in high rates in nature, cancer.
And like I said, this doesn't even have to impact our quality of life, we exchange waste products for reusables, we recycle more, we build products with a longer lifespan, etc.
You mean going back to the days when things like cars 🚘 were built to last not fall apart like the new ones.
Posted using Partiko iOS
The moment our society makes it more "acceptable" to stay with a car for a couple of decades, we can afford a car which is made out of more valuable materials which then will not fall apart like the new ones, yes.
I don't think they will just follow our lead.
We definitely should continue research and strive to waste less. It's just some of the ideas aren't for everyone and environmentalists need to come to terms with this. Meat is a good example.
Population will solve itself. However so will carbon. It's the effects of the cycle I'm concerned about. Humans are fully responsible for human population. This isn't the case for ghg or carbon.
One thing I heavily support is nuclear technology. However it was the environmentalists who said no. Fossils kill many more people a year than nuclear. Deaths from fukushima are 0 (we are uncertain 9f canver but it is also much lower than cancer from fossils), but its all we hear about. Then we get people offering unrealistic solutions like solar and wind. If research into nuclear wasn't thwarted who knows where we would be at?
So, I agree that leaving Nuclear behind was a bit rushed and resulted in a higher usage of fossils, if that had been planned better the result would be much more sustainable too.
But I disagree that they will follow our lead, the entire world follows the lead what the European and northern american cultures dictate them. Starting with music, clothes, lifestyle, etc.
Hey have you seen this?
It's AMAZING. Not sure if it is "fast enough", but it really is interesting and well presented.
I will take a look at this video later. I think I may have seen it.
I thought it looked familiar and I've seen this video, but it has been a couple of years. I'm quite familiar with this topic.
His development theory is correct (for the most part) and just a branch of modernization theory which has been studied and applied since the early 1960s and has its roots in the ideas of Max Weber.
However there are a few problems:
Don't forget those who need to act as if we have huge problems so they can sell us expensive solutions.
Malthusian theory has been shown to lack a basic understanding of economics and demographics. For example, "Human populations, once they reach a certain size and complexity, always develop specialized orders, of priests, doctors, soldiers. To the members of these orders sexual abstinence, either permanent or periodic, or in "business hours" (so to speak), is typically prescribed. Here, then, is [a] fact about our species which is contrary to what one would expect on the principle that population always increases when, and as fast as, the amount of food available permits." (David Stove)
Malthus also failed to take innovation into account; he was applying current agricultural methods against future populations. "Any numbskull can find statistics to show that if the resource base stays the same and population increases then all hell will break loose. This is the Malthusian mirage." (Ben Marks) With population increase you also have an increase in production. Increased production increases wealth (that includes food) and efficiency (that includes carrying capacity or storage space).
Population increases solve themselves via increased production; in fact, a decreasing birth rate often concerns communities and societies because that means a decrease in production, as well.
There is some CLEAR CONSENSUS on Climate change. 97% of Climate Scientists agree.
There is some clear consensus on the cause... INCREASED CO2.
AND, humans are now the major cause of increased CO2 in the past Century.
As well, the big issue facing us going forward:
40% of the world's population lives within 100KM of the coast. MOST of the WORLD's goods are moved at some point via oceans.
It's going to impact the world economy. Right now, it hits Miami, LA, and NYC monthly. Within the next few decades, the oceans will rise enough that major populations will have to MOVE.
So, my question is, why deny what is agreed upon by the world's scientists?
AND, why get upset when someone like Great calls out the heavily funded Deniers?
Deniers are funded by Major Oil and Gas Corporations and Investors.
How many scientists are there.. (I just stole that line)
Sounds like we are in for a wet ride.
Greta is a child, she isn't even educated yet. It's hilarious.Not sad, not guilt provoking, not thought provoking.
Also, if there is agreement and yes, I think there is some... is there agreement on the solution?
:)
The consensus on Cause is settled.
That's the neat thing about fact... you don't have to agree with it, for it to be true. - I stole that line!
Tens of thousands of scientists
Dozens of Countries
Dozens of major scientific organizations
The consensus on the cause is settled.
