• Tucker Carlson: Bill Nye the Science guy Interview over Climate Change.
    222 replies, posted
[QUOTE=d00msdaydan;51885973]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?[/QUOTE] Of course it will. Huge portions of humanity depend on massive amounts of fossil fuels, even in wealthy nations.
[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] My predictions are not based off models. I don't care if it happens in 5 years or 5000 years. We are already seeing the ocean suffering now. It's already happening. [I]We can see it.[/I] I don't need to consult a model to see whether its going to be bad or really bad. My concern is with changing the way all humans live so that we are [I]not[/I] doming billions to death. Pollution is already doing a really good job at that, as is. You're concerned for the economy so you should be with me. Because I'm trying to not fuck the economy by destroying the life-blood of the planet that is the ocean. Let me give you an Example. Hurricane Ike destroyed much of the Houston area. Where I live. The cost of the damage that Hurricane Ike dealt was $37.5 Billion dollars.(in a matter of days) So we proposed we build a wall. (hey that sounds sorta familiar) Except this wall keeps out water. It's called the Ike Dyke, and it would be one of the biggest barriers in the world. It's to cost $3-4 Billion dollars. $3-4 Billion to potentially mitigate another 37.5 Billion. Sounds like a bargain to me. They haven't built it yet, because its too expensive and what are the chances, right???? This is coming from a city that has been literally wiped off the map a handful of times by hurricanes. Humans are stupid when it comes to seeing these kinds of risks. We need to hit this thing extreme in the odd chance that it is catastrophic, because the Ocean alone is responsible for trillions in economic benefits that will all get washed away when we can't use it anymore because we were careless about the future. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] That storm also killed over 100 people because the ocean wiped away the city. (after mandatory evacuations, a drop in the bucket to the mass evacuations we'll see from coastal regions in the future.) [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] Why gamble with the future of humanity? What percent certainty do you want? 1% does it for me.
[QUOTE=OvB;51885992]My predictions are not based off models. I don't care if it happens in 5 years or 5000 years. We are already seeing the ocean suffering now. It's already happening. [I]We can see it.[/I] I don't need to consult a model to see whether its going to be bad or really bad. My concern is with changing the way all humans live so that we are [I]not[/I] doming billions to death. Pollution is already doing a really good job at that, as is. You're concerned for the economy so you should be with me. Because I'm trying to not fuck the economy by destroying the life-blood of the planet that is the ocean. Let me give you an Example. Hurricane Ike destroyed much of the Houston area. Where I live. The cost of the damage that Hurricane Ike dealt was $37.5 Billion dollars.(in a matter of days) So we proposed we build a wall. (hey that sounds sorta familiar) Except this wall keeps out water. It's called the Ike Dyke, and it would be one of the biggest barriers in the world. It's to cost $3-4 Billion dollars. $3-4 Billion to potentially mitigate another 37.5 Billion. Sounds like a bargain to me. They haven't built it yet, because its too expensive and what are the chances, right???? This is coming from a city that has been literally wiped off the map a handful of times by hurricanes. Humans are stupid when it comes to seeing these kinds of risks. We need to hit this thing extreme in the odd chance that it is catastrophic, because the Ocean alone is responsible for trillions in economic benefits that will all get washed away when we can't use it anymore because we were careless about the future. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] That storm also killed over 100 people because the ocean wiped away the city.[/QUOTE] Are we talking about immediate solutions to local problems or global solutions to all human caused climate change because the type of solutions are vastly different? About the dam: I have no problem with building it, but it should be done by Texas. They have enough money to do it with a budget of over $112 billion in 2016.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51885985]Of course it will. Huge portions of humanity depend on massive amounts of fossil fuels, even in wealthy nations.[/QUOTE] Hate to see whats gonna happen to those people when fossil fuels run out anyway. You can't dead stop the stuff but we shouldn't be encouraging it. It's like smoking on a planetary scale.
