Climate Change: Fact or Fiction

Broncapz

NRL Player
1,065
1,824
Right/Left is also just a huge cultural **** up. It gets us fighting each other and ignoring the real problems.

If people are attacking the right or the left, then they've bought into the idiocy that is McPolitics.
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
26,119
10,511
Third Rock from the Sun
From a Risk/Benefit analysis, it doesn't make sense to 'hope' it'll all work out. Action just seems like the pragmatic move, regardless of where you stand. Less coal mining is better for the planet and that's just a cold hard fact.

Our economies are far too top heavy, and that problem is only getting worse. They will survive transition to renewables, don't believe the lies other wise.
I agree with everything you're saying here.
I think you'll find practically everyone here will feel the same too.

The only difference, is in how drastically and quickly should the transition take place?
In my opinion, certainly faster than many countries are willing to go, but also much slower than most alarmists and climate eco-warriors want to make it happen.
 

Ffs...

NYC Player
145
145
Did you read anything else beyond that, by any chance? What are your qualifications/experience which enable you to judge the validity of what you're told?

Because I'm not a qualified scientist, does that mean I'm unable to understand technical papers? One of my degrees is in "engineering science" - does that make me more qualified, in your eyes? What would you deem to be a "valid" 'climate science' qualification that makes someone qualified to discuss the science?

I have never said I can critique the issue better than specialists in the field, that's not a claim I'd ever make. But I am intelligent enough to read, comprehend, and critique technical writings and not just accept media reports about them which, in my experience, vastly overstate/simplify/dramatise the study's actual findings. Across all fields, mind you, not just climate science.

Your simplisic analogy fails on so many levels I'm not even going to go there. You don't need to be a scientist to 'do' science. You don't need to be an engineer to invent a machine, or design a road. Did you have a particular area of climate science you wish to discuss or are you just here to throw stones?
No I didn't, why would I? By even your own admission you know less than qualified scientists, which is where I can my science from. Not Karens off facebook, right wing shock jocks or engineers with delusions of grandeur.

To suggest you don't need to be a scientist to do science is ridiculous. In order to know what science to do, what data points to use, what equipment etc you would need, you would need qualifications to begin with. Not to mention access to equipment and articles which most people wouldn't have. At any rate have you done any? Been peer reviewed on the topic? Been published? Convinced the 97% of scientists away from the current consensus? Yea..

The analogy works just fine, but you clearly don't get it. You obviously think your ability to read and google makes you something of an expert, so I'll leave you to argue your case where all great science is done, youtube, footy forums and the news pages on facebook.
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
26,119
10,511
Third Rock from the Sun
No I didn't, why would I? By even your own admission you know less than qualified scientists, which is where I can my science from. Not Karens off facebook, right wing shock jocks or engineers with delusions of grandeur.

To suggest you don't need to be a scientist to do science is ridiculous. In order to know what science to do, what data points to use, what equipment etc you would need, you would need qualifications to begin with. Not to mention access to equipment and articles which most people wouldn't have. At any rate have you done any? Been peer reviewed on the topic? Been published? Convinced the 97% of scientists away from the current consensus? Yea..

The analogy works just fine, but you clearly don't get it. You obviously think your ability to read and google makes you something of an expert, so I'll leave you to argue your case where all great science is done, youtube, footy forums and the news pages on facebook.
The only thing 97% of scientists agree on, is that Anthropological Climate Change exists (which only idiots deny).
However, when it comes to the degree of anthropological influence, they cannot agree, nor about its consequences, fact!
At the moment, and this is also something most of them agree on, they are all doing their best to formulate educated guesses and unfortunately, failing to establish an actual scientific theory because they lack the data and fundamental knowledge of all the mechanisms that influence Earth's climate.
This is also why there so many variations between models (including models built by the same people over the years).

