Climate Change: Fact or Fiction

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,863
4,817
Ipswich
FTR, I don't think anyone is attacking Greta. We're attacking the media that expects us to listen to her purely because she is Not Very Happy. And personally, I am attacking her parents, they're the ones who robbed her of her childhood.
No, there's been plenty of attacks on her on this forum. People don't like her message and want to attack the messenger instead of addressing the points she raises. Even Davey thinks she should do things 'his way'. For him she should shut up and write letters to her local member, wait to vote in a couple of years blah blah. Well she says get fucked. She gets a chance to get the world to listen and people like Davey say no, pass by the chance and be a good little special needs child. Any wonder I don't buy into his confusing junk science.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,329
963
Bundy
No, there's been plenty of attacks on her on this forum. People don't like her message and want to attack the messenger instead of addressing the points she raises. Even Davey thinks she should do things 'his way'. For him she should shut up and write letters to her local member, wait to vote in a couple of years blah blah. Well she says get fucked. She gets a chance to get the world to listen and people like Davey say no, pass by the chance and be a good little special needs child. Any wonder I don't buy into his confusing junk science.
So humour me, what are her qualifications, since that's so important to you? She hasn't even finished high school!! Why should anyone listen? And what does my opinion of Greta have to do with the science of climate change? Talk about confusing...

Attack the messenger instead of addressing the points they raise....hmmmmmm....pot, meet kettle, it's also black, champ, that's exactly what you've done in this thread.

I'd be happy to debate any of her points with you - fire away!
 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,863
4,817
Ipswich
Until and unless you're willing to discuss the actual science, I'm done with you on this topic. You were responding to @Jason Simmons but it was entirely snarky comments directed at me. Wriggle wriggle!!

I'm not confused at all. I have dozens of arguments about dozens of topics that make up "climate change". It's so complex, so multifaceted, so nuanced, that a single black/white position isn't really possible. The entire topic is couched in uncertainty, in a lack of data, in best guesses. If forced to state an overall position, it would be that human activity has most likely caused some changes in our global climate, but the magnitude isn't clear and the future is completely unknown. We don't know enough about Earth system processes, historical data is patchy at best, we just don't know enough to make solid conclusions about anything. That's my position, if forced to be concise.

In your very first post, starting this thread, you said: "My view is simple and simultaneously complex. I believe it's as certain as it is possible to be....I've always thought the earth's natural state was finely balanced and a single change alone could upset the balance for everything." I've provided evidence that both of those opinions are unsupported by the published science on the topic. You won't see what you're not willing to see. You have your beliefs, and that's fine, more power to you. You refuse to discuss the scientific details of anything I present, preferring to make bitchy comments instead. So, I'm done engaging because you're clearly not interested in learning anything new, and I'm not going to get into a mudslinging contest. All the best.
I've got to say your position is wishy washy at best.

You most certainly did not provide evidence that the climate is not a finely balanced system. You argued that because it is in a constant state of flux that it isn't finely balanced as if the two states cannot coexist. I think you're wrong and the evidence is in the mixture, the proportions of each ingredient. Evidence shows we have had enormous timespans without major change, a balance. That balance is now being changed in a very short space of time. You didn't prove that it isn't a finely balanced system and I'd argue that to maintain lengthy timespans in a more or less steady state with only fine variations requires a fine balance.

I don't think you having a different opinion is a bad thing, I'd just think you'd be a bit more certain of your views given that you are a self proclaimed 'engineering scientist'.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,329
963
Bundy
I've got to say your position is wishy washy at best.

You most certainly did not provide evidence that the climate is not a finely balanced system. You argued that because it is in a constant state of flux that it isn't finely balanced as if the two states cannot coexist. I think you're wrong and the evidence is in the mixture, the proportions of each ingredient. Evidence shows we have had enormous timespans without major change, a balance. That balance is now being changed in a very short space of time. You didn't prove that it isn't a finely balanced system and I'd argue that to maintain lengthy timespans in a more or less steady state with only fine variations requires a fine balance.

I don't think you having a different opinion is a bad thing, I'd just think you'd be a bit more certain of your views given that you are a self proclaimed 'engineering scientist'.
Ok so to clarify, then, your belief is that the chemical composition of the atmosphere remains stable for long periods of time. Is that a reasonable paraphrasing of your position?

And can you provide the evidence you claim shows that we have had enormous "timespans without major change"?
 