It matters because time may very well give us exponentially better solutions (like the agricultural revolution did for food production) and the opportunity cost is massive if we were to try and solve it today. Like I said, there are HUGE portions of human society that will be damned to poverty, with no hope of gaining a western level of wealth, if we were to massively restrict global usage of fossil fuels. [editline]27th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;51886005]Hate to see whats gonna happen to those people when fossil fuels run out anyway. You can't dead stop the stuff but we shouldn't be encouraging it. It's like smoking on a planetary scale.[/QUOTE] You know as well as I do that any real solution to human CO2 production would need to be orders of magnitude greater than any agreement we've had so far.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885562]I actually believe in climate change btw. I just think it has been heavily politicized to appear settled when it really isn't.[/QUOTE] 97% of all climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. It's settled. Do you think you know better than they do?
[QUOTE=sgman91;51886004]Are we talking about immediate solutions to local problems or global solutions to all human caused climate change because the type of solutions are vastly different? About the dam: I have no problem with building it, but it should be done by Texas. They have enough money to do it with a budget of over $112 billion in 2016.[/QUOTE] It was a local example to a global problem. A catastrophic outcome is going to be bad for everyone, so we should invest the money to help lessen the chances of a catastrophic outcome. We're doing a pretty good job, we need to set more reduction goals and invest in new technologies for everything, even in fossil fuels. (if you gotta keep them for a few more decades, it might as well be as cleanly burning as you can get it) I'm saying that our investment in stopping an [I]uncertain potentially catastrophic[/I] outcome should be our focus. The reward would be no potentially catastrophic outcome. Then penalty in not doing so would be a potentially catastrophic outcome. I gotta run off now though.
I don't get the [I]"but we don't know for sure"[/I] argument as a defense for inaction. The fact that humans still haven't figured out all the factors and their precise effects should be utterly terrifying, since it implies that it could be way worse than we think. Instead many people seem to go with [I]"oh, that means there's only a chance it will happen? well carry on then"[/I] Don't we already know that there are feedback loops of soil and ice with gasses trapped in them that will get released with warming and accelerate further warming? Imagine how many undiscovered things like that there could be.
[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] Damned if you don't not nearly as damned if you do this is just backwards and idiotic logic. What if its all true and caused by humans? How would that in and of itself doom massive sections of the human population? like what the fuck is even the point here :v:
I'd love to see an explanation of "dooming massive sections of the human population to permanent poverty" due to simply changing our main energy source. Like most people, I love to laugh!
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51886080]I'd love to see an explanation of "dooming massive sections of the human population to permanent poverty" due to simply changing our main energy source. Like most people, I love to laugh![/QUOTE] idk they're better off drowning in the sea if you think about it if the earth were to become an unbreathable ball of suffacation, I mean, would you have to worry about your taxes?
I'm gonna play Tudd's advocate here. He [B]isn't [/B]saying that[I] "there is no consensus if humans influence the climate"[/I] as most of you shit on him for it. He's [B]actually saying[/B][I] "there is no consensus on how much we influence the climate compared to how much it has control over itself"[/I]. His questions make no sense to you because you did not understand him at all, yet take the first opportunity to shit on him. To illustrate, here's a comparison, there's a lake through which a river is flowing. And there's a guy dumping water into it with truck tankers. Now the lake's water is raising and it's going to flood nearby a village when it reaches a certain point. What Tudd is questioning isn't whether or not this guy is influencing the water level, he accepts that, he's questioning how much of the level raised is that guy responsible for compared to the river flowing into the lake. Is it all caused by the guy or maybe his contribution is around 5% and it's actually the river that increased it's input significantly? And people also flip out for asking this question "Why is it important?". Because if you were going to ruin developing countries when the human contribution wouldn't be as big as it is, then you'd be doing it for nothing. I think only srobins actually fucking tried to understand what Tudd is trying to say and answer it honestly. So props for you srobins. Also Tucker is a moron. Another also: pascal's wager is for dummies.