P.S. Ever heard of Google Scholar? You can find a wealth of actual peer reviewed studies on pretty much any science. You don't need to go into the nitty gritty which only experts understand, to read and understand a study's abstract and its conclusions.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
Thanks Porthoz Porthoz, well put and exactly right. Many of the published studies in the climate science arena just assume the models predict the future accurately and look at what possible ramifications may occur.

I think a lot of people would actually be surprised by the uncertainty and the tenuous links attempting to hold some of the claims together - for example, at this point, the hottest-running models have been falsified by reality. They don't predict accurately. Yet they're still included in the ensemble runs and the averaging processes even though they're clearly unrealistic.

F Ffs... with all due respect, mouthing off at me without even reading my posts makes you the ignorant one, not me. I'd love to know what exactly you think "science" means... You don't need qualifications at all to practice the scientific method, did you do "science" at school? What about the brilliant scientific minds littered throughout history, most of whom had minimal formal education? You don't need qualifications to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, either. But even so, I'll ask again, what's an acceptable "climate science" degree? Top hint - there is no such thing. "Climate science" is an amalgamation of literally dozens of different strands of science, engineering, IT, etc etc. As someone with multiple engineering qualifications, one in engineering science, if you're going to lean on qualifications as an authority on the topic you show a remarkable reluctance to even listen to someone who I assume is more qualified than yourself, simply because...well, I'm not even sure. You don't like what I have to say, I presume. Not even being open to information that conflicts with your own opinion or worldview is the very definition of closedmindedness.

The analogy is ridiculously simplistic, and that's exactly why it fails. Climate change is not a black and white issue, there is all kinds of uncertainties, theories and guesses involved. If I went to a doctor who said "you need open heart surgery NOW which will detrimentally effect your lifestyle, because we think there might be a worse problem in 20 years time - but we're really not sure, and we don't even know if the surgery will work anyway because there's other factors we can't control which could outweigh whatever we do" - I would seek a second opinion. Not from the dentist either, mind you. And given the uncertainties, combined with the known loss of quality of life, I may not choose to proceed. Especially if some of the field agreed there may be a problem, but the chances were low and less-invasive procedures/treatment were available. Still not a great analogy, but at least it gives a nod to the complexity.

Again, I'm offering an olive branch on the nastiness - I'm quite happy to have a civil conversation with you about any facet of climate change you wish to discuss, if there's a topic you'd like to know more about or you'd like to challenge my views on. I'll leave you with some relevant quotes from the brilliant Karl Popper, who's regarded as one of the world's most influential scientists.

We should realize that, if [Socrates] demanded that the wisest men should rule, he clearly stressed that he did not mean the learned men; in fact, he was skeptical of all professional learnedness, whether it was that of the philosophers or of the learned men of his own generation, the Sophists. The wisdom he meant was of a different kind. It was simply the realization: how little do I know! Those who did not know this, he taught, knew nothing at all. This is the true scientific spirit.
The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.
In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.
There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions
The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff.
Since we can never know anything for sure, it is simply not worth searching for certainty; but it is well worth searching for truth; and we do this chiefly by searching for mistakes, so that we have to correct them.
If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.
 
Last edited:

lynx000

NRL Captain
4,108
3,907
Waiting to win lotto
I agree with everything you're saying here.
I think you'll find practically everyone here will feel the same too.

The only difference, is in how drastically and quickly should the transition take place?
In my opinion, certainly faster than many countries are willing to go, but also much slower than most alarmists and climate eco-warriors want to make it happen.
Completely agree with this. I just think that humans being humans, self-interest, NIMBYism, distrust and selfishness will sabotage the attempt to take meaningful action.
 

Mr Fourex

State of Origin Rep
5,682
3,722
Greta Thunberg being nominated for the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize........
Really?

Any one of the number of Sesame Street characters are far better puppets IMO.....
 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
9,253
6,161
Ipswich
Greta Thunberg being nominated for the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize........
Really?

