Opinions on man made Climate Change

[Crni Vuk]

The articles all have the sources for their claims. Do you really think if I posted stuff like the United States' budget on environmental regulation and other large boring documents half the people here would even bother? Hell, you can't get these people to watch a 10 minute video but if you'd like me to just post a whole lot of obtuse information to look smart while ensuring that no one can actually understand what it means I guess I can. The articles aren't the meat of the argument, they're there to provide context.

You know, the NASA guys are pretty smart I would say. And they do a lot of research. And they argue very much in favour of global warming and the roles humans play in it. Well now I am not an expert in those things nor do I think that they are gods or always correct or what ever. But the NASA guys are somewhat good with science, I mean we can agree at least on that, right? They've send rockets in space, and discovered a ton of shit. And the science they do best is planetary science. They have done a lot of sucessesfull stuff in the past. So why should they lie here? Or why should one not at least take them serious? When they say :
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I think we all agree that the climate is a complex matter. But when the NASA is convinced that something humanity does is wrong, potentially dangerous even, maybe, just maybe we should take them serious.

The way how I see it? We can only win here! If the NASA is wrong, the worst thing we did was loosing some money while reducing pollution. If it turns out that they are right, and we succesfully stoped it! Cool! But if we do nothing, because we believe they are wrong ... and it turns out that they have been right ... I don't know. THink about it that way. You have a frozen river. You and your family are inside a truck. Geting around the river would take you hours. Some stranger standing next to the river tells that it is save to cross it. Would you drive with the truck over the river? Just because it is the shorter route? Or would you take the long, and secure route with your family?

 

[Hassknecht]

But Crniiiii the NASA guys are funded by public money so you can't trust them!

 

[zegh8578]

But Crniiiii the NASA guys are funded by public money so you can't trust them!

You're in on it too Hass, you scientist

 

[Vergil]

You know, the NASA guys are pretty smart I would say. And they do a lot of research. And they argue very much in favour of global warming and the roles humans play in it.

They're also a government funded agency that have a lot to gain from sticking to the Global Warming narrative.

So why should they lie here?

Because Global Warming alarmism is a multi-billion dollar industry.

why should one not at least take them serious? When they say :
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Because I've already disproved the "97%" consensus 2 or 3 times already in this thread. Please read the thread before posting next time.

Also I would suggest educating yourselves on the whole "97% of scientists agree" meme.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ing-97-percent-consensus-claims/#7afb0e975909
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

Y
The way how I see it? We can only win here! If the NASA is wrong, the worst thing we did was loosing some money

I don't know if you're Bill Gates or something but "multiple billions a year in taxpayer money" is not "some money".

THink about it that way. You have a frozen river. You and your family are inside a truck. Geting around the river would take you hours. Some stranger standing next to the river tells that it is save to cross it. Would you drive with the truck over the river? Just because it is the shorter route? Or would you take the long, and secure route with your family?

False analogy.

But Crniiiii the NASA guys are funded by public money so you can't trust them!

So you're saying that you trust the government 100% on everything? Nothing that the government says is, was, or ever will be false? A organization funded by the government that promotes a theory that makes the government billion upon billions doesn't have any sort of conflict of interest. Alright.

You're in on it too Hass, you scientist

You're implying I'm anti-scientist or anti-science. If I hated scientists so much why would I put emphasis on a paper of thousands of scientists who are against Global Warming? If I was anti scientist why would I use papers written by scientists? Please stop trying to strawman me as some kind of anti-science luddite.

 

[Deleted member 98605]

They're also science nerds! All they wanna do is replicate Star tTek and we all know how socialist that was! You can't trust NASA, those scientists! Let's defund them so they stop looking at the Earth and giving those Socialists the data they use!

 

[zegh8578]

You're implying I'm anti-scientist or anti-science. If I hated scientists so much why would I put emphasis on a paper of thousands of scientists who are against Global Warming? If I was anti scientist why would I use papers written by scientists? Please stop trying to strawman me as some kind of anti-science luddite.

If you have to be explained what a theory is, then you aren't as sciency as you think you are.
We're at a point where we are faced with actually educating you a lot of science-basics that should be your own responsability to have educated yourself on.

I'm not saying you're a luddite, I'm saying that you don't really know what science is and isn't.