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51886080]I'd love to see an explanation of "dooming massive sections of the human population to permanent poverty" due to simply changing our main energy source. Like most people, I love to laugh![/QUOTE] Take India. The vast majority of their energy comes from coal and the burning of biomass (wood, for example). Their energy demands are also increasing massively year on year. India still needs absolutely massive growth in its energy sector to get anywhere near a western level of wealth. This is impossible without huge growth in fossil fuel usage. By stopping that growth, you are dooming the hundreds of millions, if not 1 billion+, people to permanent poverty.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51886091]Take India. The vast majority of their energy comes from coal and the burning of biomass (wood, for example). Their energy demands are also increasing massively year on year. India still needs absolutely massive growth in its energy sector to get anywhere near a western level of wealth. This is impossible without huge growth in fossil fuel usage. By stopping that growth, you are dooming the hundreds of millions, if not 1 billion+, people to permanent poverty.[/QUOTE] So on what grounds do you assert this permanence? Why are no other avenues available, forever? Why can energy industries which already amass enormous wealth somehow not manage to move to other sources, as we already see happening (too slowly atm) all over the planet? Something that is already working just won't work in India? You've already talked about a strong energy sector being a prerequisite for wealth and industrialization but have made no attempt to reason why fossil fuel is the only answer. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;51886090]I'm gonna play Tudd's advocate here. He [B]isn't [/B]saying that[I] "there is no consensus if humans influence the climate"[/I] as most of you shit on him for it. He's [B]actually saying[/B][I] "there is no consensus on how much we influence the climate compared to how much it has control over itself"[/I]. His questions make no sense to you because you did not understand him at all, yet take the first opportunity to shit on him. To illustrate, here's a comparison, there's a lake through which a river is flowing. And there's a guy dumping water into it with truck tankers. Now the lake's water is raising and it's going to flood nearby a village when it reaches a certain point. What Tudd is questioning isn't whether or not this guy is influencing the water level, he accepts that, he's questioning how much of the level raised is that guy responsible for compared to the river flowing into the lake. Is it all caused by the guy or maybe his contribution is around 5% and it's actually the river that increased it's input significantly? And people also flip out for asking this question "Why is it important?". Because if you were going to ruin developing countries when the human contribution wouldn't be as big as it is, then you'd be doing it for nothing. I think only srobins actually fucking tried to understand what Tudd is trying to say and answer it honestly. So props for you srobins. Also Tucker is a moron. Another also: pascal's wager is for dummies.[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm pretty sure people are clearly understanding that differentiation there as it has been hotly debated in this crapshoot of a thread. The problem is that when you lay down the nature of statistical uncertainty and it [I]still[/I] gets pointed at and exclaimed, "Look! You can't give us the 100th decimal place so it must be all wrong!" Statistical uncertainty is the basis of all physics as well as most of science and not exactly hard to wrap your head around. Those kinds of thoughtless arguments are the equivalent to saying you don't know the exact amount of gravity pulling you down where you stand, so gravity as a theory is wrong and you're a microsecond away from floating off into space. Close approximate models do not make the predicted outcome wrong. Climate change is anything but a coarse model. So far, that has been debated extremely unsuccessfully.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51886141]Yeah I'm pretty sure people are clearly understanding that differentiation there as it has been hotly debated in this crapshoot of a thread. The problem is that when you lay down the nature of statistical uncertainty and it [I]still[/I] gets pointed at and exclaimed, "Look! You can't give us the 100th decimal place so it must be all wrong!" Statistical uncertainty is the basis of all physics as well as most of science and not exactly hard to wrap your head around. Those kinds of thoughtless arguments are the equivalent to saying you don't know the exact amount of gravity pulling you down where you stand, so gravity as a theory is wrong and you're a microsecond away from floating off into space. Close approximate models do not make the predicted outcome wrong. Climate change is anything but a coarse model. So far, that has been debated extremely unsuccessfully.[/QUOTE] What? You said you understand he's not trying to question whether climate change is real or not and then you said he's looking for a reason to say it's all false. His and Tucker's argument isn't "Look! You can't give us the 100th decimal place so it must be all wrong!". It's "you can't tell any percentage of human responsibility vs nature's so you only assume that human influence very significant while it might be around 5%". I thought you understood that.
