• Tucker Carlson: Bill Nye the Science guy Interview over Climate Change.
    222 replies, posted
[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] That's because we don't know enough to tell how bad it is. Basing your decision on whether or not to do more or less on that fact is gambling with the future of the planet. It might be less bad than we thought, it might be a hundred times worse, who knows? All that is clear is that it is happening. The solution would be to go nuclear, worldwide, today. Or stop using energy, period. Obviously, that is not going to happen. That's why you see politicians working toward weaker, more realistic goals. I completely agree that nuclear needs to be pushed for, though. Anyway, if you wanted hard numbers for humans' contribution like Tucker wants so badly, you could grab an average rate of warming during some other dramatic but non-human influenced period, and subtract that from the current warming. You'd get a number expressing warming on a beyond 'natural', but then, that could still be an invisible cosmic being microwaving us from space, you could still ask how much of it is caused by humans. But if you chose a sufficiently dramatic period, you'd at least be comparing it to the worst possible scenario without humans, and if that's less than what we're seeing now then that would strongly imply either humans being the main cause, a cosmic evil being or [I]something[/I] here on Earth that we don't know about, warming up the whole planet. Quick google search shows this [URL=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/if-earth-has-warmed-and-cooled-throughout-history-what-makes-scientists-think-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming-now/]has been done[/URL]. [quote]The biggest temperature swings our planet has experienced in the past million years are the ice ages. Based on a combination of paleoclimate data and models, scientists estimate that when ice ages have ended in the past, it has taken about 5,000 years for the planet to warm between 4 and 7 degrees Celsius. The warming of the past century—0.7 degrees Celsius—is roughly eight times faster than the ice-age-recovery warming on average.[/quote] So let's see, 7°C per 5000 years is a rate of 0.0014°C per year. 0.7°/100 yr is 0.007° per year. 0.007 - 0.0014 = 0.0056. => Humans contribute [B].0056°C[/B] (80%) per year, assuming we're currently experiencing the most dramatic ice age recovery warming known to be possible, according to the link I posted. I'm sure I've made mistakes here, but this is just to show that it's something you can do if you want numbers on how different the warming is now than it has been in the past. That's really the only way you can attack the question of how much humans are contributing, unless you can account for a different reason why we're seeing such dramatically worse warming now.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51888980]So if were doing so much now; Why is it were focusing on developing technologies that need decades to mature?[/QUOTE] Because there is no easy answer, and those seriously invested in keeping the status quo fight tooth and nail and instill denial in the general populace. If there was a life hack for fixing climate change we'd already be doing it. Also, a lot of the technology is already existent and what is needed is a new energy infrastructure to support the management of distributed energy rather than centralized. This is where there hasn't been as much development, not because it's hard, but because the people in the energy sectors don't want it for obvious reasons.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51888980]Thank you for using politicized scare tactics instead of contributing anything. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] So if were doing so much now; Why is it were focusing on developing technologies that need decades to mature?[/QUOTE] No man, I mean. It's literally going to happen. The only people that deny it are people with a leg in the oil industry or dudes that are silly enough to take /pol/ seriously. You aren't one of those people that take /pol/ seriously right? It's a satire board.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51888980]Thank you for using politicized scare tactics instead of contributing anything. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] So if were doing so much now; Why is it were focusing on developing technologies that need decades to mature?[/QUOTE] Because we can't do better.
It's clear he will not even attempt to change his focus until we accept it's better to just wait until we know we're totally fucked. You know, because it's smart to stop running from the monster; to wonder if we created the monster chasing us or if the monster chasing us was just always there.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51889186]It's clear he will not even attempt to change his focus until we accept it's better to just wait until we know we're totally fucked. You know, because it's smart to stop running from the monster; to wonder if we created the monster chasing us or if the monster chasing us was just always there.[/QUOTE] Not even remotely what I am saying. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Aztec;51889144]No man, I mean. It's literally going to happen. The only people that deny it are people with a leg in the oil industry or dudes that are silly enough to take /pol/ seriously. You aren't one of those people that take /pol/ seriously right? It's a satire board.[/QUOTE] I don't deny it for the 12th time. And /pol/ is a huge enjoyable mess of crazy things.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51889199]Not even remotely what I am saying. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] I don't deny it for the 12th time. And /pol/ is a huge enjoyable mess of crazy things.[/QUOTE] With the mountain of evidence that we have right now, your stance of 'we don't know for sure how much humans are really affecting the climate' is as bad as outright climate change denial.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51889199]Not even remotely what I am saying. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] I don't deny it for the 12th time. And /pol/ is a huge enjoyable mess of crazy things.[/QUOTE] Anything less than total alarm is complete denial. It would be less radical of a position if it weren't for the fact that everyone on the planet is going to experience the death of our world because fat cat oil CEOs like to have a few more billion dollars.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51889199]Not even remotely what I am saying. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] I don't deny it for the 12th time. And /pol/ is a huge enjoyable mess of crazy things.[/QUOTE] Tudd, if you really want to express your extravagant opinion that is clearly more complicated then what could be explained in a couple sentences; you're going to need to you know, actually expand on your claims and refrain from posting vague 2 sentence posts. Many people have done what I'm talking about in this thread and you completely ignore their studies, to post a small "No, that's not actually what I think". You need to delve into your research buddy.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51888980]Thank you for using politicized scare tactics instead of contributing anything. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] So if were doing so much now; Why is it were focusing on developing technologies that need decades to mature?[/QUOTE] Because things are hard and we have people saying reality isn't happening making that harder Does the fact it's a hard answer change the reality of the problem?