The range of solutions are from, it's too late, to stop using oil, to cut back, to switch to solar, nuclear, wind, and hydro.
Is there consensus on a solution?> not as long as Big Oil and Gas money keeps pouring in to US Policy.
The irony is, China,m which used to be the biggest stumbling block, is on board. The US, which was a leader, and a global architect of Solar Power, is now out of the top 10 producers, and manufacturers. We lost the lead, and now, we're buying Chinese made product, since the man in office has slapped huge taxes on US companies making solar AND cut taxes on Oil and Gas.
As for Greta's age? Doesn't matter. The message is right on.
We're ignoring the future.
I see it personally in the shore lines, marshes and fields where I shoot my photos.
I see the migrating species patterns changed, because of how the warming of oceans has affected marine life. Same with how the climate has changed the patterns of the birds, and plants.
A non-scientific emotional temper tantrum is right?
lol.. How dare you Bluefin! How dare you.
Totally kidding, I got over it. I'm not voting for any carbon tax deals until there is some science to support it
And that's a fact. :) (no tone here)
Peer-reviewed climatologists were correct right up until Koch Industries cut me a nice fat check.
I'm confused by this answer.
It’s not as if there’s a real debate about manmade global warming. One side has peer-reviewed science, the other has money and pseudoscience. Koch Industries has been funding denialist groups for decades.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Denialists wrap themselves in pseudoscience, and their latest shtick is to deny warming altogether and instead claim that we’re headed for an ice age because of an upcoming “Grand Solar Minimum”, but they never seem to explain why the Little Ice Age started before the Maunder Minimum.
Care or don’t, your choice. But why would Greta’s youth be any kind of a disqualifier? She was invited to speak at the United Nations, with or without special qualifications. Lots of people wanted to hear what she had to say. Many senior government officials showed up to listen, some didn’t. Trump for instance went to a “religious freedom” conference instead and pretended he cared about religious freedom, fresh from kissing Saudi keister.
Really??? It sure seems to me that it’s very much both of those.
There obviously is real debate. Just watch the topic anywhere.
The denialists say the same about the "warmers"
It's not just her youth, it's her lack of education or real information and basically just emotional vomit.
I think maybe we should consider relocating or renovating some of our coastal cities to handle the changes.
Morons and liars say lots of things. Doesn’t mean we should give them any credence.
My favourite climate study is the one by Exxon in the 70s that convinced them they had to spread confusion and misinformation about the topic to preserve their business model. It is an 'inconvenient truth' for believers in endless growth on a finite planet. Most of the voices declaring it is a fraud or non-issue seem to have a financial motive. The stalling they have achieved has made it ever harder to counter the effects of business as usual.
A lot of the actions we need to take will be unpopular and most politicians lack the courage to attempt them, but the public mood is changing.
Greta is an icon, but maybe we need a child to guilt politicians into action after they have ignored their own scientific advisors. The Trump efforts to erase any mention of climate change from government literature made their motives clear.
I don't think guilt is going to do the trick. I think it just looked ridiculous.
My usual repsect for you as you were able to read the post and respond to what I said and not just repeat the MSM lines.
Cheers.
I think it is a bit unfair that all the attention is on her, but she has become a figurehead. People say she is being paid, but do they have proof. I did see she won a 'peace prize'. I would expect she is not that interested in the money, but it's up to her what she does with it. We have seen that money does not always solve problems.
When I see people mention 'MSM' I tend to think they have bought into a certain mindset that 'dark forces' encourage. There are parts of the established media that I trust more than others. I am less like to trust a random vlogger or blogger. Just being on the internet does not necessarily make you credible. That goes for me too :)
Our news has become so tangled in politics and corporate money that it is unreliable at this point and there are very few standards of Journalism left, but there are agendas.
I agree that being a blogger does not make you creditable, (or me).. However, you can watch the same "News" here on two different channels and barely recognize the story due to the spin.
That is not dark forces that is just simply the fact that if you follow the ownership of the main media you can clearly find out who owns our "For Profit" news. That's not light and dark that is just money and news and ratings.