Any one of the number of Sesame Street characters are far better puppets IMO.....
I suppose you have evidence that she's a puppet? I've seen her live and unscripted and she doesn't look like she needs help. Perhaps it'd be better if you addressed the topic instead of attacking teenage girls.
 

Mr Fourex

State of Origin Rep
5,682
3,722
I suppose you have evidence that she's a puppet? I've seen her live and unscripted and she doesn't look like she needs help. Perhaps it'd be better if you addressed the topic instead of attacking teenage girls.
I consider the two intrinsically linked tbh
.....most likely, this very thread discussing climate change, might not even exist if it wasn't for Miss Thunberg's sensationalistic media "assignment" at the UN....... which appears to have been quite clearly, constructed and groomed by her parents and their eco warrior friends.

If I'm expected to listen to Greta and give her respect as a concerned human, surely its not unreasonable to expect, that I can also criticise her equally as the same human and not be accused of attacking, a poor helpless..... teenage girl?
 
Last edited:

Huge

State of Origin Captain
9,253
6,161
Ipswich
I consider the two intrinsically linked tbh
.....most likely, this very thread discussing climate change, might not even exist if it wasn't for Miss Thunberg's sensationalistic media "assignment" at the UN....... which appears to have been quite clearly, constructed and groomed by her parents and their eco warrior friends.

If I'm expected to listen to Greta and give her respect as a concerned human, surely its not unreasonable to expect, that I can also criticise her equally as the same human and not be accused of attacking, a poor helpless..... teenage girl?
I've got a better idea. Why not provide evidence of this grooming by her parents and 'eco warrior friends' ? You've stated it's quite obvious. How? What makes it obvious? This thread might not exist without Thunberg's speech, huh, wtf? Like nobody would be motivated to post a thread about climate change were it not for her. **** me, that takes the cake.

No, I don't think you've got a right to attack her as you've presented no evidence. Attack what she said by all means, prove her words false if you can but that's not what you're doing. You and thousands like you won't do what I've asked. You want to attack the messenger. As the saying goes 'put up or shut up'. The threads about climate change.
 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
9,253
6,161
Ipswich
Entering the crib room this morning I noticed that absolute fool, Sen Roberts being interviewed on Sky. Once again the fuckwit was claiming Anthropogenic Climate Change was all part of some great global conspiracy. You would think that after being destroyed by Professor Brian Cox on Q&A in 2016 he'd have learned but no, more air time for this wacky conspiracy theorist. Mind you the host was having none of his groundless claims, smacking him around with gay abandon. Roberts is so crazy that even Andrew Bolt has labelled him a crackpot and they're on the same denialist team😯
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
So I was curious to see the criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize:

"The Nobel Peace Prize is one of the five Nobel Prizes established by the will of Swedish industrialist, inventor, and armaments manufacturer Alfred Nobel, along with the prizes in Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature. Since March 1901,[3] it has been awarded annually (with some exceptions) to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"."


In all seriousness, how is Greta even eligible for this? Donald Trump is more eligible.
 
Last edited:

lynx000

NRL Captain
4,108
3,907
Waiting to win lotto
So I was curious to see the criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize:

"The Nobel Peace Prize is one of the five Nobel Prizes established by the will of Swedish industrialist, inventor, and armaments manufacturer Alfred Nobel, along with the prizes in Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature. Since March 1901,[3] it has been awarded annually (with some exceptions) to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"."


In all seriousness, how is Greta even eligible for this? Donald Trump is more eligible.
Just ask him. Not only eligible, but deserving.
 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
9,253
6,161
Ipswich
Something has caught my attention. Before going into detail about it I will provide a little background. Like a lot of you I love to see the world and it's personalities with YouTube providing the window. I subscribe to twenty odd channels from around the planet and overwhelmingly they are english speakers although I do watch plenty of randoms.