[QUOTE=Tudd;51888980] So if were doing so much now; Why is it were focusing on developing technologies that need decades to mature?[/QUOTE] Evolving an entire world economy to stop using oil takes decades. The stranglehold oil has on our entire civilization is sobering. The cost of worldwide goods is determined by it, because the cost to ship it is dependent on the cost of oil. Oil reigns supreme. We quite simply cannot do a full-stop change as much as I would love to. I recall a conversation over after dinner wine on thanksgiving with my uncle who is Managing Director of an oil company he started about 10 years ago. The premise was basically business is good. The global demand for oil grows each year. Mainly due to developing countries. The truth is, there is no easy or quick fix. We have to stop emitting carbon dioxide. Which is going to take decades just to wean the economy off its dependence of oil, nonetheless get alternatives up and running.
"Just asking questions" about climate change is like just asking questions about evolution, or the earth being flat.
I hate how these alt-righters pussyfoot around the terms, of course you're not a climate change denier, you're just a [I]skeptic[/I]! But then when actual evidence is presented they come up with some absurd excuse instead of even trying to accept it. It's not about the truth, it's about [I]being right[/I]. When has Tudd ever admitted he's wrong? Why would he start today? [QUOTE=Lambeth;51890051]"Just asking questions" about climate change is like just asking questions about evolution, or the earth being flat.[/QUOTE] Or the Holocaust for that matter, it's no coincidence all of the bullshit conspiracy theorist groups refuse to use the terms that actually define them.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51890051]"Just asking questions" about climate change is like just asking questions about evolution, or the earth being flat.[/QUOTE] The earth is flat though
[QUOTE=sketler;51890199]The earth is flat though[/QUOTE] The Earth is as flat as you are straight, buddy.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;51890197]I hate how these alt-righters pussyfoot around the terms, of course you're not a climate change denier, you're just a [I]skeptic[/I]! But then when actual evidence is presented they come up with some absurd excuse instead of even trying to accept it. It's not about the truth, it's about [I]being right[/I]. When has Tudd ever admitted he's wrong? Why would he start today? Or the Holocaust for that matter, it's no coincidence all of the bullshit conspiracy theorist groups refuse to use the terms that actually define them.[/QUOTE] It's shifting the goalposts. There [I]are[/I] legitimate scientists who are climate skeptics. A lot less than there used to be. Generally they still agree that human activity is accelerating climate change, they just debate through what mechanisms. This debate that people say should still be going on has been going on for decades. There used to be a lot more skeptics and they would debate the proponents. It's gotten a lot harder to say that climate change is a liberal myth, so politicians/people say they're [I]skeptics[/I] because it's a legitimate scientific stance. Except they don't actually engage in scientific discussion or understanding. They just ask scientists well what if this, well what if that, but you can't prove this, so ha! Being a skeptic is good. I'm a very skeptical person. I don't let headlines sway me and am generally not aroused by what politicians have to say. But science is a way of thinking and processing information. There's technically no right answer, but there are hypothesis that are increasingly more difficult to disprove. Nothing is 100%, and it's that little degree of statistical uncertainly that anti-science troglodytes feed off. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI&index=2&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP[/media] Everyone should watch this playlist.
[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 sustaining large population cities continuously with energy in the coming decades for example. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] Your last sentence is basically what I'm arguing. Nobody knows much we have fucked ourselves by any measurable amount.[/QUOTE] Hey since you don't believe in humans affect on the climate consider this: What would happn if you stayed in a sealed off room with a running car in it?
