Climate Change: Fact or Fiction

Huge

State of Origin Captain
9,367
6,247
Ipswich
There's no doubt the countering arguments were better than mine, better researched and by a better qualified person. Despite that though he was a long way from being expert. Not having a scientific background means I couldn't counter his claims but that neither validates his view or means they couldn't be destroyed by a truly qualified climatologist or scientist.

You're just getting a stiffy because you think a jumble of random evidence thrown together by an unqualified wannabe has somehow shown me up. The only point I made about the YouTube videos was people around the world are reporting unusual weather. I think it's due to human influence and strangely so does the great majority of the scientific community. That same community have presented evidence which I find credible even though I'm simply a lay person.

I'm happy that you think I've been put in my place. I don't feel that way so it's a win win for us both. Nothing written in this thread changed my view that the qualified scientific community are most likely correct and the rate of change is probably on the more moderate end. You can believe Bob the Butcher if you want because after all, we all know you will believe just about anything.
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
26,130
10,526
Third Rock from the Sun
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.
You're not expressing a view about YouTube's credibility, yet you're using its videos from hardly reliable individual's perceptions about the weather to support your anthropogenic climate change stance. Ok then...

As to my travels, which you seem to take such offense on, especially for someone who likes to brag so much about himself, income and his possessions... it was merely a comment to your see the world through the YouTube window, not exactly banging on about them.
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Captain
3,103
3,360
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.
Yeah, no idea why people think Greta has been groomed by her parents...

8B2EE789-3325-4068-87BD-3FDFC23E4655.jpeg
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
Righto Huge Huge - can you provide examples of the "unusual" weather being experienced around the globe?

I'd like to point out that there is a specific memory bias called: "Regressive bias: tendency to remember high values and high likelihoods/probabilities/frequencies lower than they actually were and low ones higher than they actually were. Based on the evidence, memories are not extreme enough." In other words, our memories tend towards averages, so outlying data points we come across now (ie a hot day) appear to be unusual because our memory averages out our experiences.

I'd also like to raise that evidence of a change occurring, does not in any way prove the cause of said change. And when so many attribution studies boil down to "well our models without CO2 emissions don't do this, but the models with it do, therefore CO2 emissions must have caused this".....that's not evidence. Computer models are not evidence. They can provide support or otherwise for a theory, but in and of themselves they are nothing more than the assumptions of the people who have built them. But that's a different argument, let's just focus on the first point - unusual weather events happening around the world in recent years - go!
 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
9,367
6,247
Ipswich
Righto Huge Huge - can you provide examples of the "unusual" weather being experienced around the globe?

I'd like to point out that there is a specific memory bias called: "Regressive bias: tendency to remember high values and high likelihoods/probabilities/frequencies lower than they actually were and low ones higher than they actually were. Based on the evidence, memories are not extreme enough." In other words, our memories tend towards averages, so outlying data points we come across now (ie a hot day) appear to be unusual because our memory averages out our experiences.

I'd also like to raise that evidence of a change occurring, does not in any way prove the cause of said change. And when so many attribution studies boil down to "well our models without CO2 emissions don't do this, but the models with it do, therefore CO2 emissions must have caused this".....that's not evidence. Computer models are not evidence. They can provide support or otherwise for a theory, but in and of themselves they are nothing more than the assumptions of the people who have built them. But that's a different argument, let's just focus on the first point - unusual weather events happening around the world in recent years - go!
There's absolutely no need for me to provide examples of unusual weather around the globe. Why? Well because there's literally hundreds of people doing that. News stations from around the world are reporting unusual weather. Every single year new records being set, globally . No, go find the evidence yourself, it won't take much effort.

I merely pointed out that people keep making comments about the unusual weather in their areas. Get over it. What makes it interesting for me is their youtube channels are not about weather or environment and they are spread throughout the world. I believe the science community when they say we have a problem. The casual observations of unconnected people seems to me to just be more evidence concerning the problem.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
There's absolutely no need for me to provide examples of unusual weather around the globe. Why? Well because there's literally hundreds of people doing that. News stations from around the world are reporting unusual weather. Every single year new records being set, globally . No, go find the evidence yourself, it won't take much effort.

I merely pointed out that people keep making comments about the unusual weather in their areas. Get over it. What makes it interesting for me is their youtube channels are not about weather or environment and they are spread throughout the world. I believe the science community when they say we have a problem. The casual observations of unconnected people seems to me to just be more evidence concerning the problem.
I just don't want to waste time responding to you about events to which you can then claim you didn't mean "that one", for example. If you can provide examples, then we know we're both talking about the same thing.