I just started watching a video from OTW (out of the woods) who mills a lot of different logs etc. He started off talking about the weather and how weird it has been in recent years in his part of the world. I suppose having such distinct yet reliable changes makes it stand out a little more.

I'd thought about this before and my observation (without empirical evidence) is this. I've heard how unusual or different or weird the weather is from almost every single one of my subscribed channels. Considering they are scattered around the planet it seems to me to truly indicate that things are changing, planetwide.

Yes, I know the rate of change is the sticking point because most sensible people accept that humanities action must have had an impact. I think it is one more reason to believe we are having an impact. What do you think? Have any of you ever noticed these casual remarks and or observations in your subscribed channels?
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
26,119
10,511
Third Rock from the Sun
I don't watch YouTube besides the is video of funnies, peculiar or sports.

As far as relevant and truthful information goes, especially of the scientific kind, it rates barely above Facebook.

I rather actually travel the world to see it all for myself, and have been lucky enough to do so.
 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
9,253
6,161
Ipswich
I don't watch YouTube besides the is video of funnies, peculiar or sports.

As far as relevant and truthful information goes, especially of the scientific kind, it rates barely above Facebook.

I rather actually travel the world to see it all for myself, and have been lucky enough to do so.
Hardly the point!! Wtf makes you think I was expressing a view about the credibility of YouTube. It makes me wonder if you actually read my post or just skimmed, saw a few words and then came up with an irrelevance. Banging on about your travels ffs.

For clarity: it's the fact that each one from all around the world are commenting on the weird, odd or unusual local weather they're experiencing. The videos themselves ARE NOT ABOUT WEATHER OR SCIENCE. UNDERSTAND? It tends to support my view that anthropogenic climate change is real and I personally think it's as serious as the moderate view portays.
 

I bleed Maroon

State of Origin Captain
9,868
8,236
......Wow.
Post automatically merged:

Right/Left is also just a huge cultural **** up. It gets us fighting each other and ignoring the real problems.

If people are attacking the right or the left, then they've bought into the idiocy that is McPolitics.
Right/Left, Progressive/Conservative, Liberal/Libertarian.....At the end of the day one label will just be replaced by another.
 
Last edited:

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
21,691
18,726
Hardly the point!! Wtf makes you think I was expressing a view about the credibility of YouTube. It makes me wonder if you actually read my post or just skimmed, saw a few words and then came up with an irrelevance. Banging on about your travels ffs.

For clarity: it's the fact that each one from all around the world are commenting on the weird, odd or unusual local weather they're experiencing. The videos themselves ARE NOT ABOUT WEATHER OR SCIENCE. UNDERSTAND? It tends to support my view that anthropogenic climate change is real and I personally think it's as serious as the moderate view portays.
I must say, I've enjoyed reading this thread.

For the record, I agree mostly with your position. The only people that seem to resist the evidence on the human impact on climate change seem to be those related to big business, resources, logistics, etc. All people who probably don't even realise it, but their "knowledge" on the topic filters down through their industry, and they are dirty, dirty, industries. Except you, of course, you have to be different to your peers because you are, after all, the wisest person in every room you enter.

This thread started out by you claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with your stance is simply ignorant of the evidence and research. And yet, it didn't take long for someone with an opposing view to present to you exactly that - evidence and research that disagrees with your stance, which, importantly, appears to be very thorough and well informed. Well above your level of education on the topic. You had no come back to it. Your "research" was just like all your other "research", ie, you find something to support what you purport to believe, and when the spotlight is shone on it, you're revealed to be standing in the corner with nothing but your dick in your hand.

From there, it progressed to "I just feel...", "It simply must be the case...", "my own personal opinion...". That's all well and good to have those opinions, but it's not what you yourself claimed should be used to justify a stance - research and evidence.

And now you've chucked a tantrum because someone rightly pointed out that you're using seemingly throwaway lines from irrelevant youtube videos to affirm your position.

THIS. Is entertainment.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top