• Tucker Carlson: Bill Nye the Science guy Interview over Climate Change.
    222 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885746]I looked in that link and it mentioned nothing about human impact.[/QUOTE] I think when China, for example, suffers from periodic "smog storms" the human impact is pretty damn apparent.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885754]97% of scientist agree people affect the climate. That is fine. But there seems to be no standard consensus on how much and theories of ice caps melting and polar bear populations are just a few examples of where scientific consensus has had to change or been predicted wrong by scientists.[/QUOTE] Scientific consensus on ice caps and polar bears has not in fact changed at all. All your sources directly refute your statement and at this point your clear anti-science bias is showing. As well as your own apparent inability to either read or comprehend your own sources.
Millionaires indirectly pay politicians and news stations, to try and discredit science because of their own corporate interests, and people like you fall for it, and spread more obvious misinformation that can be easily disproved with only a basic high school level environmental science class.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;51885758]I think when China, for example, suffers from periodic "smog storms" the human impact is pretty damn apparent.[/QUOTE] nah that's been happening since the 900's we just haven't recorded it back then that's not human intervention and pollution or anything you just need to look at the FACTS The facts being this:
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885754][B]97% of scientist agree people affect the climate. That is fine. [/B] But there seems to be no standard consensus on how much and theories of ice caps melting and polar bear populations are just a few examples of where scientific consensus has had to change or been predicted wrong by scientists.[/QUOTE] I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but at this point I've got no respect for you as you clearly have none for me. You're wasting my time and the effort I'm putting in to trying to help educate you, you've clearly not even glanced at anything I've sent your way or you'd know that it's not 97% of scientists that agree it's man-made, it's that [B]97% of global warming is attributed to humans[/B].
Tudd did you even take any science courses in school? It really isnt that hard to understand the greenhouse effect, what you are saying is like disputing gravity...its silly. I mean it may not seem like it due to how hotly contested the issue is, but if you actually research yourself you will soon discover its insane to say humans are not contributing, people just dont look at facts due to effort, and politicians and news dont care.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885754]97% of scientist agree people affect the climate. That is fine. But there seems to be no standard consensus on how much and theories of ice caps melting and polar bear populations are just a few examples of where scientific consensus has had to change or been predicted wrong by scientists.[/QUOTE] I... What? Seriously, can you rephrase this?
Tudd stop making baseless claims and just look at statistics.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885754]97% of scientist agree people affect the climate. That is fine. But there seems to be no standard consensus on how much and theories of ice caps melting and polar bear populations are just a few examples of where scientific consensus has had to change or been predicted wrong by scientists.[/QUOTE] This entire post literally contradicts itself what are you even trying to say
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51885744]Your own article states that multiple polar bear populations are also either shrinking or we dont have enought data to assess them. and at the very end of the article it states In direct contradiction to what you stated. Your own source states that the ice sheet is shrinking in some areas and growing in others Furthermore it also states that the increase in size is only temporary and that it will reverse if the current rate of increase in ice loss continues. The scientist didn't state in the first article that the ice sheets would melt in 2013, and the second article focuses mainly on the potential damage caused by methane release caused by climate change. Congratulations somehow you managed to find four sources that directly refute the point you were trying to make. Next time you should read them.[/QUOTE] 1. There are several articles (or hell Al Gore's film) you can find online predicting polar bears to be extinct or decline in population due to melting ice caps, but it has been rising. 2. Which leads into my second point about how you say there are gains and losses, but you failed to mention how the article specifically points out there is a net gain. [quote]According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.