Last edited:

Sirlee oldman

NRL Player
1,367
1,780
The point is in the contrast. While Greta might care too much most people care too little. It’s all about priorities. How much climate destruction is that extra percentage point of GDP worth? When should we take action and how hard should we go? I have seen a lot of arguments on here that say it’s not time to panic but very little attempt to quantify how much action we should take.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,329
963
Bundy
The point is in the contrast. While Greta might care too much most people care too little. It’s all about priorities. How much climate destruction is that extra percentage point of GDP worth? When should we take action and how hard should we go? I have seen a lot of arguments on here that say it’s not time to panic but very little attempt to quantify how much action we should take.
Excellent point. But also now we're into the economics of solutions/adaptation, based on the science underpinning the potential problem. From an engineering standpoint, to decide on a course of action to take, you typically need to know the costs of inaction. If there's imminent disaster on a globally catastrophic scale, then by all means, we should be throwing money at it. If there's minor change coming which can easily be adapted to as it happens, then potentially we don't need to do anything more now than what we are.

If you're interested in looking into it, Bjorn Lomborg is a guy who has done a lot of studies on the economics of action now vs action in future, based on the best-guess science about what the impacts of global warming are likely to be. I'd definitely recommend his work on this topic, it puts a lot into perspective.

As an aside, the economics are also something that bug me in a big way. People are dying, globally, today, from things preventable with a fraction of the $$ spent on "climate funding". That's a travesty, in my opinion, when we're trying to mitigate potential harm hundreds of years in the future which may or may not be occurring. As an example, the World Bank estimates the cost to provide clean water and sanitation to everyone on earth to be $150B per year. Sounds like a lot; IS a hell of a lot. The figures for providing sufficient food globally are even worse - estimated to be as little as $30B annually by the UN. However, total climate financing globally is over $500B per year, potentially up to $700B. So the cost to provide clean water, septic/sewerage AND food security, globally, is within the error margin of climate funding. That's my issue with priorities right there.
 
Last edited:

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
21,371
17,841
The point is in the contrast. While Greta might care too much most people care too little. It’s all about priorities. How much climate destruction is that extra percentage point of GDP worth? When should we take action and how hard should we go? I have seen a lot of arguments on here that say it’s not time to panic but very little attempt to quantify how much action we should take.
I agree with this. The people resisting the change are only doing it for financial reasons, and only for their financial reasons. Whether it's massive resource companies that make trillions, or old retired people who are concerned about share prices and their superannuation. The latter of which probably do want to help the environment, but want to delay it as long as possible so it doesn't impact them.

Also, to add to the spectacle... Imagine if you were an outspoken vegan. Absolutely held your position, and refused to entertain alternative views. And yet you not only drove a Steggles truck, but actively and repeatedly bragged about how much money you get from it. Self interest above conviction.
 

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
21,371
17,841
Excellent point. But also now we're into the economics of solutions/adaptation, based on the science underpinning the potential problem. From an engineering standpoint, to decide on a course of action to take, you typically need to know the costs of inaction. If there's imminent disaster on a globally catastrophic scale, then by all means, we should be throwing money at it. If there's minor change coming which can easily be adapted to as it happens, then potentially we don't need to do anything more now than what we are.

If you're interested in looking into it, Bjorn Lomborg is a guy who has done a lot of studies on the economics of action now vs action in future, based on the best-guess science about what the impacts of global warming are likely to be. I'd definitely recommend his work on this topic, it puts a lot into perspective.

As an aside, the economics are also something that bug me in a big way. People are dying, globally, today, from things preventable with a fraction of the $$ spent on "climate funding". That's a travesty, in my opinion, when we're trying to mitigate potential harm hundreds of years in the future which may or may not be occurring. As an example, the World Bank estimates the cost to provide clean water and sanitation to everyone on earth to be $150B per year. Sounds like a lot; IS a hell of a lot. The figures for providing sufficient food globally are even worse - estimated to be as little as $30B annually by the UN. However, total climate financing globally is over $500B per year, potentially up to $700B. So the cost to provide clean water, septic/sewerage AND food security, globally, is within the error margin of climate funding. That's my issue with priorities right there.
And then remember that in 2017, the world's ~2000 odd billionaires made $762 billion in profit. That one year.

 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,863
4,817
Ipswich
I agree with this. The people resisting the change are only doing it for financial reasons, and only for their financial reasons. Whether it's massive resource companies that make trillions, or old retired people who are concerned about share prices and their superannuation. The latter of which probably do want to help the environment, but want to delay it as long as possible so it doesn't impact them.