[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] That list honestly seems weirdly cherry-picked when you think of both what you're trying to refute and how fucking long that list of questions is. Let me help you find the ones you were actually looking for: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/NEmGgB6.png[/IMG][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ubi6rKe.png[/IMG] [B]Oh.[/B] Sure, the number may not be 97%, but the vast majority of climate scientists seem to believe that both past and future temperature increases have been and will be mostly because of human actions. Edit: Misread your post, ironically enough. Either way, your list is still cherry picked as all hell - does it really matter how well clouds are modelled in a political sense if basically everyone agrees that anthropogenic climate change is happening right now, that it is the largest contributor to climate change, and that the main effects caused by greenhouse gasses (page 23) are fairly well understood? Leave the discussion of the particular models to the scientists, because who cares if we finally figured out those clouds in fifty years, if shit already went south at that point. Waiting for everyone to agree that their models are great is a good way to make sure no decisive action is taken.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51886188]What? You said you understand he's not trying to question whether climate change is real or not and then you said he's looking for a reason to say it's all false.[/QUOTE] That's the thinly veiled idea, yes. Challenge the accuracy of the model rather than downright say it's not happening, because that isn't contestable anymore without getting laughed at. It has the same net effect. Just throw the accuracy into question to hide that you're throwing the entire thing into question. If someone can't accept the accuracy of the model, despite extreme accuracy being the consensus, then what's really the goal? It's as plain as day. "If it isn't that bad then nothing needs to be done." is just another side of the same coin. Both "arguments" with the same goal and forged in the same fire of scientific doubt for the sake of protecting interests or bias or whatever intent. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] Speaking specifically to this horrendous point: [quote]- Half of scientists agreed with the statement, "The collective authority of a consensus culture of science paralyzes new thought."[/quote] Half of scientists must be absolute idiots because.. Even without any more data or a single study done there is a brilliant idea for answering what the cause might be: Occam's Razor. It is really not that difficult to glance at the copious amounts of data over millennia, spot the odd spike, and realize that the change coincides with one variable: industrialization. What other serious explanations have been put forth? The great thing is that consensus [I]actually doesn't preclude[/I] us finding other answers. We've just kept running the data for decades and the answer (from people who's jobs it is to find it) didn't change. Consensus has never, ever kept us from creating wild ideas every day. Good consensus in science almost always just means we've got a great sense of direction going on. Just look at the Standard Model. Somehow, despite a little bit of variance in the numbers, we're still not floating upward into space.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51886214]That's the thinly veiled idea, yes. Challenge the accuracy of the model rather than downright say it's not happening, because that isn't contestable anymore without getting laughed at. It has the same net effect. Just throw the accuracy into question to hide that you're throwing the entire thing into question. If someone can't accept the accuracy of the model, despite extreme accuracy being the consensus, then what's really the goal? It's as plain as day. "If it isn't that bad then nothing needs to be done." is just another side of the same coin. Both "arguments" with the same goal and forged in the same fire of scientific doubt for the sake of protecting interests or bias or whatever intent.[/QUOTE] Like I said Tudd's and Tucker's argument isn't "Look! You can't give us the 100th decimal place so it must be all wrong!". It's "you can't tell any percentage of human responsibility vs nature's so you only assume that human influence very significant while it might be around 5%". It's important to understand their point of view or you can't possibly accurately refute their claim and change their mind or if not that prove that they are wrong to everyone else. This thread is the evidence for it. Every time people were shitting on Tudd for "doubting" climate change he responded with "oh nonono I don't doubt it's happening, but..." because all those arguments shot past him. Again they are not trying to find a way to prove it's not happening. They are saying that scientists and governments are lying about the magnitude of human responsibility because they themselves don't know it. That's what you have to address. That's exactly what srobins did. And that, and only that, was what made Tudd lose this argument and go silent.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51886362]Like I said Tudd's and Tucker's argument isn't "Look! You can't give us the 100th decimal place so it must be all wrong!". It's "you can't tell any percentage of human responsibility vs nature's so you only assume that human influence very significant while it might be around 5%". It's important to understand their point of view or you can't possibly accurately refute their claim and change their mind or if not that prove that they are wrong to everyone else. This thread is the evidence for it. Every time people were shitting on Tudd for "doubting" climate change he responded with "oh nonono I don't doubt it's happening, but..." because all those arguments shot past him. Again they are not trying to find a way to prove it's not happening. They are saying that scientists and governments are lying about the magnitude of human responsibility because they themselves don't know it. That's what you have to address. That's exactly what srobins did. And that, and only that, was what made Tudd lose this argument and go silent.[/QUOTE] I'm not a scientist, but let's just say that the other really good explanation for the rise in temperature (the sun) hasn't been increasing the output while we've still seen a rise in temperature. Variations in the earth's inclination and orbit aren't good explanations either, because they work on much larger timescales. Then maybe changes in the Earth's albedo? Well, that would change if we had a large reduction in ice area, and while we're seeing that, it seems to be driven by the temperature increase rather than driving it. The truth is that - as far as I know - there aren't currently really any other really good explanation for the global temperature increase than the rise in greenhouse gasses, which I think is reflected in the answers from climate scientists above - historically they think that humans have been driving climate change, with 75% pegging it at 50% or above, with almost no one saying only a smaller portion of future climate change will be because of human factors. Now you can sit there and say "well HOW MUCH?" and I'm sure you could probably get a pretty reasonable answer if you asked the IPCC or whatever, but as posted above, so far it's enough to consult Occam's razor: What's more likely? That climate is just changing abnormally fast because that's just how it is, that gamma rays from the universe are creating more clouds, or that a doubling of CO2 has been driving this temperature increase?
