Tucker Carlson: Bill Nye the Science guy Interview over Climate Change.
222 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tudd;51885529]I mean he really didn't answer Tucker's question.
It is a pretty obvious point that the degree of climate change is still being analyzed.[/QUOTE]
Somewhere amongst Tucker's childish bumblings and interruptions, Nye actually did explain the "degree of climate change" and how we affected it.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51886707]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.[B] Unless they have a different explanation,[/B] 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]
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51886710]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[B] providing no alternative mechanism[/B], 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.[/QUOTE]
They don't have a different explanation and they accuse scientists of the same thing. They think that scientists can show that climate change is happening and that humans have some contribution to it but they accuse scientist that they don't know, that they jump to conclusion that it must be humans and they claim themselves to be the true skeptics. You can see Tucker saying pretty much the same thing. They believe it might be a natural force that has been raising temperatures in the last centuries. The specific reason is unknown both to them and supposedly to scientists.
"To what degree is human activity changing climate?" is the next logical question after someone accepts that climate change is happening and that humans can influence climate. How the hell is it not legitimate? I cannot comprehend your logic. I'm trying.
Is it because they should outright accept the difference between current temperatures and the model that shows how it would look like without humans? But that's not at all what they are asking for. You can see Tudd asking how many degrees are humans responsible for of the amount of degrees that temperatures have risen. They want some kind of percentage. Something like, "the temperatures would rise 1C on it's own but because of humans it raised 4C so it's 75% human influence over temperature rise". If you post a model it misses the target.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51886710]If they canpropose a single other source for the anomaly it's an argument. Until then, it's faulty logic.[/QUOTE]
What? That's shifting burden of proof. Someone goes "show proof that we are responsible for global warming" and you shout back "well you prove that it's something else". This is like you going "there was a big bang" and him "show proof" and you answer "no you show me an alternative, until then you have no argument". How is that not faulty logic? They don't need alternative. They are asking you for proof. If you refuse and just go "no you" you have missed an opportunity to convince one of them. That's the problem I'm having here.
The fact that there is still even a "debate" regarding climate change discourages me to the point of giving up for a future civilization
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51886635]
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.[/QUOTE]
I was this guy. I genuinely used to believe the Earth's natural carbon emissions were more impactful than humans, but over the years I have learned many things about climate science. One argument a lot of skeptics including my former self use is that nature puts out far more carbon than humans, and that means we must not be responsible fully. The thing that convinced me on the spot that human activity is significant was the carbon cycle. From my point of view it's very frustrating to see people struggling to let go of their perspective on an issue like this. Both sides are guilty of close-mindedness, but I don't think it takes very much processing to understand why the extraction of ancient carbon impacts the already existing carbon cycle if you accept that climate change is a real phenomenon. I don't even know how you could dispute this. Carbon from fossil fuels is released several orders of magnitude faster than the time it would have taken for it to be released naturally. The carbon from those fossil fuels was in the Earth for hundreds of millions of years and within a few days humans extract and release it into the atmosphere. It's not about our relative emissions compared to nature, it's our emissions ON TOP of nature's. When I made that connection I found it impossible to deny humans are responsible and it's a shame to see people try to work around this simple equation of carbon in: carbon out.
If you drive along side millions of other cars every day, return to your very likely fossil fuel powered home and still deny humans are responsible because you're hung up on a question of what degree our emissions affect it, you either don't understand our impact on the carbon cycle or you're holding onto beliefs.
[QUOTE=Anax;51886810]I was this guy. I genuinely used to believe the Earth's natural carbon emissions were more impactful than humans, but over the years I have learned many things about climate science. One argument a lot of skeptics including my former self use is that nature puts out far more carbon than humans, and that means we must not be responsible fully. [/QUOTE]
Thanks for posting man. But watch out. DOG-GY is going to say you are a lie now.
Ugh I really don't wanna step through the same exact thing again, which will probably not be read for comprehension, but here goes.
Silly Sil, first of all you've misrepresented the question in your post. The question was really, "How much of the increase we see is due to human contribution versus nature?" This question is not a legitimate one because of [I]how statistics work[/I]. If you have a set of data and there is an anomaly of great magnitude and all things remain constant except one known variable, it is almost certainly not an unknown variable in the sea of knowns.