Also, to add to the spectacle... Imagine if you were an outspoken vegan. Absolutely held your position, and refused to entertain alternative views. And yet you not only drove a Steggles truck, but actively and repeatedly bragged about how much money you get from it. Self interest above conviction.
I genuinely laughed out loud, I smiled so wide it made my fat face twitch. I'm serious!!ouch-right-in-the-feelings-meme.jpg
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,329
963
Bundy

kooly87

NRL Player
1,058
1,419
Totally agree, it's obscene. But that's a whole other topic getting into society and political systems and ideologies and has nothing to do with climate science unfortunately 😉
Right there I think you've touched on one of the big problems with the climate change debate. You're here trying to discuss literally just the climate and humanity's impact upon it and it's running into opposition because for many people, the term 'climate change' is used (probably incorrectly) almost interchangeably or as an all encompassing headline for a range of topics that fit in and around it including depletion of resources, population growth, growing urbanisation, unsustainable agricultural practices, water use, wealth inequality etc, and this can very quickly de-rail or confuse any debate on this topic as different issues get thrown in along with the others.
 
Last edited:

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,329
963
Bundy
Right there I think you've touched on one of the big problems with the climate change debate. You're here trying to discuss literally just the climate and humanity's impact upon it and it's running into opposition because for many people, the term 'climate change' is used (probably incorrectly) almost interchangeably or as an all encompassing headline for a range of topics that fit in and around it including depletion of resources, population growth, growing urbanisation, unsustainable agricultural practices, water use, wealth inequality etc, and this can very quickly de-rail or confuse any debate on this topic as different issues get thrown in along with the others.
Totally agree with you. And all of those issues are linked in some ways, completely unrelated in others, some are dependant and others are issues in their own right. All of which are also more or less of an issue depending on your individual views etc.

Other people go even further and drag in stuff that's not related to environmental issues at all, using climate change as a way to further their ideology. There have been calls from some with I can only assume extreme socialist bents to actually "suspend democracy" - literally - to deal with climate change.

And this is why I've tried to be so specific with terms and definitions and what the actual topic of a discussion is, because getting other unrelated or tangentially-related issues involved does tend to totally throw the conversation off the tracks, which is unhelpful at best and completely counter-productive at worst.
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
25,524
10,071
Third Rock from the Sun
So, it was reported this week that the Antarctic set two high temperature records; 18 and then 20 degrees yesterday. Coincided with a massive chuck of polar ice falling into the ocean. History shows that if the earth warms two degrees on average, the oceans become 6m higher. Bit scary.

PS. This was reported on ABC. So media...
I'm a bit late to the party, and fortunately LittleDavey83 LittleDavey83 already demonstrated how a headline and article can be totally misleading in regards to the actual conclusions and validity of a study.

For example, did you know that the Ocean's levels have raised over 120 mtrs over the last 20,000 years, and we're still about 250 meters below the highest known/guessed levels? Scary right? 🤯

Look at the rate the ocean is rising currently:
1582016004222.png

What about the last few centuries?

1582017896992.png

Now, look at the headline in the picture above...
Jeez, that does look bad, and you can notice the rate has now increased to the double since the industrial revolution began.

If I was an alarmist, I would leave at that, but being a curious bastard, I want some more information. What does the trend look like over a longer period?

1582016819689.png

Wait what? We've had rates of up to 48mm increase per year well before there was any degree of significant human influence on the planet, and we seem to be in a very stable period right now.

But what about the headline on the graph before this one, about the fairly constant rate since the little ice age? Surely there's something wrong here...

How disingenuous... the little ice age was just a period between the 14th century and the end of the 19th, where the winters were on average colder than the 20th century. Not an actual Ice Age of course, but hey... it serves the purpose, right?
This completely reminds me of antivax rhetoric and their deliberate attempts to confuse morbidity and mortality.

Note that a rate of nearly 5 meters per century occurred during the Meltwater Pulse 1A (which controversially has no defined source, as scientists are still arguing where the meltwater came from).
Now, we could see a 6 meters sea rise with a 2 degree temperature increase, if that temperature increase indeed triggered another fairly catastrophic meltwater event such as the above mentioned...

