Climate Change Thread

C4Cat said:
Of course we have the data. Unless you dismiss science and evidence, the data is there. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today is likely higher than it has been anytime in the past 3 million years. That is due to people.
Click to expand...
And the data requires a lot of interpretation to draw a conclusion. The only thing climate change has going for it are models. That models require a lot of interpretation and assumptions to come up with a simulation. We're not doing simulations based on how we know things work, we are trying to figure out how things work from simulations. It's completely arse above head.

You think there's a scientific consensus but scientists are as divided as ever over it. It's only the media and political agendas that gives the impression otherwise.

gamer16 said:
But did he get it wrong though, those memes you posted are things he said, out of context.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the ANC.
 
This is much how most religions start. Create a sense that the "end times" are imminent (catastrophic climate change), put forth a saviour (de-industrialization), provide "experts" (priests/prophets) to reinforce your narrative, and relentlessly convince followers that everyone who doesn't agree (doesn't have "faith" in the "miracles") is an ignorant heathen. Finally, make sure that you "educate" the children from a young age so that they can't even conceive of any other reality ("it's just the way it is") and within a few generations or less you will have a rock solid religion that labels anyone who dares question it a heretic for centuries to follow.
 
Swa said:
And the data requires a lot of interpretation to draw a conclusion. The only thing climate change has going for it are models. That models require a lot of interpretation and assumptions to come up with a simulation. We're not doing simulations based on how we know things work, we are trying to figure out how things work from simulations. It's completely arse above head.

You think there's a scientific consensus but scientists are as divided as ever over it. It's only the media and political agendas that gives the impression otherwise.


Sounds like the ANC.
Click to expand...
I think there is a lot more consensus than you want to believe.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

and even if the models are overstating the risk, why take the chance? If they are right and nothing is done in time it could be catastrophic. If they are wrong and we make environmentally friendly changes for no reason we're still better off. So let's rather assume the worst case scenario and work with that....

1554464059289.png
 
C4Cat said:
I think there is a lot more consensus than you want to believe.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Science isn't a democracy where we vote for the best facts.

And that meme is out of context. (did I do that correctly?)
 
C4Cat said:
I think there is a lot more consensus than you want to believe.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

and even if the models are overstating the risk, why take the chance? If they are right and nothing is done in time it could be catastrophic. If they are wrong and we make environmentally friendly changes for no reason we're still better off. So let's rather assume the worst case scenario and work with that....

View attachment 642346
Click to expand...
No there isn't. Nasa isn't leading the world. The scientific community is much larger than that. The models aren't just overstating the risk, we don't know if there's one to begin with. You realise you're employing a fallacy right? If we are going with what ifs then why stop at climate change? Why only have the doom prophets have a say?

The simple reality is if we are to implement all of the measures it will affect those most vulnerable even more than climate change can and set them back generations. That's a much greater immediate risk than the what ifs of climate change and if will still not be enough. So why force measures on those that can't afford it? This is all a political game at the end of the day.
 
C4Cat said:
I think there is a lot more consensus than you want to believe.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

and even if the models are overstating the risk, why take the chance? If they are right and nothing is done in time it could be catastrophic. If they are wrong and we make environmentally friendly changes for no reason we're still better off. So let's rather assume the worst case scenario and work with that....

View attachment 642346
Click to expand...

So you still think that the Green New Deal will actually do more good than harm?
 
C4Cat said:
I think there is a lot more consensus than you want to believe.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

and even if the models are overstating the risk, why take the chance? If they are right and nothing is done in time it could be catastrophic. If they are wrong and we make environmentally friendly changes for no reason we're still better off. So let's rather assume the worst case scenario and work with that....

View attachment 642346
Click to expand...
Oh my is this the climate change version of Pascal's wager?

but to answer your question.

The most rational thing we can do is transition to nuclear power, this will reduce emissions and stave off fossil fuel depletion.

Nuclear is safer and cheaper than wind or solar, uses far less land for the output.

Nuclear will enable livable healthy electric cities while reducing energy poverty. etc etc.

The best thing about this is that Nuclear will do all of this even if there is no ACC.

it's actually the only rational choice for everyone.
 
alloytoo said:
Oh my is this the climate change version of Pascal's wager?
Click to expand...
Nope. We have more than enough evidence that climate change is real, is caused by humans and will be catastrophic for humans and current life if not dealt with. All that is maybe up for debate is how long we have to change our way of life and doing business. Since there is no evidence for god whatsoever, climate change is not a version of Pascals wager at all.