It's just business. :)
I do not think you can generalise about journalists. In many places in the world they risk prison or worse for reporting what is going on. Be grateful if you media is actually free to write what they like. Of course money is involved, but so is reputation. If you are caught out lying all the time you lose trust. Meanwhile we have a news source that is known for lying being the main source of news and general info for the most powerful man in the world whilst he condemns others as 'fake news'. Journalists in the USA have been killed at their desks by people influenced by him. You have to consider who has the most to lose from the truth getting out.
Both sides of our mainstream news is ruled by money and power. One can not deny that.
I watch both sides and believe the truth is in the middle. You can't look at the money on one side without looking at it on the other.
When people in the US say MSM we are just acknowledging that most of our media is owned by a small number of people, you could liken it to the whales on Steem.
Are there only two sides? There's a lot more money in oil and other vested interests. In the end it's all imperfect people with their own bias, but you can make some judgement on what that is.
So, quick question: who would benefit from the narrative that there is no climate change?
Us, poor mortals that have small influence on the grand scheme of things, or the multibilionaires industries that are the main catalyst of these environmental changes?
Also, do you know how the scientific method works? (Not sarcastic or agressive question. Just curious)
I did not ever suggest there is no climate change. Nor did I suggest that it isn't man made. You can't break out of the narrative you've been handed long enough to read or engage.
It's not a "narrative" it's scientific studies led by real scientists using the scientific method.
I am not a climate scientist, but I know how science works.
If there is some conspiracy I would bet all my money on the industries conglomerates wanting to create doubts about about climate changes to keep on doing their cheap and highly pollution production methods to keep their profits high.
Posted using Partiko Android
I have no idea who you are talking to... You are just screaming your lines.
I see that you have them so well memorized that you can not engage in the conversation that is happening here.
Yeah whatever...
Like I said, there is no point "engaging" a discussion with the new conspiracy theorists.
It's just a waste of time.
Posted using Partiko Android
I couldn’t disagree more that climate change is political. You have climate deniers leading both America and Australia and yet the public is calling out for change given that so many of us recognise the urgent need for change.
And as a scientist, I can see very clearly that the science does indeed stack up.
I don’t feel the need to quote studies or authors. Very simply, it’s illogical to think that digging up and pumping millions of tonnes of ancient carbon into the atmosphere while clearing more than 50% of our planets remnant vegetation won’t have some type of impact on our climate.
And people claiming that we should take a “do nothing” approach are the most dangerous people in power right now.
Posted using Partiko iOS
No need to worry too much, as long as we send more money it'll all work out.
#carbontax
I walked out of my nice warm living room this morning and went outside. Outside was fken freezing cold. So yeah, climate change is real, felt it myself. :)
Another case of Simpsons did it
.
It is funny because it is true! The Simpsons, the 20th and 21st Centuries' Nostradamus, and we don't have to wait hundreds of years for the predictions to come true!
I know right! Some are a little disturbing tbh.
Too bad the creator went woke. Hate when that happens to an otherwise good show. 😞
Case closed. If Simpsons predicted it, it means it's true.
well lets see till Al Gore decided the world was coming to and end we were going into a mini ice age but then he decided we were going to melt everything and anyone who disagreed with him was either fired and brow beaten into saying global warming. What the truth is that the climate does change all the time, humans add to it yes, are they the only cause NO. After the last ice age which North America was covered in ice fields. You have to remember Al Gore said we would be flooded out by the year 2000 from rising seas hmmm now the alarms are for the next 10 to 12 years. Science is not 100% of anything and when they say it is a decided issue run in the other direction as they do not know what they are talking about. Its like this straw business replacing plastic straws that can be recycled with paper ones with a special coating that cannot be recycled. Real smart for the dummies.
While I think there is some compelling data, I also think the conclusions are not anywhere near as clear.
Cool. I shared a video from this guy on @drakos post as well concerning this topic of climate change. This is my favorite climate change study/commentary. The video I shared is very non-partisan and not filled with a great load of academic speak or political overtones. It presents facts.