That is something far from established, as there is very much an ongoing discussion in the scientific community about whether the Antarctic Ice volume is indeed actually shrinking.
Most studies are shrouded in hypotheticals, because despite being able to make increasingly accurate measurements, scientists just don't know enough about glaciers mechanics to present more than guesses as to the future of our largest fresh water reserve.
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
25,524
10,071
Third Rock from the Sun
I'd love to hear the media agenda you think is happening? Those rich renewable energy companies that dominate the stock exchange over those poor little mining companies must really being putting the pressure on the media.

Another thing that I find funny is, you agree it's happening but to a tiny amount.... So what?! That just means that it will be our great great grandkids problem instead of our grandkids. Water dripping onto a rock isn't doing much damage but it will eventually erode away at a rock, eating poorly won't kill you now but it will likely eventually lead to health issues. Imagine the generations in the far, far, far future... "they knew it was happening but it wasn't THAT bad back then so they were right to not do anything and just let us deal with it."...
Media is increasingly sensationalist by nature. You had the example of the sea levels rising by 6 mtrs for 2 degrees increase as an example, which was just a headline made to attract attention and alarm people, although in the end, it was nothing more than a guess formulated in a study without any real base to support it...

Where did I say that I agree it is happening by any amount. That's exactly the point I am trying to make... NO ONE knows by which amount it is happening, as NO ONE has enough information to attempt more than guessing!

NO ONE knows what the consequences will be either for the same reasons as above.
The usual "our grandkids will pay the price of our inaction" is just more fear mongering from alarmists who see a headline about anthropological climate change, and believe only draconian measures at any cost, will save the planet and future generations, when there is absolutely ZERO evidence for this.

You can try to paint me into a denialist corner, but I'm just another one of those pesky engineers who wants to know how claims are supported. The bigger the claim the more evidence I require.
Climate science is still in its infancy and while most of its experts are truly following the scientific method, there are too many manipulators trying to take advantage of cautious guesses (you know, like... better be safe than sorry) to present a distorted scary picture to the public.

Not really sure why you believe I don't understand 'a scientific study or it's process'.
Your two 'facts' are simply unsubstantiated claims. Media publications? Do you mean newspapers? Climate science is known in 'the community as junk science'? Which community is that? So a lack equals junk? Not sure why you're lecturing me about the meritorious efforts many are making to improve our world!

I wholeheartedly support those efforts and I too don't think we should act rashly.
Whatever makes you think I'd support that? It seems you're following Morkels lead, you want to criticize me and knock me down a peg so you invent a position you think I hold and let fly. Bit nutty.
You seem to think you need to be a field expert to be able to discuss or interpret a study or model, which is far from the truth, as the scientific method is universal.
Sure, it helps to have a solid base in mathematics and physics for example, but reading an abstract is really not that complex, as it allows you to understand how the author comes to his/her conclusions, instead of reading an article which almost always will remove important caveats and details from the study.
In climate science, those conclusions are invariably best guesses based on a cautious approach, simply because of insufficient data. You seem to have an issue with people pointing at flaws in reasoning or the authors interpretation, when by their own admission, they are really only guessing. That screams bias to me!

Unsubstantiated claims? You should be able to prove me wrong easily if you think so, or are you asking me to prove a negative?

Media, as in all encompassing. That's from the biggest conglomerates to the tiniest blogs, passing through social media. As said in my previous post, the big ones love sensationalism, the others will generally show a pronounced bias whichever way.

Climate science is known as "junk science" by the scientific community as a whole due to the reasons I explained above. It's not junk because it's not serious or important, but because it cannot comply (yet at least) with the scientific method requirements to formulate a theory.

Finally, as you well know and have told Morkel Morkel multiple times, science doesn't care about what you believe, and your belief that Earth's climate is a finely tuned system easily brought out of balance, is the actual unsubstantiated claim here.
 
Last edited:

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,329
963
Bundy
I should have included this:

"Naomi Seibt is an accelerated student and has a background in science and psychology. She received a degree in BA (Business Administration). She went to St. Mauritz School and won first place in the youth competition research in physics. She graduated from high school at the age of 16 in 2017."

I don't actually have a point to make here, just curious about people's reaction.
 

Nashy

International Captain
Staff
40,551
15,709
Brisbane
I should have included this:

"Naomi Seibt is an accelerated student and has a background in science and psychology. She received a degree in BA (Business Administration). She went to St. Mauritz School and won first place in the youth competition research in physics. She graduated from high school at the age of 16 in 2017."

I don't actually have a point to make here, just curious about people's reaction.
She's already smarter than I'll ever be.
 

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