Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 148052	2019-07-02 10:10:00	Climate Change Emergency - Hysteria	Digby (677)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1462035	2019-08-21 23:48:00	zqwerty have a look at this one www.youtube.com It is just to easy to find stuff to support either side of this debate particularly if you just ignore anything that does not suit your preconceived opinion. The only way to be certain who is correct is to hang around for another couple of hundred years or so and see what happens. Yes, and it easy to find stuff to support the idea that the earth is flat, that the moon landings were a hoax, that vaccination causes autism, that [insert politician of choice] is really a shape-shifting alien lizard. The point is to be able to sort out the truth from the rubbish, and that requires acknowledging ones own limitations of knowledge and seeking answers from those who can be reasonably expected to understand the issue at hand. I wouldn't recommend waiting "around for another couple of hundred years or so and see what happens" because when the answer comes you will have forgotten what the question was. Raising questions about climate change (or anything else) is perfectly OK, but this is where the difference between scepticism and denialism kicks in. A sceptic who asks questions listens to the answers, a denialist changes the subject. There are a couple of interesting examples of scepticism at work. Dr Richard Muller is a physicist at University of California who expressed strongly sceptical views about global warming. He was approached by the Koch brothers, who have very strong interests in global warming being not true, to research the question and come to a definite answer. So Muller put together a team, funded by Koch, and did just that. They came to the conclusion that global warming is real and it is caused by human activity, just like the climate scientists were trying to tell us. The Koch brothers were not very happy with this result. (www.carbonbrief.org) Closer to home Gareth Morgan expressed scepticism about global warming, so he got in touch with local climate scientists to see what it was all about. He, too, was persuaded that it is real and he wrote a book about the experience called Poles Apart, co-authored with John McCrystal. In neither of these cases did the people involved necessarily disavow their sceptical approach, but they were able to change their views when confronted with the evidence. That is what is lacking in so much of the discussion we have here.	Jayess64 (8703)
1462036	2019-08-22 00:21:00	Given the situation we are in, ie limited space, geometrically increasing population, tinkering around with all sorts of lossy (therefore heat generating) processes that wouldn't be activated if it wasn't for us, anyone with half a brain and a little scientific knowledge would know that Global Warming is inevitable, and could lead to our demise or severely reduce the initial cause ie Us. It's not rocket science as they say.	zqwerty (97)
1462037	2019-08-22 05:44:00	zqwerty have a look at this one www.youtube.com It is just to easy to find stuff to support either side of this debate particularly if you just ignore anything that does not suit your preconceived opinion. The only way to be certain who is correct is to hang around for another couple of hundred years or so and see what happens. From the top YouTube comment, and YouTube rarely offers up anything than complete dribble: "Banks are still giving 40 year loans for Florida beachfront homes. Case Closed." Seriously mate, did you even listen to half the "reasons" he gave for denying it was a thing? Do you really think the typical get rich quick type of investors give a flying **** what happens to beachfront homes in ~40 years.	Bozo (8540)
1462038	2019-08-25 23:39:00	9897	piroska (17583)
1462039	2019-08-25 23:52:00	Haven't seen that picture before, thanks piroska.	zqwerty (97)
1462040	2019-08-25 23:58:00	......, but they were able to change their views when confronted with the evidence. That is what is lacking in so much of the discussion we have here. yes, on both sides of the debate. There is no proof that it will be the end of human civilisation , so why the scaremongering There are theories that while some areas will be flooded, other areas will become fertile. The earth has been considerably warmer in the distant past , even when human were around. It wasnt a total disaster back then. No one actually knows what will happen in 50 or 100 years. No one . Proof is not the same as a theory :) You cannot have proof on something in the future .	1101 (13337)
1462041	2019-08-26 00:40:00	yes, on both sides of the debate . There is no proof that it will be the end of human civilisation , so why the scaremongering There are theories that while some areas will be flooded, other areas will become fertile . The earth has been considerably warmer in the distant past , even when human were around . It wasnt a total disaster back then . No one actually knows what will happen in 50 or 100 years . No one . Proof is not the same as a theory :) You cannot have proof on something in the future . Spot on! I am a lot more concerned about when Press F1 is down than whatever the climate may decide to do at some time in the future .	CliveM (6007)
1462042	2019-08-26 01:04:00	dogma The greens are trying to get petrol driven cars banned, via an import ban. That'll help . So NZ, and the rest of the world, will need to start burning coal , for all the additional electricity needed to charge those electric cars. Those who's home doent have a garage, tuff luck. You'll need to run the electric charging cable across the footpath down the road to where you parked your car, and do that in the rain : perfectly safe :)	1101 (13337)
1462043	2019-08-26 02:59:00	It is child like thinking to demand gratification now without any consideration as to probable negative effects later on. That appears to be pretty much how most policy decisions are made by our current crop of politicians.	CliveM (6007)
1462044	2019-08-26 03:45:00	yes, on both sides of the debate. There is no proof that it will be the end of human civilisation , so why the scaremongering There are theories that while some areas will be flooded, other areas will become fertile. The earth has been considerably warmer in the distant past , even when human were around. It wasnt a total disaster back then. No one actually knows what will happen in 50 or 100 years. No one . Proof is not the same as a theory :) You cannot have proof on something in the future . You take an interesting philosophical position. Because you cannot prove that something will occur in the future, you conclude that it will not happen. Your life must have been full of surprises! In fact, by understanding the present state of the world and how events develop over time, we can anticipate possible future states. They may not be exact predictions, but probabilities can be assigned to the various outcomes and the probabilities can be revised as time passes and we see what actually happens (which is kind of what CliveM said earlier!). So, when it was realised that the burning of coal started in earnest in the 16th-17th centuries was putting large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere it was predicted that this could cause the earth to warm up. 200 years ago(!) it was an interesting speculation, 100 years ago it was a serious suggestion, today we know it is correct and we know how much heating is occurring. Given that we know the earth is warming, we can anticipate likely effects such as ocean level increase (it is), melting of Arctic & Antarctic ice sheets (they are), changes in global climate, including extreme weather events, droughts in some places, increased rainfall in others, even cold spells! You are free to dismiss all this if you want to, but if you want to justify your position you will have to show up the errors in the observations and chains of reasoning that lead to the conclusions that are being drawn. Simply asserting that "You cannot have proof on something in the future" won't cut it.	Jayess64 (8703)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14