You may be right about nuclear energy being the only solution, or at least a large part of the solution - even the Green New Deal allows for nuclear energy, so it's definitely not 'off the table' or not being considered as a solution. Personally I'm not convinced yet, but I would not object if this became a driving point for tackling climate change.
 
C4Cat said:
Nope. We have more than enough evidence that climate change is real
Click to expand...

Indeed we are currently emerging from an ice age.

, is caused by humans
Click to expand...

Not convince by this hypothesis, at least not on a planetary scale.

and will be catastrophic for humans and current life if not dealt with.
Click to expand...

Again not convinced, the temperatures have failed to meet predictions, the predicted extreme weather events remain elusive and the sea level rises have stubbonly refused to accelerate.

climate change is not a version of Pascals wager at all.
Click to expand...

Yet it's been offered as such and much of the climate change advocates behaviour resembles evangelism.

You may be right about nuclear energy being the only solution, or at least a large part of the solution - even the Green New Deal allows for nuclear energy, so it's definitely not 'off the table' or not being considered as a solution. Personally I'm not convinced yet, but I would not object if this became a driving point for tackling climate change.
Click to expand...

Most of the climate change solutions on offer fail dismally they offer little or no guaranteed outcomes at extreme cost and hardship, as such they fail both the sanity check and the cost benefit tests.

We would be better off spending our money elsewhere.

Nuclear however offers clear pathways to the future irrespective of weather we need heaters or aircon.
 
alloytoo said:
Nuclear however offers clear pathways to the future irrespective of weather we need heaters or aircon.
Click to expand...
Have you noticed how Eskom is being run here? Are you really comfortable putting Nuclear power plants in the hands of institutions like that, wuth their dismall records of maintenance, corruption an cost cutting? Also, these plants are extremely expensive to build and take a very long time to build. They need to be maintained properly.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a26255413/green-new-deal-nuclear-power/
 
alloytoo said:
Indeed we are currently emerging from an ice age.



Not convince by this hypothesis, at least not on a planetary scale.



Again not convinced, the temperatures have failed to meet predictions, the predicted extreme weather events remain elusive and the sea level rises have stubbonly refused to accelerate.



Yet it's been offered as such and much of the climate change advocates behaviour resembles evangelism.



Most of the climate change solutions on offer fail dismally they offer little or no guaranteed outcomes at extreme cost and hardship, as such they fail both the sanity check and the cost benefit tests.

We would be better off spending our money elsewhere.

Nuclear however offers clear pathways to the future irrespective of weather we need heaters or aircon.
Click to expand...

All I want to know is how humans caused this?
We are helping it along but we did not start it.

"There have been at least five major ice ages in the Earth's history (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, late Paleozoic, and the latest Quaternary Ice Age). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice free even in high latitudes"

We should go back in time millions of years and tell our forefathers to stop factory emissions and stop driving cars......oh wait
 
The nuclear agency of South Africa is already running one nuclear plant quite well.
The problem is getting a new nuclear plant built without government corruption.
Which is why it should be done by private industry.
 
Hellhound105 said:
All I want to know is how humans caused this?
We are helping it along but we did not start it.

"There have been at least five major ice ages in the Earth's history (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, late Paleozoic, and the latest Quaternary Ice Age). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice free even in high latitudes"

We should go back in time millions of years and tell our forefathers to stop factory emissions and stop driving cars......oh wait
Click to expand...


Again, this just displays your ignorance.
The problem with Climate Change is not the cyclical nature of tempreature fluctuations.
That has already been built into the model.
The problem is with the accelerated pace of global warming which is unprecedented and without a doubt of a man made nature. If the planet warms too quickly it's gonna cause unusual problems that the previous ice ages never had. The prvious ice ages also never had this kind of population distribution spread out over the entire planet.
 
C4Cat said:
Have you noticed how Eskom is being run here? Are you really comfortable putting Nuclear power plants in the hands of institutions like that, wuth their dismall records of maintenance, corruption an cost cutting? Also, these plants are extremely expensive to build and take a very long time to build. They need to be maintained properly.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a26255413/green-new-deal-nuclear-power/
Click to expand...

For someone that is being very alarmist, you seem to be very eager to shoot down any realistic proposals to actually deal with the issue, but then you support proposals like the Green New Deal.

This is why we are pretty much doomed to stay on the current path.

And, China, India and USA can all run nuclear without any issues imo. They should roll it out on a mass scale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X