I have read a great many of the comments and information shared. Some are very thoughtful comments and I have learned a great deal. Some comments have been just mean and insulting, contributing very little to the conversation; I guess due to frustration and preconceived notions.
The climate is changing and has been changing for billions, millions, thousands and hundreds of years. I have seen the climate change in my short time on earth as has everyone else. The bottom line is, weather patterns have been changing, period.
The whole CO2 (carbon dioxide) thing, which many commentators kept posting about on @drakos post? Most of us get it, as does any 11 year old child that has been paying attention in science class.
CO2 is good for plant growth. It is an essential ingredient in the process of photosynthesis (how organisms, like plants and algae, make food for themselves using sunlight and H20 [water]). Then these organisms fart oxygen (O). Thank you plants and algae for flatulating, we appreciate it!
Now CO (carbon monoxide)? Not good. Don't believe me? Put a car in a confined space and run the engine with the windows down for a couple of hours and let me know how that works out for you. I remember smog (smoke and fog), which was still a problem back in the early '80s, when I was stationed in California with the military. I also experienced a type of smog when I served in the Middle East during the Persian Gulf War as the oil fields were set on fire. Part of my lung is calcified. This is a common malady experienced by a number of Persian Gulf Veterans. No worries, it is not serious the VA tells me.
Long before modern medicine, there were terrible diseases that killed children. Polio, scarlet fever, black plague, malaria, measles, small pox, etc. Due to medical (scientific) intervention, these diseases have been fought with a great deal of success. Should we not look to preserve human life the same way with the changes in the climate? As the fellow who hosts Answers with Joe summarizes in the video I shared,
I, for one, am not going to help that process speed along.
Greta is a great actor haha... she should get some solid acting roles after this 😳😂
Posted using Partiko iOS
Exactly, "I should be in school, across the oceans" 🤣🤣🤣 sounds like Wizard of OZ.... Science is never set, never... All these paid actors and especially these paid Scientists, um still waiting on that global freeze....
Posted using Partiko Android
Where is alex Jones when we need him 😂
Posted using Partiko iOS
Right... 🤣🤣🤣
Posted using Partiko Android
She is even listed of IMBd as a child actress.
Illuminati shill? Jk 😂
Posted using Partiko iOS
I can't figure out for the life of me who thought that was a good idea.
Bitcoin hash rate mysteriously dropped 40% after Greta's appearance in the UN? Then, it's followed by massive sell off. Coincidence? I think not!
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-network-hash-rate-mysteriously-flash-crashes-by-40
All of you should be outraged. Science or not. She just made you all poorer.
/s
Who funded the study? A most pertinent question. As Eisenhower warned, when the state monopolises the support of science, the state calls the shots.
There are 2 Irish scientists doing some interesting, self-funded work
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/
Martin Armstrong (and his Socrates computer) is also an interesting, and I'd say unbiased, source of information both on the science itself and the likely effects of the climate change agenda on society and the world economy.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/tag/climate-change/
Martin Armstrong... LOL!! seriously?
Yes, seriously. I've been reading Martin's blog for years and find his forecasts amazingly accurate.
yeah... me, too.. I watch also his movie and met him in person.. what was his last prediction? total economic crash 4 years ago?world war 3? I might have missed something..
he might be an economist... that gives him credibility in economics.. but I was not aware that he is a climate scientist or wrote peer reviewed papers about climate change..
pi pi everywhere!
That has not been my experience. Over the years I have seen him correctly forecast anything from elections to earthquakes.
Are we not in the midst of an economic collapse? Are the world's governments not broke and engaged in an insane hunt for taxes? Don't we have negative interest rates, something never seen before, and pension funds turning to dust?
while I certainly agree with some of your observations I have to say also, that nothing Armstrong predicted is visible to me yet, especially not in regards to timing, and everyone betting on the financial markets using his predictions is probably broke by now...
No me m'dear, not me!
I think the fossil fuel lobby and countries depending on fossil fuel would have had enough money to invest into this research to prove the world otherwise. But, unfortunately, they couldn't.