 

[Hassknecht]

You're in on it too Hass, you scientist

Yeah, but I don't get any gummint money.
Ok, actually I do, sometimes. Depending on the project.

So you're saying that you trust the government 100% on everything? Nothing that the government says is, was, or ever will be false? A organization funded by the government that promotes a theory that makes the government billion upon billions doesn't have any sort of conflict of interest. Alright.

No, I'm saying that you don't understand how public funding in science works. NASA is not, in fact, the government or political. Public money does not mean that you're bound by expected and politically desirable results.
Also, it doesn't really "make the government billion upon billions", where do you get that?

 

[Vergil]

If you have to be explained what a theory is, then you aren't as sciency as you think you are.
We're at a point where we are faced with actually educating you a lot of science-basics that should be your own responsability to have educated yourself on.

I'm not saying you're a luddite, I'm saying that you don't really know what science is and isn't.

Oh boy, now we're getting to the arguing semantics part of the discussion.

 

[Crni Vuk]

They're also a government funded agency that have a lot to gain from sticking to the Global Warming narrative.

Sure, but who's funding the other side?

Because Global Warming alarmism is a multi-billion dollar industry.

And those that would be forced to change their habits, modernizing their technology and stoping with polluting the environment aren't? We are talking about huge changes here. Of course it will hurt SOME industries, like the car industry, the oil industry, energy, production and a lot more. Who do you think has more to lose here? The guys from NASA who're getting penuts as money? Or the multi-trillion dollar industry out there doing their stuff?

 

[Vergil]

Oh Lord here we go again. Congratulation on posting a very liberal quasi-news show that put a scientist (Tyson's actually credibility as a scientist is a bit low but that's another debate and irrelevent) vs. an old company executive. Be shocked and amazed as the guy with zero scientific background loses an argument against a man famous for being a charismatic scientist.

Also, it doesn't really "make the government billion upon billions", where do you get that?

I've already posted multiple sources that show that they do, I recommend actually looking at them and the sources provided before posting a blind dismissal.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Oh Lord here we go again. Congratulation on posting a very liberal quasi-news show that put a scientist (Tyson's actually validity as a scientist is a bit low but that's another debate and irrelevent)

LOL come on man. How do you expect anyone to take you serious when you say stuff like this?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Oh Lord here we go again. Congratulation on posting a very liberal quasi-news show that put a scientist (Tyson's actually credibility as a scientist is a bit low but that's another debate and irrelevent) vs. an old company executive. Be shocked and amazed as the guy with zero scientific background loses an argument against a man famous for being a charismatic scientist.

How about Hassknecht then, who's also a scientist. And pretty much agreeing with NASA - from what I can tell. Dude, all I am asking is that you think about who's funding the other side. And what their motivations are. And why should they be more trustworthy than the NASA guys.

 

[alec]

Global warming is definitely real, we have the data to prove it, but I still have my doubts as to whether this climate change is solely anthropogenic. I like to think it's a combination of natural cycles (solar/geographical/meteorological) and increased human activity, but I'm not a scientist so what the fuck do I know. I am, however, a misanthrope, so don't expect me to start waste sorting any time soon. And if you think eating strawberries in the midst of Winter is decadent and bad for the planet because those delicious strawberries have to travel half the globe to reach my tummy, then I have only one thing left to say: no fucking strawberries for you!

 

[Irwin John Finster]

How about Hassknecht then, who's also a scientist. And pretty much agreeing with NASA - from what I can tell. Dude, all I am asking is that you think about who's funding the other side. And what their motivations are. And why should they be more trustworthy than the NASA guys.

Basically some people are willing to trust lobbyists more than scientists, believing that the other side is clearly a "huge conspiracy" without recognizing they're being played by a different "conspiracy" altogether.

 

[AskWazzup]

Global warming is definitely real, we have the data to prove it, but I still have my doubts as to whether this climate change is solely anthropogenic. I like to think it's a combination of natural cycles (solar/geographical/meteorological) and increased human activity, but I'm not a scientist so what the fuck do I know. I am, however, a misanthrope, so don't expect me to start waste sorting any time soon. And if you think eating strawberries in the midst of Winter is decadent and bad for the planet because those delicious strawberries have to travel half the globe to reach my tummy, then I have only one thing left to say: no fucking strawberries for you!