I gotta say, it is becoming fairly entertaining in an odd way how obvious some of yall have completely misunderstood or simply not read what I am actually arguing. [QUOTE=SpartanXC9;51890840]Hey since you don't believe in humans affect on the climate consider this: What would happn if you stayed in a sealed off room with a running car in it?[/QUOTE] Humans do a have a affect for the 13th time. But atleast with the car scenario you provided compared to human's impacts on climate change ; Multiple scientists can concretely tell me on average how fast I would die given the circumstances and factors and with the same consensus. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Bang;51890197] Or the Holocaust for that matter, it's no coincidence all of the bullshit conspiracy theorist groups refuse to use the terms that actually define them.[/QUOTE] Evolution is real, the earth is round, and I worked at a Holocaust Museum. :v: [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;51889805]Evolving an entire world economy to stop using oil takes decades. The stranglehold oil has on our entire civilization is sobering. The cost of worldwide goods is determined by it, because the cost to ship it is dependent on the cost of oil. Oil reigns supreme. We quite simply cannot do a full-stop change as much as I would love to. I recall a conversation over after dinner wine on thanksgiving with my uncle who is Managing Director of an oil company he started about 10 years ago. The premise was basically business is good. The global demand for oil grows each year. Mainly due to developing countries. The truth is, there is no easy or quick fix. We have to stop emitting carbon dioxide. Which is going to take decades just to wean the economy off its dependence of oil, nonetheless get alternatives up and running.[/QUOTE] That is fine, but can you not see the point I am trying to make that there is a clash between the left's idea that the world is immediately doomed, but they don't push for the most cost effective and power technology to get cleaner available now? The reason we don't use nuclear is completely politicized and the push for renewable instead of it is aswell. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;51889329]With the mountain of evidence that we have right now, your stance of 'we don't know for sure how much humans are really affecting the climate' is as bad as outright climate change denial.[/QUOTE] So me wanting to fix the environment and go for cleaner technologies is just as bad as the guy who outright denies it? Jee whiz, that is sort of a jump of logic right there.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51890908]I gotta say, it is becoming fairly entertaining in an odd way how obvious some of yall have completely misunderstood or simply not read what I am actually arguing. [/quote] Almost as hilarious as you posting sources that disprove your own argument. [quote] Humans do a have a affect for the 13th time. [/quote] People have posted multiple studies on the matter. Furthermore your entire argument is the same as a kid trying to say "The dog did most of it" after mom comes home to see the house trashed. [quote] But atleast with the car scenario you provided; A scientist can concretely tell me on average how fast I would die given the circumstances and factors. [/quote] But people have posted, including myself, the probably timescale for global warming. You yourself posted multiple articles that had you actually read give you a timetable for some of the effects global warming will cause.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51890908] That is fine, but can you not see the point I am trying to make that there is a clash between the left's idea that the world is immediately doomed, but they don't push for the most cost effective and power technology to get cleaner available now?[/QUOTE] You say left as if your position isn't just bizzaro alt right/extreme right wing American phenomenon. Which it is. I don't think you can accurately prove that the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists are "left wingers".
[QUOTE=Tudd;51890908] That is fine, but can you not see the point I am trying to make that there is a clash between the left's idea that the world is immediately doomed, but they don't push for the most cost effective and power technology to get cleaner available now? The reason we don't use nuclear is completely politicized and the push for renewable instead of it is aswell.[/QUOTE] I don't brand myself either right or left. I have right leaning beliefs and left leaning beliefs. I don't have an infatuation with the democrats environmental policy and I agree the argument against nuclear is stupid. I think environmental extremism is stupid. I understand how global economics works and know we need oil and deforestation and pipelines but at the same time I can see how damaging our activities are and I think we [I]don't go far enough[/I] to cut down on our emissions. So yeah I get that, I'm not particularly enthused about leveraging our future for politics. But the Republicans aren't exactly doing anything good about it, either. I'll be ecstatic if we can push out a carbon tax during Trumps tenure. When it comes to things about science, don't listen to Al Gore, Alex Jones, or any other millionaire pundit in between because they're paid to mislead you. Listen to the scientists who have to pay to do their work.
why am I not surprised that tudd is a climate change denier?
[QUOTE=Tudd;51890908]So me wanting to fix the environment and go for cleaner technologies is just as bad as the guy who outright denies it? Jee whiz, that is sort of a jump of logic right there.[/QUOTE] You've been trying to downplay the impact of human activity on the climate for the past 5 pages, I don't see you 'wanting to fix the environment and go for cleaner technologies' anywhere.