I think you'll find that the majority of countries are dependent on fossil fuels and renewables don't even come close to providing sufficient energy. Good luck to all of us when the power grids start shutting down.
I don't believe that there is anything like the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming that we're led to believe. The research you refer to already exists but is discounted as it doesn't fit the narrative.
87.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot! o.0
Here is my guy.
He seems to know what he is talking about.
What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change - Funded by Google and published by IEEE. No idea who peer reviewed it.
The main weakness I see is that they hand-waved away their main conclusion with some vague talk about disruptive innovation.
Bottom line: There's no way to reverse climate change with existing or foreseeable technology. So it really doesn't matter if it's man made or natural. We should follow Google's example and stop wasting money on it. Let's all just start getting along with each other again and focus on global prosperity so that we can adapt to whatever changes come our way.
Unfortunately, most of the public debate is of a political and pseudo-religious nature, so the science doesn't really matter. Virtually no one will be persuaded - either way - by scientific arguments.
Well, we started a discussion.
Translation... The shit storm of a fight broke out. :)
lol. Guess that's why mom always told me not to talk about politics or religion. ; -)
No one is talking about reversing climate change. Scientists are talking about limiting climate change to a certain degree to make it decently livable for our future offsprings on this planets.
For short term thinkers, we should really not spend money on this and let the future generations solve this. I think we should've done this always during the history of mankind. Like, when we had acid rain, what's the problem, they shouldn't have cared about it.
Long term thinkers have the humility to realize that they cannot know all the different problems that will be faced by future generations, and that money that's wasted on one problem can't be used to solve another. So the long term thinkers don't waste resources trying to solve an unsolvable problem. Instead, they try to create as many resources as possible, and position those resources for flexibility so that future generations can solve any of the potential problems that they might encounter, one of which might include adapting to a changing climate (with or without man's influence).
Is it an unsolvable problem reducing emissions? Reducing garbage culture? I don't think so. Switching to renewable energies is something which on the mid term already brings positive financial returns. Switching cars, planes and ships to Hydrogen based fuel or similar engines also doesn't require such big investments to make it have a positive return on the long term.
There is no money wasted on this.
Money is wasted on a new phone each year, on a new car every 5 years and money is wasted if anyone thinks that we have infinite economic growth.
Actually, the authors of the paper I cited were talking about reversing climate change. And they shut down their program when they realized it was impossible.
I meant in terms of the overall public, people don't want to reverse it at the moment, people want to limit it.
Here is a funny argument pointing to the idea that "smart money" doesn't believe in sea levels rising up. If banks thought coastlines would drowned in the short or medium term, they wouldn't be massively investing in beach condos.
(voice is Dan Pena; video is South Park)
Posted using Partiko Android
Great point. Except for one thing: Remember how banks are too big to fail? If climate change is the existential threat as described and they lose $1 Trillion by ignoring the threat, they know they will get bailed out. There's no reason to consider it. That's text-book malinvestment.
Besides that, there is plenty of money to earn from these investments until its too late to sell them. So on the short term its definitely worth it.
Good point. I hadn't tought about banks maybe being too big to sink yet again.
Posted using Partiko Android
the tags 🤣
Fuck Greta. We have 30 to 50 cm snowfall forecast for Sunday here in Alberta.
These Climate Urgency Summit/March organizers have a bad sense of timing. Not a very good idea trying to convince us there is warming going on when Canada enters cold seasons. Lol
I have a feeling we'll have as much a harsh winter as we had last year.
Get your snowblower ready, my friend. Summer is over.
Hey Fellow Southern Albertans! @oldtimer @heroic15397 Nice to cross your paths! Hopefully it chinooks early next week so the snow does not last too long. Not at all ready for winter in September! but, we have had snow storms in Early Oct for the past two years if i remember correctly.
Where do you live if we're southern Albertans?
North pole?
LOL i am in southern AB, east of Cowgary. But looks like south is getting more white stuff than we are!
Actually that's something which is also expected, climate change causes a warmer climate and not necessarily warmer weather (climate != weather).