The graph that you earlier dismissed me over nullifies the question by showing a projection of what happens when you remove human contribution. This would literally would tell you "the temperatures would rise 1C on it's own but because of humans it raised 4C" if you do A-B. If they can't compare a blue and red line, well, bless their heart.
Let me point out that you yourself phrased it as, "the temperatures would rise 1C [B]on it's own[/B]". This is the critical flaw in your logic. We will never show a "degree of human influence vs nature". There is no such metric and there cannot be because [B]climate fluctuates up and down from natural sources.[/B] This is the baseline, and the baseline has never fluctuated wildly over short periods. We even know the sources of fluctuation to this baseline quite well. [I]Climate change[/I] is about [B]how much humans offset from this baseline.[/B] You can measure the degree of change from a baseline measurement but the baseline itself is not a [I]source of contribution[/I]. Thus, for the question to be valid it must assert the existence of an unknown force of nature in its premise. The question is inherently flawed and illogical.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51886781]What? That's shifting burden of proof. Someone goes "show proof that we are responsible for global warming" and you shout back "well you prove that it's something else". This is like you going "there was a big bang" and him "show proof" and you answer "no you show me an alternative, until then you have no argument". How is that not faulty logic? They don't need alternative. They are asking you for proof. If you refuse and just go "no you" you have missed an opportunity to convince one of them. That's the problem I'm having here.[/QUOTE]
Do I need to mention yet again that the data very cleanly correlates and has not been shown to be wrong for the decades we've done this kind of research? This is generally considered proof that your theory is correct or at least a very close approximation to the truth. See: Physics. Let's go off that and say anything contrary should be supported with the least bit of evidence, like how most rational people tend to operate.
[editline]28th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51886833]Thanks for posting man. But watch out. DOG-GY is going to say you are a lie now.[/QUOTE]
Smoking gun that you don't have any interest in understanding my posts. Bye!
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51886362]
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]
First off: Thank you for taking the time and effort to try to convey what I have been getting out. I know you are now getting bullshit attitude for it despite it being a reasonable statement to make.
Second off: No offense guys, but me going "silent" is just me going to sleep and having to wake up at 4:30am. Just use some common sense that maybe not everyone can stay up past 1am to argue a question with no definite answer. I will now respond to srobins who has finally tackled what I been getting at for 2 pages that others have completely misunderstood what I was getting at.
This is pretty much what I was looking for. A scale that shows the probability and amount humans have contributed to global warming factors, but at the same time showing this is a part of the Climate change we are still trying to pinpoint.
[quote]Recent research led by Michael Mann has confirmed that the approach used by Tung and Zhou misidentifies external influences on the AMO as being part of its internal variability.
The problem with relying on a single paper (aka “single study syndrome”) is that flawed studies sometimes get published. On the other hand, when many studies using multiple independent approaches arrive at similar results, they’re probably right. Schmidt’s supporting evidence is far stronger than Curry’s.[/quote]
So yah strong indicators/evidence we do alot, but by no means settled. Also the direct effects still need to be measured, but atleast you posted a study in the realm of what I was asking for.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51886874]Smoking gun that you don't have any interest in understanding my posts. Bye![/QUOTE]
Are you fucking kidding me? Not having any interest in understanding the opposite side is all you have been doing and all I've been trying to make you stop.
I have explained numerous times now what people like Tucker and Tudd want from you and just refuse to get it.
YOU have no interest in understanding because you are hell-bent on knowing exactly what the opposite side thinks and calling their questions illegitimate. This small post you have just quoted was supposed to knock you out of this stupid premise but you took offense instead of LOOKING AT LIVING PROOF THAT IT IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION ASKED BY REAL PEOPLE. Bye.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51886909]First off: Thank you for taking the time and effort to try to convey what I have been getting out. I know you are now getting bullshit attitude for it despite it being a reasonable statement to make.
Second off: No offense guys, but me going "silent" is just me going to sleep and having to wake up at 4:30am. Just use some common sense that maybe not everyone can stay up past 1am to argue a question with no definite answer. I will now respond to srobins who has finally tackled what I been getting at for 2 pages that others have completely misunderstood what I was getting at.
