What's Your Favorite Climate Change Study?
Normally I like to avoid the hot topics, but I got triggered by Greta. It really was more about the debate than the messenger though.
The Science Is Settled!
(I wasn't aware that science gets settled)
My question is this... Why should I care what a sobbing 16 year old with no special qualifications has to say about Climate Change?
Whenever I ask why someone will always answer with the word Science.
They never mention any Science though, just the word. "Science".
For the benefit of the argument let's say that there is Scientific Consensus that humans are impacting the climate. Does that mean that whatever legislation they are trying to pass in the name of fixing it has been studied? Is there consensus on that? (The answer is no)
While there maybe a lot of agreement that we have some impact, there is very little agreement on how much and what the solutions might be.
However since I am not an expert on the Climate Change Science and you all are, here are my questions.
- What are a few of your favorite studies on Climate Change?
- Were there any weaknesses in your opinion on the study?
- Who funded the study?
- Who peer reviewed it?
- Where was it published?
If you don't know the answer to any of the questions above should you be screaming about Science?
What is the source of your opinion?
I totally think we should treat the planet better, but no I don't take your crying spokes child seriously.
I don't take the campaign of the Science is Settled seriously, in fact I do want to talk about it and understand.
You will notice in my post I have not once attacked the idea that humans might be impacting Climate Change, but watch in the comments...
I am not saying the media handed lines about the topic and it is likely to trigger both sides. I am supposed to say it is all a lie or that it is all totally true, and no one knows how to deal with an question that doesn't fit into one of those situations.
Climate Change is a political topic not a Earth topic. I do care about our planet and I do want to know what we can do to clean it up. I just don't buy into the way we are having the discussion and who is fueling it.
Let's change the conversation.
serious climate change studies are those studies written by climate science scientists about climate change.
97% of the studies that check those boxes find that there is human caused climate change.
everything else is crap.
here you can find a list of that crap with the explanation why it is crap:
https://skepticalscience.com/
and Greta knows probably more than 99% of all those people who are giving their 5 cents on TV or on social networks...
so my 5 cents: people should stop bullying her for trying to save our world.
and here is a nice little story about why and how we fucked up:
https://steemit.com/nature/@solarwarrior/losing-earth-the-decade-we-almost-stopped-climate-change
have a great day
You too. lol, did you test her and the others on that 99% thing you said. That doesn't seem very scientific at all.
what are you talking about?
I actually read und study those studies, books and IPCC reports for more than a decade now.. so probably I know a bit about what's written in there..
but I never would say I can contribute something from a science standpoint.. I leave that to the scientists..
and Greta just voices what the climate scientists are actually demanding.
Check it.. you are clever and have internet access...
having not done that and still attacking Greta like that doesn't look good in my eyes...
Oh, I've read the propaganda on both sides.
I also survived the Ozone Layer Scare which was caused by my hairspray.
I don't think it looks good to bring a child to a political event and have her scream and glare. Nor is it compelling.
sorry.. I really do not know what I should reply to that..
I beg you to read at the two links I posted or at least whats written on wikipedia.. also about the Ozon whole...
Don't waste your time... Anti-climate change is the same as flat-earthers and anti vaxxer.
No matter how perfect the proof is, if it doesn't fit their narrative they say its a lie, fabricated, propaganda, etc etc...
Posted using Partiko Android
Except I didn't say any of those things and Solar is actually providing information.
You are the one who is just repeating the MSM lines in a thoughtless manner.
...back at discussing religion. That's the sad thing...
If climate change was caused by anything else then greenhouse emissions, we would never find out, as it is not allowed to talk about it. But we would have consumed a lot of 'emission-friendly' consumers' articles.
That's why I don't trust this movement.
Lol.Hahaha😂😂😂
Posted using Partiko Android
I will read them.
Thank you!
I was reading an article about her the other day. A person with the form of Aspergers she has tends to fixate on a topic and will dig into it in an all consuming manner. She has studied the topic in depth which is why she's able to speak knowledgeably.
If you want to really understand climate change I invite you to check out the videos of potholer: https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/videos
He is actually a journalist which makes these videos in his free time, he bases all his videos on scientific facts and cites all used articles in the description.
(You can find a vast number of videos of his debunking the pseudo science of anyone which does not believe in man made climate change, until now, there was no one which could prove him wrong, and he was able to debunk all arguments of anyone trying to debunk him)
One of the things I like about his videos is that he does all these videos completely free of polemic and exaggerations. He bases all them on the scientific evidence and criticizes both sides of the political debate.