Warmer earth temperatures lead to a more unstable climate and thus cause more extreme weather events.
I know that, but that's going on all the time regardless of the human race and please don't say we causing climate changes. We have zero impact. Zero.
Do you really think that these enormous quantities of fossil fuels we're burning which the earth incorporated for millions of years, the enormous quantities of forest we're cutting and burning down, also releasing tons and tons of Co2. Do you really think that has no impact on our climate?
There is natural climate change, mostly caused by either sun cycles (which usually come with a lagging co2 cycle too) and there are extreme events like super Vulcanos etc which in the past caused some extreme changes in the earths atmosphere causing a drastic change in climate too.
This time, us, human beings, burning enormous quantities of fossil fuels for decades are part of it. We have a slightly decreasing sun activity but an increasing earth temperature.
I mean, the path of destruction we leave on this planet is so enormous, someone must be really ignorant to believe that this has no impact on our planet and climate at all.
How many people in this forum know about AND can explain the existence of meltwater pulses 1A (14700 years before present (yBP)- 13500 yBP), 1B (11600 yBP - 11300 yBP), 1C (8200 yBP-7600 yBP)? Just to give you a hint, there was no industrial human activity in those days and the population of humans was about 1 million.
"How dare you make a meme"
and
"I got triggered by Greta"
Has me rolling.....Thanks for making me laugh and spit out my coffee lol
I got triggered pretty hard by Greta.
But, even if the "science" is true. Why the hell would I listen to a 16 yr. old on anything ??
Well... If you don't know if the "science" is true you don't know how science works.
So, yeah... You should listen to that 16 year old.
Posted using Partiko Android
Basically, no. She doesn't know anything just like most climate change "experts".
For the record "climate change" is a hoax.
So, are you an expert?
Then you know more than the thousands of scientists, that did real studies with real data, and published scientific papers describing their methods of study, how they acquired the data, how they processed the data, what is the margin of error of the data, their conclusions on the data, allowing anyone who wants to make the same study and will probably reach the similar conclusion?
You are an amazing guy then...
Posted using Partiko Android
You realize 1,000 scientists thought the earth was flat too there is nothing that matters but the scientific data not the # of people who have fallen for this scam.
I am an amazing guy thank you.
So, you just proved my point?
Posted using Partiko Android
you had a point?
oh, 1,000 scientist with bad data that point
?
@steemitqa. Do you live in a tropical country?🤔
No.
Clap for yourself.😌🙄🙄🙄
Posted using Partiko Android
?
So. I'm a somewhat conservative hipster.
Yes. Climate change is real and sucks.
I work at a coffee shop. I look like one of those whiney people who brings up these topics in conversation where it doesn't belong. Because I'm the cute barista in the flannel, they seem to think I harbor notions similar to them. It is saddening how intellectual diversity is discouraged.
Here's an example:
A customer and I were talking about how we're both artists. And she was saying she practices many art forms and that she feels obligated to pick one art form to stick with.
And I brought up Leonardo DaVinci, who engaged in dozens of different categories of artistry activities
She said
Well. He wasn't dealing with climate change.
.-. which suggests that because the Earth is aging and it's hot outside, that she is somehow put upon as a woman and artist.
Mr. DaVinci lived in a time where he was prosecuted for being gay..but at least it was nice outside.
The fuck.
The victimhood in our society is absurd. Some child crying solves nothing and in no way makes a point any more valid or important.
Just my two cents. C:
Heres she is! A pic with her Grandpa George Sorros, who organizes world wide cabal rallies. Ohh I think orange is the new black. Gitmobound!!
Posted using Partiko Android
The force is (Maurice) Strong with this one.
Posted using Partiko Android
I guess it depends what side you are on whether or hate Koch or Sorros.
They both seem creepy as hell to me.