If you're asking stupid irrelevant questions about something don't be surprised if people get snarky. Especially when they're questions designed to strangle any useful action in the crib. I mean, what's the bet once this kind of obstructionism is widely know to be obviously bullshit people will start saying climate change is a good thing? 'oh we don't know how much humanity is contributing to climate change' so don't do anything about it despite it being obviously a bad thing. I mean, we only know the things that can contribute to it, but because we don't know how much of humans doing exactly those things contributes to climate change as a percentage, don't do anything. It's infuriatingly dumb and actively working against any solution.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51886393]I'm not a scientist, but let's just say that the other really good explanation for the rise in temperature (the sun) hasn't been increasing the output while we've still seen a rise in temperature. Variations in the earth's inclination and orbit aren't good explanations either, because they work on much larger timescales. Then maybe changes in the Earth's albedo? Well, that would change if we had a large reduction in ice area, and while we're seeing that, it seems to be driven by the temperature increase rather than driving it. The truth is that - as far as I know - there aren't currently really any other really good explanation for the global temperature increase than the rise in greenhouse gasses, which I think is reflected in the answers from climate scientists above - historically they think that humans have been driving climate change, with 75% pegging it at 50% or above, with almost no one saying only a smaller portion of future climate change will be because of human factors. Now you can sit there and say "well HOW MUCH?" and I'm sure you could probably get a pretty reasonable answer if you asked the IPCC or whatever, but as posted above, so far it's enough to consult Occam's razor: What's more likely? That climate is just changing abnormally fast because that's just how it is, that gamma rays from the universe are creating more clouds, or that a doubling of CO2 has been driving this temperature increase?[/QUOTE] I think the opposite side would give you something about temperatures going up and down on earth in time on their own. Some cold and hot "mini ages" or whatever they call them. Or just straight up call for burden of proof. And realistically they don't have to give you another reason. Their logic is simply this "Okay climate-change-scientist-guy, so you say we should do everything to stop climate change, can you tell me how significant human influence over climate is? I mean if you can't tell then it might as well be 5%, seems to me like you are just overblowing the problem because conspiracy conspiracy blah blah blah" I think if Bill had used this "75% pegging it at 50% or above" number that would have blown Tucker's argument, the only argument he had, out of the water. That what he was asking for. Same for Tudd. And dude, you don't have to convince me personally. I'm just trying to calmly and objectively explain what the other side thinks.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;51886412]If you're asking stupid irrelevant questions about something don't be surprised if people get snarky. Especially when they're questions designed to strangle any useful action in the crib. I mean, what's the bet once this kind of obstructionism is widely know to be obviously bullshit people will start saying climate change is a good thing? 'oh we don't know how much humanity is contributing to climate change' so don't do anything about it despite it being obviously a bad thing. I mean, we only know the things that can contribute to it, but because we don't know how much of humans doing exactly those things contributes to climate change as a percentage, don't do anything. It's infuriatingly dumb and actively working against any solution.[/QUOTE] It's also annoying because asking "what if it is five percent" can be immediately countered by "what if it is a 100%?" - the argument works both ways. It's okay that laymen are questioning scientists, but for the last twenty years the layman's refutation has been "oh there isn't any warming, look at this graph starting in 1997!", and now when that graph doesn't work anymore because el Nino is, you know, a periodic thing, the mantra has changes to "well how much of that is human warming?". Like, I think it's time we stopped trusting the average Joe with analysing scientific data, because the guy sucks at it. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;51886435]I think the opposite side would give you something about temperatures going up and down on earth in time on their own. Some cold and hot "mini ages" or whatever they call them. Or just straight up call for burden of proof. And realistically they don't have to give you another reason. Their logic is simply this "Okay climate-change-scientist-guy, so you say we should do everything to stop climate change, can you tell me how significant human influence over climate is? I mean if you can't tell then it might as well be 5%, seems to me like you are just overblowing the problem because conspiracy conspiracy blah blah blah" I think if Bill had used this "75% pegging it at 50% or above" number that would have blown Tucker's argument, the only argument he had, out of the water. That what he was asking for. Same for Tudd. And dude, you don't have to convince me personally. I'm just trying to calmly and objectively explain what the other side thinks.[/QUOTE] Okay, so what are we doing here? Are we trying to analyse Bill Nye's debating skills? I'm basically responding to Tudd or whoever else through you. The problem is that the evidence is clearly available, Bill Nye saying 75% pegging it at 50% or more wouldn't change shit, because the viewers don't even trust the scientists in the first place - as evidenced by the "97% of scientists" claim (that appears to actually be fairly close to the truth) basically not doing shit to not make this a partisan issue.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51886362]Like I said Tudd's and Tucker's argument isn't "Look! You can't give us the 100th decimal place so it must be all wrong!". It's "you can't tell any percentage of human responsibility vs nature's so you only assume that human influence very significant while it might be around 5%". It's important to understand their point of view or you can't possibly accurately refute their claim and change their mind or if not that prove that they are wrong to everyone else. This thread is the evidence for it. Every time people were shitting on Tudd for "doubting" climate change he responded with "oh nonono I don't doubt it's happening, but..." because all those arguments shot past him. Again they are not trying to find a way to prove it's not happening. They are saying that scientists and governments are lying about the magnitude of human responsibility because they themselves don't know it. That's what you have to address. That's exactly what srobins did. And that, and only that, was what made Tudd lose this argument and go silent.[/QUOTE] The narrow case for "you can't tell any percentage of human responsibility vs nature's so you only assume that human influence very significant while it might be around 5%" is an unanswerable falsehood that can only ever be reconstructed. My major point has been that it is in reality a non-argument with clear ulterior motives. You cannot attribute a percentage because the idea makes assumptions on nature's contribution (left undefined, to boot) in its premise. This is why I'm calling it out as a lie hiding another sentiment. But to try to answer the lie, srobin's (and I, to an extent) simply point out the ABC123 steps you have to go through: You can look at what has happened for millennia and learn its trends. Every last natural process that caused these patterns in the past [i]are not important[/i] because climate has never radically changed over such short periods. Then you spot a recent anomaly in the trends. The patterns of the climate dramatically begin to alter like they never have before. You find at that same point that for the first time on Earth industrialization happens. You then look at human emissions since the beginning of industrialization and realize that there's strong correlation between the data of our emissions with this trends of this extreme anomaly. You've figured out that humans caused it. So to what degree is this anomaly attributed to us versus nature's trends? Spoilers: It's an inherently binary argument. 0% if wasn't happening and 100% because it is happening. And without presenting a single other mechanism to describe this statistical anomaly, why ask the question in the first place? To that my answer is that the question itself is one big, wet, greenhouse gas polluting fart of a lie to mask denial or protect interests. [B]TL;DR[/B] [img]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/files/2010/05/natural_anthropogenic_models_narrow.png[/img] Fig A: The blue line is an alternate universe we do not live in. The red line is the one in which we actually do. [img]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/files/2010/05/carbon_dioxide_800k_narrow.png[/img] Fig B: Spot the anomaly, AKA the easiest game of Where's Waldo you'll ever play :)
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885589]So when I say the sun is really hot by "a lot," is that acceptable for a scientific answer?[/QUOTE] I'm starting to think you might be legitimately retarded
Holy fuck. How is there any debate in this thread about tucker? The guy sounds like a 7 year old child and did nothing but yell and interrupt bill and accuse him of being rude while asking some of the stupidest questions ive ever heard.
