User Controls
World to hit temperature tipping point 10 years faster than forecast
-
2023-09-06 at 4:29 AM UTCstraight from the factory
-
2023-09-06 at 4:41 AM UTCI get my facts from spectral and speedy. They are my sources.
-
2023-09-06 at 7:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Central Greece flooded. It rained the amount of the average annual precipitation, overnight
stormy daniel -
2023-09-06 at 7:40 AM UTC
-
2023-09-06 at 9:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe You haven't shown how anything is meaningless bullshit. Ignoring the news doesn't make it meaningless bullshit. The facts I have posted don't stop being reality just because you don't like it.
Facts according to you. But we have already determined you don't know the difference between data and facts. -
2023-09-06 at 12:02 PM UTCWhat Do Climate Scientists Tell Their Kids about the Future?
Scientists have been trying to warn everyone about this problem for many, many years. If we really started trying to fix it 30 or 40 years ago, it would be easier to fix, and some of the bad stuff could be stopped. But we didn’t, and here’s one big reason why. Some businesses, such as those who make and sell the energy, would not make as much money if we stopped using their energy. So those businesses hired people who are really good at arguing and tried to confuse people—especially the ones who make decisions. They said things like “Global warming isn’t really happening,” “The scientists are lying” or “Maybe it’s happening but not because people are burning fossil fuels.” Unfortunately, those tricks have been working on many people.
-
2023-09-06 at 12:03 PM UTC
-
2023-09-06 at 12:12 PM UTC
-
2023-09-06 at 12:25 PM UTC
-
2023-09-06 at 12:33 PM UTC
-
2023-09-06 at 12:35 PM UTC
-
2023-09-06 at 12:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I think you're one of the smartest people on this website, and I cannot believe you don't accept reality. Which of the facts I've posted are you contesting?
I don't really want to get into it on the 137th page, but just on anthropomorphic climate change in general - how old is the Earth vs. how far back can we accurately measure climate data, such as general temperatures, gas composition, sun intensity, cloud density etc.?
how can we possibly presume to know what baseline climate change would be with so little data, and if we don't know what the baseline is, how can we presume to know how much of a difference human activity has deviated from it?
I'm fully in favour of moving toward more efficient and less wasteful practices, but climate-related doomsday scenarios have come and gone just as often as religious ones. in the longer-term it's a problem, but we have more pressing problems in the short and medium term. -
2023-09-06 at 12:47 PM UTCin terms of 'science', the scientific method is essentially to propose a theory and then test it until it breaks. the more it's tested without breaking, the more credible it is.
when you introduce funding it interferes with that method - rarely is scientific research commissioned without expecting an outcome, and when an entire field of research is based on a predetermined outcome, it will find ways to justify its existence. -
2023-09-06 at 12:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra I don't really want to get into it on the 137th page, but just on anthropomorphic climate change in general - how old is the Earth vs. how far back can we accurately measure climate data, such as general temperatures, gas composition, sun intensity, cloud density etc.?
how can we possibly presume to know what baseline climate change would be with so little data, and if we don't know what the baseline is, how can we presume to know how much of a difference human activity has deviated from it?
I'm fully in favour of moving toward more efficient and less wasteful practices, but climate-related doomsday scenarios have come and gone just as often as religious ones. in the longer-term it's a problem, but we have more pressing problems in the short and medium term.
Oh, so you just generally disagree with the idea based on your assumptions and don't actually have anything specifically false you can point to? I understand. -
2023-09-06 at 12:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Oh, so you just generally disagree with the idea based on your assumptions and don't actually have anything specifically false you can point to? I understand.
you can't answer the question of how we can know how much humans have affected the climate without knowing what the climate would've been without human interference? I understand. -
2023-09-06 at 12:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra you can't answer the question of how we can know how much humans have affected the climate without knowing what the climate would've been without human interference? I understand.
While there's inherent uncertainty in their methods, the combination approaches they use provide a robust understanding of human impact on the climate. The consensus in the scientific community is that human activities have undoubtedly played a substantial role in driving climate change over the past century. -
2023-09-06 at 12:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe While there's inherent uncertainty in their methods, the combination approaches they use provide a robust understanding of human impact on the climate. The consensus in the scientific community is that human activities have undoubtedly played a substantial role in driving climate change over the past century.
there was also consensus that disease was the result of humors or demon possession. -
2023-09-06 at 1:04 PM UTC
-
2023-09-06 at 1:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Right now you have a limited amount of evidence to draw your conclusions from. What is the evidence telling you?
not to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence
I already said I'm all for improving efficiency and reducing waste and emissions, but not at such urgency that immediately dismantling core systems that our current existence relies on is preferable to some fanciful apocalypse.
it's something that we need to consider, but we have much more urgent problems. -
2023-09-06 at 1:06 PM UTC