Which one is fake? Both? (I guess)
Posted using Partiko Android
I would guess both also
For me, it's not so much studies, nor who has peer reviewed them. It's the facts that the climate is changing. The facts which are readily available and reported on. I am not a big fan of the whole Greta debacle but the facts that are out there are quite stark. The ice caps are melting. CO² levels are rising. There are studies aplenty out there but on the internet, there is little point in citing them.
at one pole yes the other pole they have seen it grow thicker. Climate always changes. Most of North America were ice fields humans did not cause that ice to melt, the climate warmed up and ice fields melted.
Thats because the poles are actually different. One has a land mass under it and the other doesn't. Because of that they are not readily comparible.
Importantly though, I am not claiming who or what is causing Climate change :OD
Well the paper I was reading did just that and it is not the first time it has been done.
Posted using Partiko iOS
I know, but one has land ice and sea ice and the other is just sea ice. It means that unless you compare the sea ice and state that is increasing in the south compared to the decrease in the north then the comparison. imho is not that valid
The thing is that one of the poles is losing much much much more than what the other pole is gaining additionally.
The big question now is:
Is this "meesterboom" account advanced AI or just another moronic CIA contractor writing this shit?
I would definitely say CIA. Some kind of Black Ops/psi ops misinformation shit kind of shill.
I discount advanced AI because he mentions penises and vaginas a lot.
Whatever, his sort must be hunted down and killed.
AI can do penises pretty well
In that case humanity is already lost!
And are you for or against that?
Lady Gaga? I wouldn't say no when she was skinny. But I am not known for being particularly choosy. I am off the kind she isn't a tranny right enough :0)
@meesterboom upvoted me at least once. Definitely not CIA. They don't like me, nor I them. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Cia Carona e Teatro de Quinta
Holy shit, an upvote? That proves it then...
The cato institute has some good research, but its funded by Charles Koch, so even though its supposed to be unbiased, Im sure there is some biased to it.
Working in industry I can see the harm and favoritism it causes. One company was proactive in cutting there co2 before mandates went into effect. Once the mandates went into effect they didnt qualify for the tax incentive because the improvement was already completed.
Put companies out of business in the US and the same production moves to another country with less strict environmental regulations and more pollution per pound of product.
What is interesting is ArcelorMittal the largest steel company and one of the largest polluters (steel inherently is an energy intensive and dirty industry even in the cleanest of steel mills) how they are going to volluntary work to reduce their carbon footprint. Im sure i can find it if you like.
Im all for pushing companies to reduce their pollution and carbon foot print, but government regulation is rarely pure or doesnt hand pick winners and losers.
Also with 2 young kids who bite straws it drives me crazy whoever was the kid that did that "research paper" on how plastic straws were killing the environment. Ive learned to now ask waiters for 10 - 20 straws as soon as we sit down because my kids chew the ends close and then spill theyre drinks all over them because they cant drink out of the straw anymore.
Finally, you want me to take you seriously about how were destroying the earth. Move into a mud hut that doesnt use electricity and dont use steel, plastic, fossil fuels, or eat meat. Maybe thats a little extreme statement but telling me my industry is killing the environment while driving a car (including tesla because they still buy steel to make cars) that is made from steel is a little ironic if you ask me.
Thoughtful. I like it.
I've read some arguments on both sides and to be honest it can be hard to figure out what is factual and what isn't.
But the conclusions are hilarious on both sides.
Yeah i agree climate is changing and on average its getting warmer. That companies should cintinuosly improve to be more efficient while polluting less. Its interesting to see companies take interest recently not from government mandates, but because its an important issue to more and more people.
A lot of car manufacures are becoming iso 50001 certified and going to start requiring that of there customers and suppliers to have less of an impact on the environment at least in the US.
https://www.energy.gov/ISO50001
I am informed by reading the various articles posted to EurekAlert, phys.org, Livescience, and others which do present a large number of actual studies. It provides a fairly well balanced look at the various topics and proves the science is never settled. There is ALWAYS a new study or new data being presented.
Personally I have seen a glacier in Canada, the Athabasca Glacier in the Columbia ice-field, lose a noticeable amount of it's tongue. The first image I took in Sept 2012 and the second in Sept 2018. There is a distinct difference in the amount of ice. Is this human caused climate change at fault?
Really... Who the fuck knows?!