This is pretty much what I was looking for. A scale that shows the probability and amount humans have contributed to global warming factors, but at the same time showing this is a part of the Climate change we are still trying to pinpoint.
So yah strong indicators/evidence we do alot, but by no means settled. Also the direct effects still need to be measured, but atleast you posted a study in the realm of what I was asking for.[/QUOTE]
In the context of what they were discussing it is by all means settled.
[editline]28th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51886956]Are you fucking kidding me? Not having any interest in understanding the opposite side is all you have been doing and all I've been trying to make you stop.
YOU have no interest in understanding because you are hell-bent on knowing exactly what the opposite side thinks and calling their questions illegitimate. This small post you have just quoted was supposed to knock you out of this stupid premise but you took offense instead of LOOKING AT LIVING PROOF THAT IT IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION ASKED BY REAL PEOPLE. Bye.[/QUOTE]
The fact that this is the only part of his post that you choose to address speaks volumes.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51886956]Are you fucking kidding me? Not having any interest in understanding the opposite side is all you have been doing and all I've been trying to make you stop.
I have explained numerous times now what people like Tucker and Tudd want from you and just refuse to get it.
YOU have no interest in understanding because you are hell-bent on knowing exactly what the opposite side thinks and calling their questions illegitimate. This small post you have just quoted was supposed to knock you out of this stupid premise but you took offense instead of LOOKING AT LIVING PROOF THAT IT IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION ASKED BY REAL PEOPLE. Bye.[/QUOTE]
Remember this day folks as the point where Silly Sil failed to read a breakdown of basic logic and statistics five times in a row.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51886974]Remember this day folks as the point where Silly Sil failed to read a breakdown of basic logic and statistics five times in a row.[/QUOTE]
I am trying really hard to understand you man. I really am. Is the 5 breakdowns of basic logic and statistics supposed to convince me that the question that Tucker and Tudd are asking and Anax was actually concerned about some time ago is illegitimate? Is that the purpose of you posting these breakdowns? The question cannot be answered? Does Tucker know it and is he asking it maliciously for some kind of gotcha moment?
Also an advice, if you are trying to convince someone of something don't throw insults at them and don't attempt sick zingers. It makes you look like you are here to make yourself feel good over sick burns and not to actually have a discussion.
Wow
All I can say
Wow
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51887809]Wow
All I can say
Wow[/QUOTE]
Which part of this impressed you the most?
[QUOTE=Tudd;51887867]Which part of this impressed you the most?[/QUOTE]
DOG-GYs execellent posts that got ignored to be honest
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51887880]DOG-GYs execellent posts that got ignored to be honest[/QUOTE]
They might be excellent but they are beside the question that people like Tudd and Tucker ask. They will not be convinced by it.
It doesn't matter if you think the question can't be properly answered DOG-GY. They are legitimately asking this question. They want to know the answer. It's not a lie or gotcha. I might be impossible to properly answer it because it's flawed to begin with, but that's their concern, that's what they want to know.
According to what you're saying the correct answer to that question would be 100% because all the change is man-made. Or did I fail again?
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51886974]Remember this day folks as the point where Silly Sil failed to read a breakdown of basic logic and statistics five times in a row.[/QUOTE]
Silly Sil talking completely [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJgWq_kSR9w"]with his own ass[/URL] is what Silly Sil does best
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51888028]They might be excellent but they are beside the question that people like Tudd and Tucker ask. They will not be convinced by it.
It doesn't matter if you think the question can't be properly answered DOG-GY. They are legitimately asking this question. They want to know the answer. It's not a lie or gotcha. I might be impossible to properly answer it because it's flawed to begin with, but that's their concern, that's what they want to know.
According to what you're saying the correct answer to that question would be 100% because all the change is man-made. Or did I fail again?[/QUOTE]
SO because people can't answer an inherently unanswerable question people like Tudd and Tucker have free reign to push misinformation?
I don't think finding a phrasing that results in an unanswerable question wins you the argument.
