Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 07:38:45 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Climate change is real  (Read 1457 times)
Crypt_Current
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


Shame on everything; regret nothing.


View Profile
February 17, 2012, 07:58:33 AM
 #21

Whether "man-made climate change" is "real" or not is actually a moot point.  "Saving the environment" is to me essentially moving backwards and that is the stuff of hippies ... :::shudder... hippies:::

Forward-thinking includes EXTREME forward-thinking... beyond humanity.  Humanity does not need to be made extinct (like the hippies would likely believe) ... it just needs to be made BETTER, to ADAPT to the environment it finds itself in.  Is that not evolution??

The answer to this "conundrum" is simple to me -- we must change ourselves.  Transhumanism.  We may make humans extinct... but we may in the process create something far superior.  Wouldn't it be nice to not need to breathe?

10% off at CampBX for LIFE:  https://campbx.com/main.php?r=C9a5izBQ5vq  ----  Authorized BitVoucher MEGA reseller (& BTC donations appreciated):  https://bitvoucher.co/affl/1HkvK8o8WWDpCTSQGnek7DH9gT1LWeV5s3/
LTC:  LRL6vb6XBRrEEifB73DiEiYZ9vbRy99H41  NMC:  NGb2spdTGpWj8THCPyCainaXenwDhAW1ZT
1481312325
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481312325

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481312325
Reply with quote  #2

1481312325
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you


View Profile
February 17, 2012, 08:05:11 AM
 #22

Whether "man-made climate change" is "real" or not is actually a moot point.  "Saving the environment" is to me essentially moving backwards and that is the stuff of hippies ... :::shudder... hippies:::

Forward-thinking includes EXTREME forward-thinking... beyond humanity.  Humanity does not need to be made extinct (like the hippies would likely believe) ... it just needs to be made BETTER, to ADAPT to the environment it finds itself in.  Is that not evolution??

The answer to this "conundrum" is simple to me -- we must change ourselves.  Transhumanism.  We may make humans extinct... but we may in the process create something far superior.  Wouldn't it be nice to not need to breathe?
/thread

Don't mix your coins someone said isn't legal
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 17, 2012, 10:42:59 AM
 #23

Right but if someone proposes the idea that we will destroy ourselves before the transhuman singularity can occur you will still need to address this possibility.
Crypt_Current
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


Shame on everything; regret nothing.


View Profile
February 17, 2012, 02:16:53 PM
 #24

Right but if someone proposes the idea that we will destroy ourselves before the transhuman singularity can occur you will still need to address this possibility.

Really, honestly, it's a win-win for black metal enthusiasts like me.   Grin

10% off at CampBX for LIFE:  https://campbx.com/main.php?r=C9a5izBQ5vq  ----  Authorized BitVoucher MEGA reseller (& BTC donations appreciated):  https://bitvoucher.co/affl/1HkvK8o8WWDpCTSQGnek7DH9gT1LWeV5s3/
LTC:  LRL6vb6XBRrEEifB73DiEiYZ9vbRy99H41  NMC:  NGb2spdTGpWj8THCPyCainaXenwDhAW1ZT
amencon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 411


View Profile
February 17, 2012, 02:50:05 PM
 #25

Every Century, every decade, every year people think everything is coming to an end.  You see it over and over again and most don't seem intelligent enough to question it after failed prophecy after failed prophecy time and again.  I'll never understand why doomsday is such an attractive thing for people to foolishly believe in.

The question or debate shouldn't be whether we are changing our environment as that is entirely irrelevant.  It should be attempting to determine the most precise effects we are having on ourselves in this case through the environment.  The weather man can't always predict the weather more than a couple days out and I'm supposed to believe the climate change scientists have models that take all variables for the entire planet and beyond taken into account and projected accurately decades into the future?  I'd be a bigger believer if the scientists actually followed their own methods in this case and were a bit more skeptical about the whole thing.

If I go piss in the ocean it is irrefutable fact that I am changing or polluting it.  I assume much sea life couldn't survive in urine.  Now I can go around claiming the end is near because I'm ruining the ocean.  When some people question I can point to the absolute fact of the matter and scoff at them.  This is about how valuable it is claim that climate change "exists".

People can't even figure out the important parts to discuss or argue about so why even bother trying.  We may be changing our climate and we may be doing it in a way that might harm us in the future but I haven't heard anything that has convinced me that we know exactly how we are changing things nor what the specific damage will be.  Until we get some real science behind that I'll sit on the sidelines for this one and continue to watch it be wielded as a political weapon more than anything else.