And even if we did agree it is human caused, and it very well might be...
What is the solution?
Exactly. The only absolute way is to have every human on the same page and working to reduce the overall pollution emitted.
Yeah....
Right. Fat chance.
It takes true global scale, immediate danger or imminent death that will MAYBE rally humanity to a concerted singular action or direction. We are all to selfish to really work together.
too selfish to realize the earth is not endangered (because it will always be able to heal itself), but the modern human way of life (and inherently humanity and some of earth's fauna) is.
I disagree with you bro. The rate at which the earth heals itself is slower compared to the amount of greenhouse gases and pollutants sent into the environment.
Are you from a tropical country? You should have noticed the rise in temperature in these places during the hottest time of the year.
I hope earth won't end up like planet Venus soon.
Posted using Partiko Android
Let's agree to disagree.
Posted using Partiko Android
Lol. Hehehe😂😂
Posted using Partiko Android
I am part of the generation that grew up trying to find ways to be green. Where does she get off? This is puppet paid for by the globalist George Soros. When you need change without question, put a kid out front. Sad...
This might be of interest here. It's my meta look at the entire edifice of trying to use computer models to make climate predictions. I take my background writing a computer simulation of the flow of polymeric liquids and explain how that relates to trying to simulate the entire climate.
▶️ Watch on 3Speak
Everyone who is so certain that climate change is something caused by man and can be controlled by man while simultaneously ignoring the primary impact of the sun and electrical forces that organizations such as the Thunderbolts Project reminds me of the western medical doctor who was absolutely certain that there is no validity to acupuncture but stated outright that he has never even investigated it.
Greta said the same thing that Hootie the Owl preaches. Give a hoot. Don’t pollute. She just said it shortsightedly, hatefully and hypocritically.
Let a comedian pick it apart
Taxes.
Posted using Partiko Android
Everyone who liked to wake up, can watch this video from George Carlin:
The first minute alone is full of ignorant statements.
Posted using Partiko iOS
in 2012 they said it is the end of the world! guess what? you are still here typing this comment!
in 2018 they said my country Iran is going to become a desert with no water!! we could see it in the media, it was bold, and they wanted us to believe that we will have no water sooner! and we have to run out of here!! guess what? my country became rainy everyday! and most of Iran was full of flood!
I ask you to first know this man, he is not a stupid! he only don't like to accept every single thing they ask us to accept, he make challenges about things like that, you know? about Religion about Government, about politicians, he talk about all these stuffs, and only if he once talked against the things you wouldn't feel good about, you call him Ignorant. this way you only read a book from its title.
If in the first minute of a video a man claims that the extinctions that we KNOW we caused were natural occurrences, you can have a high amount of confidence that the man is full of shit.
If you follow Carlin more closely you'd get it. Actually he is not arguing against climate change at all. In a bunch of videos he talks about this topic and his man point usually is:
What he doesn't like is people being hypocrites about this topic.
As in, people complaining about these things but actually actively contributing to all this kind of stuff. That's probably why he had given up on our species quite a long time ago already.
you are watching the small picture, he was showing you the big picture.
he also told you everything in that first minute. which I can see it is so clear. you just don't like him and it is okay. I understand.
You are watching the
Small picture, he was showing
You the big picture.
- davidfar
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
Excellent post.. Lets take the emotion out of a factual debate. But then there wouldn't be an hysterical rush to just "do something".
Hi, @whatsup!
You just got a 0.29% upvote from SteemPlus!
To get higher upvotes, earn more SteemPlus Points (SPP). On your Steemit wallet, check your SPP balance and click on "How to earn SPP?" to find out all the ways to earn.
If you're not using SteemPlus yet, please check our last posts in here to see the many ways in which SteemPlus can improve your Steem experience on Steemit and Busy.
politicians do not care about climate change. and frankly there is no real good solution to the problem green energy is way to expensive right now in comparison to fossil fuels. No company will make the change if they can’t compete with others. To top it all of china and India are the top carbon emitters and they are not going to stop…..
Yup, let's change the conversation. See my post on the climate conference.