[/quote] Which means it is declining on growth, but it will take decades before we see a net loss. 3. And the point of the 2013 to 2016 study is to show how credible scientists still have to change their hypothesis on this kind of stuff that deals with how fast/to what degree the ice caps melt. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;51885768]I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but at this point I've got no respect for you as you clearly have none for me. You're wasting my time and the effort I'm putting in to trying to help educate you, you've clearly not even glanced at anything I've sent your way or you'd know that it's not 97% of scientists that agree it's man-made, it's that [B]97% of global warming is attributed to humans[/B].[/QUOTE] Lol I feel like this is arguing semantics now. I still agree with your statement. [b]EDIT[/b] Oh wait you think we contribute to 97% of it. Actually here is the quote on that. You are wrong in how you stated that. [url]http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/apr/04/don-beyer/don-beyer-says-97-percent-scientists-believe-human/[/url]
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885788]1. There are several articles (or hell Al Gore's film) you can find online predicting polar bears to be extinct or decline in population due to melting ice caps, but it has been rising.[/QUOTE] Which is directly correlated by the sources you provided to me and you have yet to offer any refutation [quote] 2. Which leads into my second point about how you say there are gains and losses, but you failed to mention how the article specifically points out there is a net gain. [/quote] Actually I quite clearly did when I provided this quote [quote]. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”[/quote] The paper then states that if current trends continue the gains in the ice caps will be completely negated. At this point I'm questioning your reading comprehension skills. [quote] Which means it is declining on growth, but it will take decades before we see a net loss. [/quote] Which means that we will be experiencing a loss... Meaning your entire argument is either nonsensical or you are in fact arguing in favor of... nothing? [quote] 3. And the point of the 2013 to 2016 study is to show how credible scientists still have to change their hypothesis on this kind of stuff that deals with how fast/to what degree the ice caps melt.[/quote] The only way you can possibly construe this is that the scientists updated their model due to new information. The model is still telling them the same thing essentially. Your argument is nonsensical and quite frankly embarrassing to argue against. [editline]27th February 2017[/editline] Tudd, what point are you actually trying to make?
[QUOTE=J!NX;51885735]You'd have to be pretty intentionally negligent to actually think that humans don't / haven't affected the environment in a pretty huge way [t]http://whyfiles.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1landfill.jpg[/t] [t]http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2013/10/21/heavy-smog-invadesnortheasternchina/_jcr_content/mainpar/imageslideshow/slideShowImages/slide1/image.adapt.960.high.china_smog_01a.jpg[/t] How would this, every day, over decades, not cause damage? Just look at traffic jams [t]https://www.eliteliving.club/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/traffic.jpg[/t] [t]http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/9da349b/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-origin-images.politico.com%2F2014%2F01%2F30%2F140130_traffic_atlanta_ap.jpg[/t] think of how much fuel was used in these images alone, over the course of 1 hour, and then think about the fact that this accounts for less than 1% of worldwide traffic. Do you think the fumes just disappear because you can't see them? How oblivious do you have to be to think it wouldn't add up to something? When you light a fire in a perfectly sealed room, does the oxygen not burn up and suffocate everyone inside? How the hell can you believe that releasing emission's won't make a change? Like this is basically something that should be common sense. Hiding behind "Show proof" and "But this is just naturally happen" is just fucking taking the piss. Those defenses in my eyes make you look like a jackass.[/QUOTE] I acknowledge all those are negative effects and should invest in cleaner technologies that don't hurt the einviroment. But again no one can demonstrate in any measurable way how much we affect the earth. This is a part of climate change that is still being debated.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885815]I acknowledge all those are negative effects and should invest in cleaner technologies that don't hurt the einviroment. But again no one can demonstrate in any measurable way how much we affect the earth. This is a part of climate change that is still being debated.[/QUOTE] This doesn't really make any sense. If you agree that we do then why does it matter how much? The implications that this is happening at all makes it seem fairly obvious that its a big enough impact to warrant blaming ourselves. Why, I ask, is that that much of an issue?