My problem with this question is we know the mechanisms behind climate change and how it's directly related to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We know we as human beings pump absolutely insane amounts of the stuff into the atmosphere. I can show you a graph of how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere over centuries. That's all we need to know to know that it's going to be bad. It's not like it's some mystery and people think humans might be the cause so were jumping on EV's and solar on the off chance that it's gonna be bad. We can look at how much filth were pumping into our air and say hey look, this is going to be fucking bad.
It's like the doctors trying to quantify the amount of alcohol it took to kill your liver before replacing it. It's a moot point. It would be an interesting data point but it's ultimately not important.
We are killing ourselves and people who propagate the lie that there's still a debate to be had are pulling the trigger. We've been having the debate for 193 years since Joseph Fourier first argued for the Greenhouse effect.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51888087]SO because people can't answer an inherently unanswerable question people like Tudd and Tucker have free reign to push misinformation?
I don't think finding a phrasing that results in an unanswerable question wins you the argument.[/QUOTE]
What? I'm not saying they win anything. My argument has always been about what you have to do to convince them that climate change is man-made.
And the question is not unanswerable. It's 100% according to what DOG-GY posted if I understand correctly.
[editline]28th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=OvB;51888107]My problem with this question is we know the mechanisms behind climate change and how it's directly related to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We know we as human beings pump absolutely insane amounts of the stuff into the atmosphere. I can show you a graph of how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere over centuries. That's all we need to know to know that it's going to be bad. It's not like it's some mystery and people think humans might be the cause so were jumping on EV's and solar on the off chance that it's gonna be bad. We can look at how much filth were pumping into our air and say hey look, this is going to be fucking bad.
It's like the doctors trying to quantify the amount of alcohol it took to kill your liver before replacing it. It's a moot point. It would be an interesting data point but it's ultimately not important.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but they think the change that's happening is a natural cycle or whatever, like Tucker says in the vid. They don't know themselves what specifically is influencing the climate beside humans and they accuse scientists of the same thing.
It's not "we need to know how much we can pump out before it gets really bad" it's "I don't think that what we doing is significant enough compared to forces of nature". You have to prove to them that humans are the main contributing factor. Everything else will fall on deaf ears.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51888116]What? I'm not saying they win anything. My argument has always been about what you have to do to convince them that climate change is man-made.
And the question is not unanswerable. It's 100% according to what DOG-GY posted if I understand correctly.
[editline]28th February 2017[/editline]
Yeah but they think the change that's happening is a natural cycle or whatever, like Tucker says in the vid. They don't know themselves what specifically is influencing the climate beside humans and they accuse scientists of the same thing.
It's not "we need to know how much we can pump out before it gets really bad" it's "I don't think that what we doing is significant enough compared to forces of nature". You have to prove to them that humans are the main contributing factor. Everything else will fall on deaf ears.[/QUOTE]
If you understand the greenhouse effect and carbons responsibility in natural climate change but deny human caused climate change then you are obtuse.
[quote=fifteen seconds of Wikipedia]Over the past 400,000 years, CO2 concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods. Each part per million by volume represents approximately 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon in the atmosphere as a whole.[14]
Following the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased to 400 parts per million and continues to increase. This has caused the phenomenon of global warming.[15][/quote]
Like, what more is there to know before they understand that it is significant?
[editline]28th February 2017[/editline]
I've been arguing this shit to brick walls for years, I understand their perspective but I'm at the end of my rope and their opinions are quite simply harmful to our future.
[editline]28th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51888116]You have to prove to them that humans are the main contributing factor. Everything else will fall on deaf ears.[/QUOTE]
Here: "We've known for 193 years that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will have an effect on the climate. For millions of years, the earth has been going through stable natural climate cycles. Humans got smart and hit the industrial revolution and now we pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is more than any natural source on earth. We have since injected so much of it into the atmosphere that there is a clear spike in the amount of carbon dioxide that there is now more of it in the atmosphere than there has been for the past 3 million years. You don't need to be a scientist or have a PhD to see that this is going to be really bad if we don't fix it soon. To put it into perspective, if you've been sipping on light beer all night long and then slam a bottle of grain alcohol, that sudden spike of alcohol is going to fuck you up. Right now we're chugging grain alcohol."