I'm not denying people are making comments about unusual weather - but that doesn't mean they're right, either. If the world were warming due to ANY cause, there would be new records being set, globally - again, evidence that something is happening doesn't illustrate causation.

You're welcome to believe what you like, I really couldn't care less! I doubt anything I could say or provide would ever change your mind (out of interest, what would that take?) I'm more here for the discussion, debate, and providing information that other people might hopefully read and do some further research into themselves. I strongly believe everyone should form their own opinions on things - whether I agree with them or not. My caveat though is if you're going to have a strong opinion, you're best to be able to defend it...
 

Mr Fourex

State of Origin Rep
5,709
3,768
Yeah, no idea why people think Greta has been groomed by her parents...

View attachment 7112
At it's best......a chicken or the egg argument, might sustain..... some discussion. (well.......at least as much as any youtube video being used as "fact" could do 🙃 )
At it's worst..... A lot of people (including both her parents and their friends) elevated their profile....and made/are still making..... money, from her becoming the world's "spokeschild".

Anyone who thinks that a business minded green activist could suddenly walk by the "Greta show" at the Swedish Parliament ......post her picture on social media and have it subsequently go viral ......world wide, as being coincidence or random, has surely had one too many smiles and waaay too much sunshine. :happy:
Ingmar Rentzhog (the "random" green activist)......and Mum, have financially done quite well out of young Miss Thunberg's rise to fame. The also enjoy a close friendship......
 
Last edited:

Mr Fourex

State of Origin Rep
5,709
3,768
I just don't want to waste time responding to you about events to which you can then claim you didn't mean "that one", for example. If you can provide examples, then we know we're both talking about the same thing.

I'm not denying people are making comments about unusual weather - but that doesn't mean they're right, either. If the world were warming due to ANY cause, there would be new records being set, globally - again, evidence that something is happening doesn't illustrate causation.

You're welcome to believe what you like, I really couldn't care less! I doubt anything I could say or provide would ever change your mind (out of interest, what would that take?) I'm more here for the discussion, debate, and providing information that other people might hopefully read and do some further research into themselves. I strongly believe everyone should form their own opinions on things - whether I agree with them or not. My caveat though is if you're going to have a strong opinion, you're best to be able to defend it...
I rememberer my grand dad one day exclaiming (quite loudly) on a particularly hot summer afternoon....."Fucken hell young fourex...she's been a hot **** today!! Hottest day in 50 years!!" In hindsight.....I should have taken his words, rocked myself into a corner, before bursting onto the world stage as the youngest ever world eco warrior!! My parents and their friends would have been very happy !! :rofl
 
2,916
3,733
I just don't want to waste time responding to you about events to which you can then claim you didn't mean "that one", for example. If you can provide examples, then we know we're both talking about the same thing.

I'm not denying people are making comments about unusual weather - but that doesn't mean they're right, either. If the world were warming due to ANY cause, there would be new records being set, globally - again, evidence that something is happening doesn't illustrate causation.

You're welcome to believe what you like, I really couldn't care less! I doubt anything I could say or provide would ever change your mind (out of interest, what would that take?) I'm more here for the discussion, debate, and providing information that other people might hopefully read and do some further research into themselves. I strongly believe everyone should form their own opinions on things - whether I agree with them or not. My caveat though is if you're going to have a strong opinion, you're best to be able to defend it...
I really do not want to enter the debate as it seems exteodinarily time consuming. It literally took me 2 seconds to Google the article I placed at the bottom (not my normal research method but one that would seem apt in this discussion considering the confirmation bias' occurring).

I do appreciate the different point of view and it has made me think and consider things. The fear mongering MAY at times be excessive (although it needs to happen as otherwise nothing will be done and blissful ignorance will continue until it REQUIRES action) but it is far less than the denial that is and has been occurring for decades. I view climate change deniers along the same lines as "God of gaps" people.

"Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of the things in the past that the physicists—at the time—didn’t understand … [but now we do understand.] If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller, as time moves on." Neill de grass tyson

We don't understand how much and how exactly we will be effected by climate change but it is happening. You're right when you said a lot of the predictions were wrong. I saw great example of that on TV the other day when a climatologist stated they had underestimated weather conditions this year. Record temperatures are occurring globally and unusual weather events are happening (see below as a very simple and easy example, one of probably 1000's of articles on the issue).
Maybe our impact isn't as great as is being predicted but we are having an impact. I'll give you a very simple analogy that even non-scientists like ourselves (including yourself) can understand. You don't cut out and decrease the alveoli in your lungs (the trees of earth), increase the cigarettes you're smoking (co2 production via farm animals and industry) and expect it to have no impact on a persons lung capacity. A very simple analogy that may not be completely scientific, but paints the picture for me, a lay person on the subject.

 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
9,367
6,247
Ipswich
I just don't want to waste time responding to you about events to which you can then claim you didn't mean "that one", for example. If you can provide examples, then we know we're both talking about the same thing.

I'm not denying people are making comments about unusual weather - but that doesn't mean they're right, either. If the world were warming due to ANY cause, there would be new records being set, globally - again, evidence that something is happening doesn't illustrate causation.

You're welcome to believe what you like, I really couldn't care less! I doubt anything I could say or provide would ever change your mind (out of interest, what would that take?) I'm more here for the discussion, debate, and providing information that other people might hopefully read and do some further research into themselves. I strongly believe everyone should form their own opinions on things - whether I agree with them or not. My caveat though is if you're going to have a strong opinion, you're best to be able to defend it...
You don't think that thousands of people worldwide noticing changes from the stability of their earlier lives means anything. Fair enough. You want specific examples of unusual weather? Do some research, you'll find hundreds of examples but you don't want that. You want me to come up with an example of an unusual weather event so then you can 'explain' it to me using your years, nay decades of professional experience in the field. Oh wait, that wouldn't be right because you have zero qualifications.

Tell me, why are you putting your expert explanations and theories on a football site instead of doing a Thunberg and telling the world? You could put your counter arguments into a paper and submit it for peer review, maybe even tell real climatologists where they're getting it all wrong. Win a Nobel Prize for being the spokesman for all the denialists, the one who showed the science community...the truth!
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
I really do not want to enter the debate as it seems exteodinarily time consuming. It literally took me 2 seconds to Google the article I placed at the bottom (not my normal research method but one that would seem apt in this discussion considering the confirmation bias' occurring).

I do appreciate the different point of view and it has made me think and consider things. The fear mongering MAY at times be excessive (although it needs to happen as otherwise nothing will be done and blissful ignorance will continue until it REQUIRES action) but it is far less than the denial that is and has been occurring for decades. I view climate change deniers along the same lines as "God of gaps" people.

"Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of the things in the past that the physicists—at the time—didn’t understand … [but now we do understand.] If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller, as time moves on." Neill de grass tyson

We don't understand how much and how exactly we will be effected by climate change but it is happening. You're right when you said a lot of the predictions were wrong. I saw great example of that on TV the other day when a climatologist stated they had underestimated weather conditions this year. Record temperatures are occurring globally and unusual weather events are happening (see below as a very simple and easy example, one of probably 1000's of articles on the issue).
Maybe our impact isn't as great as is being predicted but we are having an impact. I'll give you a very simple analogy that even non-scientists like ourselves (including yourself) can understand. You don't cut out and decrease the alveoli in your lungs (the trees of earth), increase the cigarettes you're smoking (co2 production via farm animals and industry) and expect it to have no impact on a persons lung capacity. A very simple analogy that may not be completely scientific, but paints the picture for me, a lay person on the subject.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I agree on the time-consuming nature of this stuff...we all probably have better things to do, but I'm procrastinating!!

I understand your argument here to be that "things are changing". Perhaps I've been misunderstood, because I've never attempted to claim that things are NOT changing. On the contrary, things are constantly changing. I think people have trouble comprehending the size of the Earth system and the hundreds (thousands probably) of components that form it - I know I do. And to think we know enough about all of them to predict with any form of accuracy what is going to happen in future, in my opinion, is hubris.