[QUOTE=krail9;51891151]why am I not surprised that tudd is a climate change denier?[/QUOTE] He's just asking questions that pretty much every scientist has already feasibly answered. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;51890908] That is fine, but can you not see the point I am trying to make that there is a clash between the left's idea that the world is immediately doomed, but they don't push for the most cost effective and power technology to get cleaner available now? The reason we don't use nuclear is completely politicized and the push for renewable instead of it is aswell.[/QUOTE] You should maybe stop calling out "the left" in your posts. I don't know if you've noticed but the left is not a well organized block of people who all happen to agree with one another.
[QUOTE=krail9;51891151]why am I not surprised that tudd is a climate change denier?[/QUOTE] He's not, but he does suck at trying to spark discussion. Letting identity politics get in the way of discussing the point he wants to make.
Instead of being decidedly vague about climate change or caring too much about what "the left" wants, tudd, you decide whether the evidence calls for action or whether we should just continue with the clean coal? The difference between the anti-nuclear people on the left and the American right is that at least renewables are actually feasible - they're not ideal, but they can do the job. If the US had started on this 20-25 years ago and even if you decided to do it with renewables, you and the world would be in a much better situation. What's really stopping us is people and politicians spending all their time questioning the science.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51889329]With the mountain of evidence that we have right now, your stance of 'we don't know for sure how much humans are really affecting the climate' is as bad as outright climate change denial.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SpartanXC9;51890840]Hey since you don't believe in humans affect on the climate consider this: What would happn if you stayed in a sealed off room with a running car in it?[/QUOTE] What the hell is going on in this thread? Have you people completely lost the ability to read and just jump the gun to shit on a "climate change denier"? [B]He said he accepts that humans are the main contributing factor to the climate change. [/B]What is wrong with you? [QUOTE=Tudd;51888790][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? [B]Or you do accept that we are the main factor but you don't know the exact degree of our influence?[/B] [/QUOTE] [B]Pretty much the second one.[/B][/QUOTE] And then he goes to talk about why aren't the people who are calling on alarm for global warming want to invest in technologies that will take decades to develop before they can take over the power industry instead of strongly promoting nuclear [B]now[/B]. I don't agree with his doubts on the degree of our influence but we should be pushing for nuclear. That would get rid of all the coal power plants. That would be a huge step forward no? I'm going to get shit for taking away your fun now, ain't I? [editline]1st March 2017[/editline] Also Tudd. What evidence would convince you that we know to what degree humans influence climate? Like what are you looking for?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51892135] Also Tudd. What evidence would convince you that we know to what degree humans influence climate? Like what are you looking for?[/QUOTE] He's looking for a 100% accurate [I]number[/I], which is asinine.
How ironic it is that Tudd is pretty much doing the same exact thing that Tucker is doing, no regard for the replies and evidence given to him. That is not how a discussion works.
Thought of a good analogy last night. Imagine we had recordings of seismometers wiggling up and down for hundreds of thousands of years. Through analyzing this you can spot the pattern within a tiny margin of error. We then for over a hundred years begin setting off bombs underground that register over and over again. As time passes we realize that this threw the pattern out of balance and has started causing earthquakes all over the earth. The seismometers are now showing a cascade effect that clearly shows the earthquakes are going to eventually get so bad it will rip the Earth apart. We don't know the exact degree of the earthquake that will destroy us, but we know it's coming and unless we stop exploding the bombs and take measures to settle things down then we're absolutely fucked. How much of this was caused by that wiggling background noise we measured over the course of those hundreds of thousands of years? 0%. That wiggling of the graph, the pattern itself, doesn't matter. It never did. What matters is that we know it was stable and know the single cause of the deviation: A shitton of bombs. Unfortunately the people who make the bombs really don't want to stop blowing them up despite us having ready solutions that could've been implemented five, ten years, twenty ago. It makes so much money! So they've pushed and lied about the severity of the coming earthquake. Instilled doubt that it could even happen. Claimed that the pattern itself has some unknown variable that could be causing this anomaly. Softly they suggest, "Sure we might get some pretty bad earthquakes, but how do you know it'll rip the Earth apart?" Because that's how the numbers work out every time. You don't need to have a certainty of 100% that it'll be 35 years and 2 days down the line at 6:00 pm GMT and a 420.001 on the Richter scale to know that when it comes it's gonna definitely be above a 360 and the entire planet is shit outta luck. This is why there is consensus. This is why there is no serious debate over the severity of the effects. This is why the whole line of questioning is illogical. No matter what Earth will rattle itself to shreds. You can call it politicized to talk scarily about this future until the cows come home, but the Earth is still gonna blow the heck up if we don't chill out on those dang bombs. I'd say that reasonably warrants the scary talk because [I]what else in the midst of campaigns for denial and skepticism is a proper call to action?[/I]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.