If you like Michael Crichton books, "State of Fear" was an entertaining read.  It's fiction but has an interesting plot line where the Global Warming tag line pops up after the fall of the Berlin Wall to be used as a weapon of fear on the populace to make them more easily controlled.  I'm not sure that's entirely fiction to be honest.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 17, 2012, 02:56:15 PM
 #26

Read the IPCC reports, they are freely available. This will require time and effort on your part. If you haven't done this I don't see how you could have such a strong opinion. The scientists are discussing the sources of uncertainty, etc... don't believe what you read in the news. Personally, I still suspect bias, but amongst scientists it is much more subtle than what you describe so I suspect you have not actually read and understood the science.
amencon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 411


View Profile
February 17, 2012, 04:38:56 PM
 #27

Maybe most scientists treat the subject as they should, but that work doesn't translate well to the outside.  Look at the topic name for this thread.  So you're right, I haven't studied in detail all the technical data available on the issue, however that wasn't really what my post was about anyway.

Perhaps within the scientific community they are objectively assessing the threat and not impartial or swayed by grants and government/media pressure.  Outside that community the topical discussions regarding climate change are a joke.

Quite frankly I haven't spent the time to pore over all the data and research because I'm not that concerned or scared and I don't trust the validity of all the hyperbole surrounding the issue.  It sounds like you've looked into more closely than I have, can you give me your impression?  Will this wipe us out?  If so in what timeframe?  Force a period of uncomfortable transition to alternate technologies?  Or be barely noticed by the average man on the street?

I will check out the IPCC reports out of curiosity though.
Raize
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1375


View Profile
February 17, 2012, 06:08:24 PM
 #28

The Vatican has a consensus as well.

OrganofCorti's Neighbourhood Pool Watch - The most informative website on blockchain health
Ean
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 199



View Profile
February 17, 2012, 06:31:44 PM
 #29

Quote
scientific consensus

That is a contradiction in terms.

Quote from: Douglas Adams
The World Wide Web is the only thing I know of whose shortened form takes three times longer to say than what it's short for
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 17, 2012, 11:28:35 PM
 #30

Maybe most scientists treat the subject as they should, but that work doesn't translate well to the outside.  Look at the topic name for this thread.  So you're right, I haven't studied in detail all the technical data available on the issue, however that wasn't really what my post was about anyway.

Perhaps within the scientific community they are objectively assessing the threat and not impartial or swayed by grants and government/media pressure.  Outside that community the topical discussions regarding climate change are a joke.

Quite frankly I haven't spent the time to pore over all the data and research because I'm not that concerned or scared and I don't trust the validity of all the hyperbole surrounding the issue.  It sounds like you've looked into more closely than I have, can you give me your impression?  Will this wipe us out?  If so in what timeframe?  Force a period of uncomfortable transition to alternate technologies?  Or be barely noticed by the average man on the street?

I will check out the IPCC reports out of curiosity though.

I haven't had time to finish doing this but here are my first impressions. They are all consistent with the IPCC reports. In general,

1) The earth has warmed about .6 K over the last 100 years. There are multiple lines of evidence in agreement on this. When a scientific body says there is incontrovertible evidence for global warming, this is what they are referring to. Nothing more.

2) There is a very strong correlation to CO2 emissions. In the past CO2 emissions have lagged temp increases, but there are good reasons to believe that pumping it into the atmosphere can also cause warming. The majority of people publishing in the field agree that this has at least contributed to the observed warming. This is what there is scientific consensus about.

3) There are numerous models that predict a rise of 2 K over the next century dependent on various CO2 emission scenarios. This is where it gets tricky. There are no good models for whether cloud feedback will be positive or negative and the models can't really be verified by the data available (time frame too short). However, this does not mean the models are useless or uninformative. I am currently in the process of looking into this, but it takes time.

4) No model predicts a runaway greenhouse effect or anything that will wipe out humanity due to the warming. It is more that a rise of over 2K in a century will force humans to adapt to changed weather patterns, disruptions in the food supply, coastal flooding, etc. I haven't given a good look at the reasoning behind this yet.

5) There is historical evidence of climate change both more abrupt and of greater magnitude than anything the models predict. See Dansgaard-Oeschger event . So such an occurrence would not be unprecedented.

6) There may be pal-review and publication bias effects influences here. The peer review system is not perfect and never completely based on merit, and this is a highly politicized field. This isn't a problem limited to climate research, from personal experience I can talk about the alcohol research field. The funding agencies want alcohol=bad for health, so it is much easier to get funded if this is your hypothesis rather than alcohol=good for health. For example drunk drivers may have better outcomes after head injuries due to car accidents than non drunk. Possibly because the alcohol reduces inflammation and swelling. If I wanted to study this i would still write a grant that predicted a deleterious effect of alcohol. There is a poster here (natchwind I think), who does paleoclimatology, and he didn't feel his particular subfield was very corrupted.

7) Honestly without actually going through the funding and publication process myself it is probably impossible to form a legitimate opinion on the social aspects though. That is why I think focusing on these points is pretty unproductive. You go down the rabbit hole of "who to trust" which is ironically the very problem science was developed to solve.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!