[editline]28th February 2017[/editline]
[url]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png[/url]
[QUOTE=OvB;51888182]If you understand the greenhouse effect and carbons responsibility in natural climate change but deny human caused climate change then you are obtuse.
Like, what more is there to know before they understand that it is significant?
[editline]28th February 2017[/editline]
I've been arguing this shit to brick walls for years, I understand their perspective but I'm at the end of my rope and their opinions are quite simply harmful to our future.[/QUOTE]
I know this argument is bollocks. It's frustrating as hell. I've gave it a shot to convince my friend, and actually got him to the point where he accepts there's a change and that humans have some influence but not that they are the cause.
When I gave him the numbers of the increase of the CO2 concentration he just went to quote some number of CO2 released by a volcano eruption and said that if one volcano can release so much in one day then we can never compete with that. Any questions regarding recent volcano eruptions awarded me responses like "well there haven't been any big eruptions on land but ocean volcanoes...". It's just never ending story.
And he always asks how much control humans have over climate compared to how much nature has. One volcano, one sun flare blah blah. It's just really hard to get rid of that misconception that if he doesn't know what else can be changing the climate do don't the scientists.
One good thing out of this thread is that I have some new links to send him.
[editline]28th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=OvB;51888182]Here: "We've known for 193 years that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will have an effect on the climate. For millions of years, the earth has been going through stable natural climate cycles. Humans got smart and hit the industrial revolution and now we pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is more than any natural source on earth. We have since injected so much of it into the atmosphere that there is a clear spike in the amount of carbon dioxide that there is now more of it in the atmosphere than there has been for the past 3 million years. You don't need to be a scientist or have a PhD to see that this is going to be really bad if we don't fix it soon. To put it into perspective, if you've been sipping on light beer all night long and then slam a bottle of grain alcohol, that sudden spike of alcohol is going to fuck you up. Right now we're chugging grain alcohol."[/QUOTE]
Yeah they claim the spike is not only due to humans. It's only when you give them comparison of how much CO2 is released and absorbed naturally compared to what we release on top of that, in easy terms like percentages or multipliers is when they get in trouble. Assuming they accept the figures.
[QUOTE=OvB;51888182][url]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png[/url][/QUOTE]
That graph is cool.
[QUOTE=OvB;51888182]
I've been arguing this shit to brick walls for years, I understand their perspective but I'm at the end of my rope and their opinions are quite simply harmful to our future.
[/QUOTE]
Actually it is more like I want to help the environment, but knowing how much we really mess it up climate change wise would help us make wiser policies.
For example: If the environment is going to be catastrophically messed up unless we do something today, why is it that the left side of politics under Obama have pushed for 40% of our energy budget to renewables and only 7% Nuclear?
Surely if we need to get on cleaner energy now, the technology that is available today is better than investing in R&D for renewable tech that cannot feasibly replace our power grid right now, without just completely wrecking the economy in cost and practicality of space/location.
This is why I have a disrespect for the left side of politics on environmental issues. They seem to push a doomsday reality of our climate change situation, yet completely want to abstain from any transitional technologies that would be cleaner for renewables that will take decades to be able to power a metropolis city continuously/affordably, or obviously just focus on Nuclear and get us on a cleaner grid much faster right now.
Climate Change exists, but by how much and to what degree can truly answer which policies we have to move to now or afford to wait for later.
You're not going to get any argument from me against nuclear. We should've been running the country off that decades ago.
[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]
Look at peer reviewed papers on it, which aren't politically swayed. You'll see that it's settled.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51888348]Actually it is more like I want to help the environment, but knowing how much we really mess it up climate change wise would help us make wiser policies.
For example: If the environment is going to be catastrophically messed up unless we do something today, why is it that the left side of politics under Obama have pushed for 40% of our energy budget to renewables and only 7% Nuclear?
Surely if we need to get on cleaner energy now, the technology that is available today is better than investing in R&D for renewable tech that cannot feasibly replace our power grid right now, without just completely wrecking the economy in cost and practicality of space/location.