Honestly if you can't understand why humans are responsible for the accelerated rate of climate change, just read about the carbon cycle of the Earth. All you need to know is that we are taking carbon that was NOT in the atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years and putting it back into the atmosphere long before it was supposed to be expelled naturally. There is a balance to the rate at which carbon is absorbed and expelled by the Earth, and by combusting fossil fuels we are creating an imbalance in this cycle.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51886439]Okay, so what are we doing here? Are we trying to analyse Bill Nye's debating skills? I'm basically responding to Tudd or whoever else through you. The problem is that the evidence is clearly available, Bill Nye saying 75% pegging it at 50% or more wouldn't change shit, because the viewers don't even trust the scientists in the first place - as evidenced by the "97% of scientists" claim (that appears to actually be fairly close to the truth) basically not doing shit to not make this a partisan issue.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DOG-GY;51886457]The narrow case for "you can't tell any percentage of human responsibility vs nature's so you only assume that human influence very significant while it might be around 5%" is an unanswerable falsehood that can only ever be reconstructed. My major point has been that it is in reality a non-argument with clear ulterior motives. You cannot attribute a percentage because the idea makes assumptions on nature's contribution (left undefined, to boot) in its premise. This is why I'm calling it out as a lie hiding another sentiment. But to try to answer the lie, srobin's (and I, to an extent) simply point out the ABC123 steps you have to go through: You can look at what has happened for millennia and learn its trends. Every last natural process that caused these patterns in the past [I]are not important[/I] because climate has never radically changed over such short periods. Then you spot a recent anomaly in the trends. The patterns of the climate dramatically begin to alter like they never have before. You find at that same point that for the first time on Earth industrialization happens. You then look at human emissions since the beginning of industrialization and realize that there's strong correlation between the data of our emissions with this trends of this extreme anomaly. You've figured out that humans caused it. So to what degree is this anomaly attributed to us versus nature's trends? Spoilers: It's an inherently binary argument. 0% if wasn't happening and 100% because it is happening. And without presenting a single other mechanism to describe this statistical anomaly, why ask the question in the first place? To that my answer is that the question itself is one big, wet, greenhouse gas polluting fart of a lie to mask denial or protect interests. Fig B: Spot the anomaly, AKA the easiest game of Where's Waldo you'll ever play :)[/QUOTE] You guys are simply refusing to look at the situation from the other side's perspective. You just assume whatever the fuck you want that their position is and you are mistaken. And as such you will never convince one climate change denier because you will never accurately refute their claims. Simple as that. This has nothing to do with not trusting scientists and bringing up the 97% is meaningless. Showing them graphs with anomalies is meaningless. How many times can I explain this before you even ATTEMPT to understand their point of view? Imagine you are in the shoes of someone who denied that climate change is happening but now the evidence is so vast that you accept that it's actually happening. But as shown they don't accept it's because of humans. They do however know what greenhouse gases are and accept greenhouse effect so they ADMIT that humans DO HAVE influence on the climate. They trust or give the benefit of the doubt to the 97% of scientists saying that climate change is happening and that humans contribute to it. BUT they question whether human's influence on the climate is significant or negligible. This is not a fucking lie, red herring, cop-out, gotcha whatever the fuck you want to call it. Get it trough your head, someone who asks you "to what degree is human activity changing climate?" they already accepted (at least for the sake of argument) that the climate is changing and that humans influence it. But they want to know if human influence is significant enough for us to be able to do something about it. Example: Tucker and Tudd. They both asked this question. They want to know how much control over climate do humans have in comparison to how much nature is controlling the climate. You saw Tucker say that climate is always changing on it's own and he want to know how much do humans influence it. In the simplest terms possible going from full blown climate change denier to someone who accepts it you have to accept that 1. climate change is happening 2. humans have influence on climate 3. humans are the main contributing factor THEY ARE AT 3!! If you attempt to debate them thinking they are at point 1 or 2 your arguments will fly past them. You are missing your shot. The simple fact that they have arrived to point 3 is a victory on it's own by the way. Now they need to understand that humans are the main contributing factor. But you simply fucking refuse to address this by calling it a lie or some shit. So there you go. If you still refuse to understand this is a [U]legitimate question from their perspective[/U] you can continue shitting on them, posting arguments and graphs completely irrelevant to their concerns and posting your smug waldo zingers with smile faces and you will NEVER contribute to convincing a single one of them that humans are the main contributing factor in climate change. But at least you felt good posting that waldo crap didn't you?