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885788]Lol I feel like this is arguing semantics now. I still agree with your statement. [b]EDIT[/b] Oh wait you think we contribute to 97% of it. Actually here is the quote on that. You are wrong in how you stated that. [url]http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/apr/04/don-beyer/don-beyer-says-97-percent-scientists-believe-human/[/url][/QUOTE] Oh man, sorry, I did misread that. On the other hand, the real number is a little bit worse: [url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing]100%[/url] [quote]Notice that the green and orange bars are both bigger than the black bar. This shows that greenhouse gases have caused more warming than has been observed over the past six decades, but some of that was offset by cooling from human aerosol pollution. [B]And the best estimate from the body of peer-reviewed climate science research is that humans are responsible for more than 100% of the global surface warming since 1950, with natural factors probably offsetting a little bit of that with a slight cooling influence[/B]. Schmidt illustrated this key point in the figure below, which is called a probability distribution of the warming caused by humans since 1950. The curve is [B]centered at about 110% – the most likely value for the human contribution to global warming, while the probability of the human contribution being less than 50% is almost nil[/B].[/quote] [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] So I guess to revise previous answers, it'd actually be a bit cooler than the 1800s!
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885815]I acknowledge all those are negative effects and should invest in cleaner technologies that don't hurt the einviroment. But again no one can demonstrate in any measurable way how much we affect the earth. This is a part of climate change that is still being debated.[/QUOTE] thats it. Heres an [URL="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html"]entire paper[/URL] on the degree to which humans affect out climate. Educate yourself. Dont forget to read the whole paper before posting so you don't end up refuting your own argument.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51885820]This doesn't really make any sense. If you agree that we do then why does it matter how much? The implications that this is happening at all makes it seem fairly obvious that its a big enough impact to warrant blaming ourselves. Why, I ask, is that that much of an issue?[/QUOTE] I think he's trying to be a contrarian.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51885820]This doesn't really make any sense. If you agree that we do then why does it matter how much? The implications that this is happening at all makes it seem fairly obvious that its a big enough impact to warrant blaming ourselves. Why, I ask, is that that much of an issue?[/QUOTE] This is a good point that isn't made enough. If you're willing to acknowledge there is a negative human impact on the environment in any capacity, you're implicitly agreeing that something has to be done to correct this behavior or else we'll face the consequences at some point. The only thing up for debate is how long until we're fucked.
[QUOTE=Domokun;51885827]I think he's trying to be contrarian.[/QUOTE] Its like a little kid explaining why the house is trashed and trying to say "It was mostly the dogs fault". Its a childish argument trying to shift blame in contradiction to the facts.
If people want an exact number on where we would be without humans affecting the climate go read a fucking paper on it. The vast majority of people are not equipped to properly interpret the specific data which is why you need scientists and explainers like Bill to interpret that and give you an answer anyone can understand. If Bill had brought a good example of a climate change study, he could have gone into the details and the other guy probably would have just gotten lost. Bills answer was fine, the climate would have been like it was in 1750, but the problem is most people have no idea what that means. That is why Bill is trying to contextualize this with economic things like agriculture and current environmental problems.
why are we still pretending that the opinions of ignorant fucking morons are important if you aren't a trained climatologist then just fucking shut up and listen to the fucking climatologists. This is like trying to argue that you don't have cancer with your fucking oncologist.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51885820]This doesn't really make any sense. If you agree that we do then why does it matter how much? The implications that this is happening at all makes it seem fairly obvious that its a big enough impact to warrant blaming ourselves. Why, I ask, is that that much of an issue?[/QUOTE] Well if you are going to make Nation/World wide policies, how much we affect the earth would be an important thing to know so that we don't over invest in developing technologies or begin to destroy current ones at the wrong pace. I mean if we're in the "oh shit the earth is doomed already" phase like some scientists have stated, then I hope we would just start building Nuclear Reactors now instead of waiting for Solar to become viable for sustaining large population cities continuously with energy in the coming decades for example. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;51885830]This is a good point that isn't made enough. If you're willing to acknowledge there is a negative human impact on the environment in any capacity, you're implicitly agreeing that something has to be done to correct this behavior or else we'll face the consequences at some point. The only thing up for debate is how long until we're fucked.[/QUOTE] Your last sentence is basically what I'm arguing. Nobody knows much we have fucked ourselves by any measurable amount.