Well, at least the solar part is not a factor (in a sense that increased sun activity would be a culprit) from what i read, as then the upper parts of the atmosphere should not be cooling, while the lower parts are heating up.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Basically some people are willing to trust lobbyists more than scientists, believing that the other side is clearly a "huge conspiracy" without recognizing they're being played by a different "conspiracy" altogether.

I don't believe in any conspiracy here. I just think the NASA guys are the more credible source. Because honestly, no one of us here is an expert, not even Hass, he is a physicist not a climate researcher. So we have to fall back on the opinions of experts. And when you have two conflicting opinions, you go with the one that has more credibility. And the guys and girls at NASA have achieved a lot of scientific stuff. They have a track record here. And that is what they do for their living. Government funded or not. So when they back this up, does it mean that it HAS to be correct? No, I guess not. But like I said. It's at least something that we should take serious. And if you know a weeee bit about how preidcitions and simulations with the climate work, than you know that it is usually not so boggus. Everything they do has to be cross checked by multiple independed sources. Not all of those can be rigged, or government funded or what ever.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

I don't believe in any conspiracy here. I just think the NASA guys are the more credible source. They have achieved a lot of scientific stuff. They have a track record here. And that is what they do for their living. Government funded or not. So when they back this up, does it mean that it HAS to be correct? No, I guess not. But like I said. It's at least something that we should take serious.

I think you misunderstand.

I'm saying some people would rather believe in some "huge government conspiracy" promoted by some industry lobbyist whose job it is to outright lie and scare people to promote his/her employers' interests, rather than believe the general scientific consensus about climate change.

They see a "huge conspiracy" but don't realize they're being played by lobbyists trying to promote their own agenda.

In other words I'm agreeing with you.

 

[Vergil]

LOL come on man. How do you expect anyone to take you serious when you say stuff like this?

....would you like me to go on and extrapolate on that pointless factor or stick to the actual topic at hand?

Dude, all I am asking is that you think about who's funding the other side. And what their motivations are. And why should they be more trustworthy than the NASA guys.

You do understand you're basically trying to make the argument "Your possibly lying scientists that are in someone's back pocket is larger than my possibly lying scientists that re in someone's backpocket" right? Going by your logic we're both potentially right or wrong since according to you both sides are being funded. However I will humour you since I'd like to see you actually do some research for once, who is funding the thousands of scientists that I've posted and are merely disagreeing with the current theory of Global Warming?

Basically some people are willing to trust lobbyists more than scientists,

Actually. Read. What. I. Posted.
Theres sources are all coming from scientists. You're either not reading my sources or just straight up lying if you're saying that I have no scientists on my side and what I post is baseless nothingness from lobbyists. I've posted a PDF that's been signed by over a thousands scientists now that disagree with the current view of Global Warming.

 

[zegh8578]

Global warming is definitely real, we have the data to prove it, but I still have my doubts as to whether this climate change is solely anthropogenic. I like to think it's a combination of natural cycles (solar/geographical/meteorological) and increased human activity, but I'm not a scientist so what the fuck do I know. I am, however, a misanthrope, so don't expect me to start waste sorting any time soon. And if you think eating strawberries in the midst of Winter is decadent and bad for the planet because those delicious strawberries have to travel half the globe to reach my tummy, then I have only one thing left to say: no fucking strawberries for you!

I don't think anyone serious-minded considers climate change to be caused solely by human activity. This would mean that natural processes stop, while we exist. While I'm tempted to use words like "obviously", nothing is obvious to a lot of people anymore - but I'll say it anyway: Obviously it is a combination. Humanity is part of nature, nature has its own process going independently of our existence, but we are contributing to this process by being one of the most active organisms on the planet

I find odd that people really find it realistic to rule out either of those two factors :I

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Actually. Read. What. I. Posted.
Theres sources are all coming from scientists. You're either not reading my sources or just straight up lying if you're saying that I have no scientists on my side and what I post is baseless nothingness from lobbyists. I've posted a PDF that's been signed by over a thousands scientists now that disagree with the current view of Global Warming.

What I'm saying is I'm not clicking on a breitbart link or any of those other "sources" lol.

Find better sources.

....would you like me to go on and extrapolate on that pointless factor or stick to the actual topic at hand?

Please do elaborate.