I mean it's very simple; the production of greenhouse gases from cars, the use of oil for various different things, the chopping down of trees, etc. - all of that proves that our climate is rapidly changing because of human and man activity. Does that answer everyone's questions? EDIT: it is very simple. From the evidence we have, we can absolutely see a link between human activity and climate change. We know that the more greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere, the hotter the earth. We know that human activity produces these greenhouse gases and also removes trees, which absorb these gases. So, because we are putting so much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the Earth is heating up, and the climate is changing because of humans.
Calm your tits, Silly Sil. If people accept 1. and 2., then my first response to you is exactly what you're asking - if there are no other reasonable explanations other than an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, and we accept that humans are the main cause of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, then a reasonable person would accept that humans are the main driver of climate change. Unless they have a different explanation, there should be nothing controversial about that conclusion. If a different, better explanation comes up, it would be wise to revise that conclusion, but until then there's nothing unreasonable about it. What is not satisfactory about this, Silly Sil?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51886635]You guys are simply refusing to look at the situation from the other side's perspective. You just assume whatever the fuck you want that their position is and you are mistaken. And as such you will never convince one climate change denier because you will never accurately refute their claims. Simple as that. This has nothing to do with not trusting scientists and bringing up the 97% is meaningless. Showing them graphs with anomalies is meaningless. How many times can I explain this before you even ATTEMPT to understand their point of view? Imagine you are in the shoes of someone who denied that climate change is happening but now the evidence is so vast that you accept that it's actually happening. But as shown they don't accept it's because of humans. They do however know what greenhouse gases are and accept greenhouse effect so they ADMIT that humans DO HAVE influence on the climate. They trust or give the benefit of the doubt to the 97% of scientists saying that climate change is happening and that humans contribute to it. BUT they question whether human's influence on the climate is significant or negligible. This is not a fucking lie, red herring, cop-out, gotcha whatever the fuck you want to call it. Get it trough your head, someone who asks you "to what degree is human activity changing climate?" they already accepted (at least for the sake of argument) that the climate is changing and that humans influence it. But they want to know if human influence is significant enough for us to be able to do something about it. Example: Tucker and Tudd. They both asked this question. They want to know how much control over climate do humans have in comparison to how much nature is controlling the climate. You saw Tucker say that climate is always changing on it's own and he want to know how much do humans influence it. In the simplest terms possible going from full blown climate change denier to someone who accepts it you have to accept that 1. climate change is happening 2. humans have influence on climate 3. humans are the main contributing factor THEY ARE AT 3!! If you attempt to debate them thinking they are at point 1 or 2 your arguments will fly past them. You are missing your shot. The simple fact that they have arrived to point 3 is a victory on it's own by the way. Now they need to understand that humans are the main contributing factor. But you simply fucking refuse to address this by calling it a lie or some shit. So there you go. If you still refuse to understand this is a [U]legitimate question from their perspective[/U] you can continue shitting on them, posting arguments and graphs completely irrelevant to their concerns and posting your smug waldo zingers with smile faces and you will NEVER contribute to convincing a single one of them that humans are the main contributing factor in climate change. But at least you felt good posting that waldo crap didn't you?[/QUOTE] There is need to get heated. Setting aside my talk on ulterior motives, I think you've not totally comprehended my explanation. I've addressed what you're still asking of me. My post is about calling into question the degree to which we affect climate which I show in fact reduces to, "we do or we don't". It may seem a legitimate question at face value, but it is not when you step through the logic. Put shortly (and this is the same as the content of my last post), if we know the degree to which the climate has changed as of late, know the cycles and trends of the climate for over 800,000 years, and can correlate that anomaly with an increase in known emissions, then without another mechanism provided it cannot physically be anything else. Add two cups of Occam's Razor and at the cost of being redundant: The degree to which we affect the climate is the degree to which we affect it. It's a non-argument. I also can't comprehend why you think graphs showing this very fact are irrelevant. If people can accept things like the greenhouse effect and recognize the change is happening, yet question the only proposed source of the change while providing no alternative mechanism, then I don't know what to tell them and apparently neither do you. So what is there to debate at that point? It's faith. Worse still it's faith flying in the face of simple evidence. If they can propose a single other source for the anomaly it's an argument. Until then, it's faulty logic.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.