This is why I have a disrespect for the left side of politics on environmental issues. They seem to push a doomsday reality of our climate change situation, yet completely want to abstain from any transitional technologies that is cleaner, for renewables that will take decades to be able to power a metropolis city continuously/affordably, or obviously just focus on Nuclear and get us on a cleaner grid much faster right now.
Climate Change exists, but by how much and to what degree can truly answer which policies we have to move to now or afford to wait for later.[/QUOTE]
So if I understand your point of view of climate change correctly, you accept there's climate change, you accept that humans have some influence over it but you don't accept that we are the [I]main[/I] contributing factor? Or you do accept that we are the main factor but you don't know the exact degree of our influence?
Also yeah, nuclear is great.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51888721]So if I understand your point of view of climate change correctly, you accept there's climate change, you accept that humans have some influence over it but you don't accept that we are the [I]main[/I] contributing factor? Or you do accept that we are the main factor but you don't know the exact degree of our influence?
Also yeah, nuclear is great.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much the second one.
The point I'm trying to make is that if we are truly harming the einviroment big time, then why is the solution the long term one? And regarding that is also why I believe the actual scale of how badly we're hurting the einviroment climate change wise is still up for debate cause it seems change on the scientists claims regarding damage, timelines, and scale.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51888790]Pretty much the second one.
The point I'm trying to make is that if we are truly harming the einviroment big time, then why is the solution the long term one? And regarding that is also why I believe the actual scale of how badly we're hurting the einviroment climate change wise is still up for debate cause it seems change on the scientists claims regarding damage, timelines, and scale.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever done chemistry?
Do you know how easy it is to start a reaction? Do you know how hard it can be to undo a reaction?
It's very much the same premise, our actions are a catalyst for rapid change. We have dumped billions of tons of CO2 out and it throws off the natural balance too quickly. The trees and oceans can't use up all that we put out while the results of that excess are rapid climate changes, ocean accidification, the amount we released isn't easily recalled or sequestered away, the changes we made in 200 years will take a long time to recover and undo, just because we lack a magic bullet fix doesn't mean we're incapable of causing the rapid change.
Like if your problem is logically "we caused it this fast why can't we fix it that fast" that's a bad argument
[QUOTE=Tudd;51888348]Actually it is more like I want to help the environment, but knowing how much we really mess it up climate change wise would help us make wiser policies.
For example: If the environment is going to be catastrophically messed up unless we do something today, why is it that the left side of politics under Obama have pushed for 40% of our energy budget to renewables and only 7% Nuclear?
Surely if we need to get on cleaner energy now, the technology that is available today is better than investing in R&D for renewable tech that cannot feasibly replace our power grid right now, without just completely wrecking the economy in cost and practicality of space/location.
This is why I have a disrespect for the left side of politics on environmental issues. They seem to push a doomsday reality of our climate change situation, yet completely want to abstain from any transitional technologies that would be cleaner for renewables that will take decades to be able to power a metropolis city continuously/affordably, or obviously just focus on Nuclear and get us on a cleaner grid much faster right now.
Climate Change exists, but by how much and to what degree can truly answer which policies we have to move to now or afford to wait for later.[/QUOTE]
They push the doomsday narrative because your children's children are going to die a horrible death.
[QUOTE=Aztec;51888869]They push the doomsday narrative because your children's children are going to die a horrible death.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for using politicized scare tactics instead of contributing anything.
[editline]28th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51888861]Have you ever done chemistry?
Do you know how easy it is to start a reaction? Do you know how hard it can be to undo a reaction?
It's very much the same premise, our actions are a catalyst for rapid change. We have dumped billions of tons of CO2 out and it throws off the natural balance too quickly. The trees and oceans can't use up all that we put out while the results of that excess are rapid climate changes, ocean accidification, the amount we released isn't easily recalled or sequestered away, the changes we made in 200 years will take a long time to recover and undo, just because we lack a magic bullet fix doesn't mean we're incapable of causing the rapid change.
Like if your problem is logically "we caused it this fast why can't we fix it that fast" that's a bad argument[/QUOTE]
So if were doing so much now; Why is it were focusing on developing technologies that need decades to mature?
-snip he actually replied to someone, woah-
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.