Look, I understand what you're trying to do in your analogy. And I totally agree about cutting down the trees - land use is where I feel the majority of humans' impact on the Earth is likely to be felt the most. A good example of that is the glacier or snowpack atop I think it was Mt Kilimanjaro (spelling, I'm sure) - it was found to be shrinking some time back, and it was believed to be a "canary in the coal mine" for global warming. What it was revealed had actually happened was that the forests on the lower slopes had been decimated for farming, and the loss of transpiration from the forests had reduced snowfall. There has been a sustained reforestation effort and as I understand it, the recession has stopped and the snowpack/glacier is once again expanding. I see this as a good news story!! And also clear evidence that human impact CAN definitely effect natural earth systems. But the most obvious way your analogy falls down in that smoking more does not cause increased alveoli growth the way slightly increased CO2 has caused planetary greening. I forget the numbers precisely but it's something like an increase in vegetation globally something in the range of 30% over the past 50 years or something like that...plants are taking up a lot more CO2 than most anyone expected, which as a flow-on effect means that any predicted outcomes of increased atmospheric CO2 must also be smaller than thought. Which is good news...right?

Okay. The issue isn't whether we are having an impact, I believe that's clear. The issues include 1) how much we're responsible for, 2) when will these changes manifest themselves, 3) is said impact going to be beneficial or negative, and 4) are there changes we can make now to minimise said impact and reduce the magnitude/costs of said impact; and 5) do those changes compare favourably economically to the cost of adapting to the impact. It's not as simple as "things are changing, so we have to change how we do things, quick, do everything possible and to hell with the consequences".

And again...your article explains that hot temperature records are being broken faster than cold temperature records. Okay. That is evidence that the globe is likely warming on average. However it makes zero representations of the cause of that. And generally, attribution studies are as I've mentioned previously - "We can't explain the current changes without adding CO2 therefore it must be the cause". That's incorrect logic. It could be something missed in the models completely. It could be wrong assumptions in the models. It could be wrong processes in the models. But as I've demonstrated earlier in the thread, the more processes the models add, the further from our experienced reality they get. So to use the models to "prove" anything much is a flawed argument from the outset. They can be useful in certain situations, but they are extremely limited.
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Captain
3,103
3,360
Wow, damning stuff. No way Greta could have joined and encouraged mum and dad to back the cause too hey? Nope, definite grooming...not. Fail.
True, it’s not as damning as watching a bunch of youtube videos that happen to agree with your own thoughts and then claiming that is some sort of ‘evidence’...
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
You don't think that thousands of people worldwide noticing changes from the stability of their earlier lives means anything. Fair enough. You want specific examples of unusual weather? Do some research, you'll find hundreds of examples but you don't want that. You want me to come up with an example of an unusual weather event so then you can 'explain' it to me using your years, nay decades of professional experience in the field. Oh wait, that wouldn't be right because you have zero qualifications.

Tell me, why are you putting your expert explanations and theories on a football site instead of doing a Thunberg and telling the world? You could put your counter arguments into a paper and submit it for peer review, maybe even tell real climatologists where they're getting it all wrong. Win a Nobel Prize for being the spokesman for all the denialists, the one who showed the science community...the truth!
Wow. No, I don't think that thousands of people worldwide noticing changes from the alleged stability of their earlier lives means anything much. When was this "stability"? Is there evidence of "stability"? Are things actually demonstrably unusual, or just rare? Unlikely? Outliers which still remain within the historical range? This is why I asked you for specific examples, even just one. And YES, of course I want to consider the example/s you provide and have a discussion about them. Isn't that the point? If you're not prepared to consider the facts about an "unusual weather event" and how unusual it actually is, then perhaps you shouldn't be going on about how unusual it is. You might end up looking a bit silly....oh wait, that's why you don't want to choose a specific unusual weather event to discuss.....got it.

I'm not professing to be an expert, btw. However, I do have a Bachelor degree in Engineering Science and another in Engineering Technology. But sure, zero qualifications. It's not like engineers can "do" or understand maths or statistics or anything....

How do you know where I do or don't take part in conversations and debates and share my knowledge? I have no interest in fame, or to live in the public eye. And I don't have the time to undertake and publish a scientific paper, unfortunately. Although I've been considering doing a Graduate Diploma in a field related to this stuff, so maybe I will.


To close, I'd like to share a story about a university professor, in the School of Physics at the Georgia Institute of Technology:

The essence of science is reasoned debate. So, if you disagree with something reported in a scientific paper, you can write a “Comment” on it. Yet you don’t see many Comments, and many scientists complain that it can be very difficult to publish one. Some believe that this is because journal editors are reluctant to publish Comments because Comments reveal their mistakes—papers they shouldn’t have allowed to be published in the first place. Fortunately, in this article, I’ll share with you my recent experience publishing a Comment, so you can, too. There are just a few simple steps:
You can read the story here. It's funny, I promise you!!
 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
9,367
6,247
Ipswich
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I agree on the time-consuming nature of this stuff...we all probably have better things to do, but I'm procrastinating!!