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885837]Well if you are going to make Nation/World wide policies, how much we affect the earth would be an important thing to know so that we don't over invest in developing technologies or begin to destroy current ones at the wrong pace. I mean if we're in the "oh shit the earth is doomed already" phase like some scientists have stated, then I hope we would just start building Nuclear Reactors now instead of waiting for Solar to become viable for sustainable large population cities continuously with energy in the coming decades for example.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html[/url] heres an entire paper on the degree of human influence on climate change.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885837]Your last sentence is basically what I'm arguing. Nobody knows much we have fucked ourselves by any measurable amount.[/QUOTE] [del]But the stuff before my last sentence is a measurable amount by which we have fucked ourselves..[/del] Oh, wrong post, here's what you're looking for: [QUOTE=srobins;51885821]Oh man, sorry, I did misread that. On the other hand, the real number is a little bit worse: [url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing]100%[/url] [quote]Notice that the green and orange bars are both bigger than the black bar. This shows that greenhouse gases have caused more warming than has been observed over the past six decades, but some of that was offset by cooling from human aerosol pollution. [B]And the best estimate from the body of peer-reviewed climate science research is that humans are responsible for more than 100% of the global surface warming since 1950, with natural factors probably offsetting a little bit of that with a slight cooling influence[/B]. Schmidt illustrated this key point in the figure below, which is called a probability distribution of the warming caused by humans since 1950. The curve is [B]centered at about 110% – the most likely value for the human contribution to global warming, while the probability of the human contribution being less than 50% is almost nil[/B].[/quote] [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] So I guess to revise previous answers, it'd actually be a bit cooler than the 1800s![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885837]Well if you are going to make Nation/World wide policies, how much we affect the earth would be an important thing to know so that we don't over invest in developing technologies or begin to destroy current ones at the wrong pace. I mean if we're in the "oh shit the earth is doomed already" phase like some scientists have stated, then I hope we would just start building Nuclear Reactors now instead of waiting for Solar to become viable for sustainable large population cities continuously with energy in the coming decades for example.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;51885631]"What if we create a better world for nothing!?"[/QUOTE]
Its commonly accepted that within within the next 100 years the climate will be completely fucked. [url]https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/[/url]
Right, let me just pull out my crystal ball and conjure up the year 2017 of an alternate Earth without industrialization.
The big false claim that many, many people make is that 97% of scientists agree about the results of human caused climate change (A claim that Kerry liked to make). That's just plainly false. All the "97% of scientists" line says is that 97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to global warming. That's it. Once you go past that into the effects of global warming/climate change, you quickly move into much less certain waters. The problem is that the second question is what actually matters. The fact that humans actions are causing the earth to warm is only relevant if that warming will lead to negative results larger than the cost to stop those results. Take the survey done by Bray and Von Storch of the climate science consensus ([url]https://www.hzg.de/imperia/md/content/hzg/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/hzg_reports_2016/hzg_report_2016_2.pdf[/url]). It found, like other surveys, that there is a huge majority agreement that human caused climate change is a real thing, but interesting enough it also found that: - The majority of scientists only moderately agreed that climate models accurate predict conditions for which they are calibrated, with a decent percentage (about 1/3) disagreeing with the statement. - The majority of scientists thought atmospheric models could not take into account the influence of clouds, precipitation - ~30+% of scientists didn't think climate models would be able to accurate predict global mean temperature values for just the next 10 years. The same goes for sea level rises. This number gets even worse when you look at other climate predictions, like precipitation (the majority didn't think we could predict it). - The majority of scientists think both local and global climate models are fairly ineffective in predicting rain and tropical storms. - The general opinion on attributing extreme events, like hurricanes, on climate change is extremely mixed, with the average being only moderate certainty, but with many having almost no certainty. - Half of scientists agreed with the statement, "The collective authority of a consensus culture of science paralyzes new thought." - Over half of scientists thought that the level of uncertainty in climate science has dropped only slightly or actually increased since 1966. Note that I'm not claiming the majority of scientists don't think bad things will happen. My point is that there are sizable portions (anywhere from 20-40%) of scientists that aren't nearly as alarmist as the average FP poster seems to be. It's not nearly a consensus.
I don't see how knowing the exact amount we've fucked up matters. Paramedics get to the scene of a terrible car accident. An eye witness reports he was speeding. The Paramedics stop treating the patient. [I]"Well was he going 56.9mph or 80.3? We can't be sure."[/I] The point is we're killing ourselves. It doesn't matter how fast. We need to fight it now. Tuckers agenda driven smear shot on Bill is going against that ends by pretending like it's not decided. Idiots will eat it up. And yes, they are idiots. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;51885939]The big false claim that many, many people make is that 97% of scientists agree about the results of human caused climate change (A claim that Kerry liked to make). That's just plainly false. All the "97% of scientists" line says is that 97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to global warming. That's it. Once you go past that into the effects of global warming/climate change, you quickly move into much less certain waters. The problem is that the second question is what actually matters. The fact that humans actions are causing the earth to warm is only relevant if that warming will lead to negative results larger than the cost to stop those results. Take the survey done by Bray and Von Storch of the climate science consensus ([url]https://www.hzg.de/imperia/md/content/hzg/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/hzg_reports_2016/hzg_report_2016_2.pdf[/url]). It found, like other surveys, that there is a huge majority agreement that human caused climate change is a real thing, but interesting enough it also found that: - The majority of scientists only moderately agreed that climate models accurate predict conditions for which they are calibrated, with a decent percentage (about 1/3) disagreeing with the statement. - The majority of scientists thought atmospheric models could not take into account the influence of clouds, precipitation - ~30+% of scientists didn't think climate models would be able to accurate predict global mean temperature values for just the next 10 years. The same goes for sea level rises. This number gets even worse when you look at other climate predictions, like precipitation (the majority didn't think we could predict it). - The majority of scientists think both local and global climate models are fairly ineffective in predicting rain and tropical storms. - The general opinion on attributing extreme events, like hurricanes, on climate change is extremely mixed, with the average being only moderate certainty, but with many having almost no certainty. - Half of scientists agreed with the statement, "The collective authority of a consensus culture of science paralyzes new thought." - Over half of scientists thought that the level of uncertainty in climate science has dropped only slightly or actually increased since 1966. Note that I'm not claiming the majority of scientists don't think bad things will happen. My point is that there are sizable portions (anywhere from 20-40%) of scientists that aren't nearly as alarmist as the average FP poster seems to be. It's not nearly a consensus.[/QUOTE] I'm in the camp that if there's a 1% chance that anthropogenic climate change will be catastrophic, than it is worth every dime we can throw at it. Mark my words: this will be catastrophic to the ocean, and a weak ocean will be catastrophic to the economy and coastal populations. Like, the "If it's bad" option is the collapse of global fisheries, [I]billions[/I] dying of starvation, [I]billions[/I] seeking refugee status in the west, global [I]depression.[/I] The bad option is extremely bad, and not worth the risk. We can argue over how much we do or whether or not the models are accurate to an acceptable degree. I'll be over here watching coral reefs bleach at an alarming rate. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] Climate change is the #1 threat to global security, national security, and human survival. Above all else. It will kill more than terrorists ever can, it will kill more than dictators ever wish they could, and it will displace more humans than any and all war in the timeline of human history.
[QUOTE=OvB;51885941]I'm in the camp that if there's a 1% chance that anthropogenic climate change will be catastrophic, than it is worth every dime we can throw at it. Mark my words: this will be catastrophic to the ocean, and a weak ocean will be catastrophic to the economy and coastal populations.[/QUOTE] TBH, we just disagree on this. I'm not willing to doom massive sections of the human population, especially in developing counties, to permanent poverty over a 1% chance. About the second part: you seem to have more certainty than the average climate scientist.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51885966]TBH, we just disagree on this. I'm not willing to doom massive sections of the human population, especially in developing counties, to permanent poverty over a 1% chance. About the second part: you seem to have more certainty than the average climate scientist.[/QUOTE] Did you read his post backwards or do you somehow think fighting global climate change will doom massive sections of the human population to poverty?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.