I understand your argument here to be that "things are changing". Perhaps I've been misunderstood, because I've never attempted to claim that things are NOT changing. On the contrary, things are constantly changing. I think people have trouble comprehending the size of the Earth system and the hundreds (thousands probably) of components that form it - I know I do. And to think we know enough about all of them to predict with any form of accuracy what is going to happen in future, in my opinion, is hubris.

Look, I understand what you're trying to do in your analogy. And I totally agree about cutting down the trees - land use is where I feel the majority of humans' impact on the Earth is likely to be felt the most. A good example of that is the glacier or snowpack atop I think it was Mt Kilimanjaro (spelling, I'm sure) - it was found to be shrinking some time back, and it was believed to be a "canary in the coal mine" for global warming. What it was revealed had actually happened was that the forests on the lower slopes had been decimated for farming, and the loss of transpiration from the forests had reduced snowfall. There has been a sustained reforestation effort and as I understand it, the recession has stopped and the snowpack/glacier is once again expanding. I see this as a good news story!! And also clear evidence that human impact CAN definitely effect natural earth systems. But the most obvious way your analogy falls down in that smoking more does not cause increased alveoli growth the way slightly increased CO2 has caused planetary greening. I forget the numbers precisely but it's something like an increase in vegetation globally something in the range of 30% over the past 50 years or something like that...plants are taking up a lot more CO2 than most anyone expected, which as a flow-on effect means that any predicted outcomes of increased atmospheric CO2 must also be smaller than thought. Which is good news...right?

Okay. The issue isn't whether we are having an impact, I believe that's clear. The issues include 1) how much we're responsible for, 2) when will these changes manifest themselves, 3) is said impact going to be beneficial or negative, and 4) are there changes we can make now to minimise said impact and reduce the magnitude/costs of said impact; and 5) do those changes compare favourably economically to the cost of adapting to the impact. It's not as simple as "things are changing, so we have to change how we do things, quick, do everything possible and to hell with the consequences".

And again...your article explains that hot temperature records are being broken faster than cold temperature records. Okay. That is evidence that the globe is likely warming on average. However it makes zero representations of the cause of that. And generally, attribution studies are as I've mentioned previously - "We can't explain the current changes without adding CO2 therefore it must be the cause". That's incorrect logic. It could be something missed in the models completely. It could be wrong assumptions in the models. It could be wrong processes in the models. But as I've demonstrated earlier in the thread, the more processes the models add, the further from our experienced reality they get. So to use the models to "prove" anything much is a flawed argument from the outset. They can be useful in certain situations, but they are extremely limited.
I'm stunned that the actual experts in the field aren't as clever as you. You speak of hubris. Some 192 of the world's foremost institutions cannot see what you can. All their efforts are flawed and not a one of them understands it as well as you.
 

lynx000

NRL Captain
4,182
4,076
Waiting to win lotto
I'm stunned that the actual experts in the field aren't as clever as you. You speak of hubris. Some 192 of the world's foremost institutions cannot see what you can. All their efforts are flawed and not a one of them understands it as well as you.
This reads like you have not been able to overcome his arguments so you are now attacking him personally. Poor form in my view.
 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
9,367
6,247
Ipswich
This reads like you have not been able to overcome his arguments so you are now attacking him personally. Poor form in my view.
How is it an attack? It's a challenge to him to present his arguments and theories to those best able to judge them. Let him present his evidence, let him contradict the specialists in the climate sciences, let him prove that they are prideful and let him show how they've all missed what he has seen.

THEN let him come back and explain it all in layman terms to those of us who readily agree that we are not qualified in the topic. Do all that FIRST and establish his credibility and reputation and then I'll accept he was right and the greatest minds got it all wrong.

Till then though I'll trust in the scientific community. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think so I don't know why you're interested.
 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
9,367
6,247
Ipswich
So just to reiterate.

Everyone at least agrees that climate change is happening.
Not everyone agrees on the cause.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Is convincing enough for me.
Mmmm, yes probably! I'd say most on here agree that humankind has altered the balance. My guess is 20 years ago there wasn't enough quality evidence to make even a reasonable prediction but these days, well I'd say the prognostications are much closer to being considered reasonable.
 

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