Short TL;DR:
I disagree that climate change is political. The first people talking about climate change were conservatives all over the world. The same people which now deny it ever existed because it would cost them some money during their livetime.
Thanks for a calm rational suggestion. I appreciate it.
Does potholer consider the theories of the electric universe proponents?
Remember a fellow named President Nixon? Although a late supporter of the conservation movement; in 1970 he formed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It may have been for political reasons, or maybe just concern. Not a mind reader so I don't know. Never met the man.
Even earlier there was a fellow, President Theodore Roosevelt, who was a lifelong conservationist, according to the history we have written of his life.
For those that are concerned about the political overtones of the climate change conversation, both the Presidents mentioned above were members of the Republican Party. Given, the Republican Party line was much different during the Administrations of these two Presidents.
In the past the conservatives were all over the world concerned about the environment. This changes more recently when conservatives became neo-liberalists.
Thank you for adding to my vocabulary, I will now go and check out a number of dictionaries and encyclopedia to see if their is consensus as to the proper definition of neo-liberalist.
It is so difficult now-a-days to give a thoughtful, politically correct, non-ambiguous, reply. So I will just say, thank you for replying.
Funny thing is, pollution is often characterized as a "free market failure" but the reality is, in a truly free market there is no tragedy of the commons. In a free market, someone's private property rights were violated by pollution of someone else, and there would be market pressure to address it.
I think we could make great strides in protecting the planet if there was some moral method of enforcing private property rights. If my neighbor is burning his trash and it messes up the air quality for me, it's understandable for me to complain. I'd probably win in some kind of adjudicational venue.
I don't even think I'd need too much science to win. "What my neighbor is doing smells really bad." Enter that as evidence. Case closed.
But this notion isn't very scalable under the current system. Meaning, if my neighborhood attempts to complain about a nearby factory, just doing the same thing as the previous example, there's a lot more of a process that protects the factory.
Then try to scale that up even further to regions and continents, it's just impossible, even with all the scientific evidence in the world.
In attempting to address this, government institutions call this process "tort reform" and "privatization". I'm not convinced they actually want to reform or privatize anything. That's why I'd be keen on a decentralized analogs to tort reform and privatization. But looking at the current state of crypto, that's still 200 years away.
Therefore, the moral way to fix the environment is centuries away, regardless of any scientific assertions.
you are bang on with your description...
if a production factor is not priced correct or not priced at all, capitalism does not work
It all has to do w/ money. Politicians want to squeeze every last cent of every human being. I look at the people in congress do they look like they care about Climate change? lol ...
Some look like they've been hogging out at the trough of McDonalds.
I just want to see if one of these outraged people can actually speak intelligently to a study that they have studied. :)
That would be nice. Maybe they're signing up right now!!
you understand that no one ever invites scientists to speak to the UN.
there are too many people who make too much money on Oil and Gas, to ever listen to Climate Scientists.
As a result, it's easy to invite Great, and then, pick on her for speaking to the issue.
I'm just saying, I raised 5 kids, 4 girls. Good kids too, kids who received scholarships in both athletics and academics.
I know a spoiled teen having a fit when I see one. :) Her sad lost childhood is not compelling to me. I think it was divisive.
It did however start a conversation. Just not about the topic. I did however over react, I was triggered by using a 16 teen year old dressed as a 12 year old trying to give people a lecture. If some found it moving in some way... that's nice.
So, here you have it. I over reacted and I should have just done what I do with most political topics and ignored it.
I am very interested in treating Earth in a more respectable manner and I am really concerned about our rivers, lakes and oceans. So, I will just focus on those topics and leave the hysterical crying to teen girls. :)
In the 1700s Thomas Malthus nailed the problem by mentioning overpopulation. Things have only gotten worse and it is now off the agenda for political reasons. Hollywood just introduced usball to Thanos who did something insane to deal with the problem.
It doesn't matter how small our carbon foot print is, if we keep expanding the global population we are done.
I could site the census I guess, but I don't really hear anyone arguing more and nore and more people will solve the problem (well the more people the mpre climate scientists I guess).
The problem is not overpopulation. The biggest part of the pollution on our planet comes from countries with relatively low population grow rates for a long time (Europe and North america).
China and India which pollute a lot mostly do this to produce products which go to these countries as well. And even China and India are not growing as rapidly anymore.
Yes population growth is slowing down. However, it is not happening fast enough.
Do you think the current population and population projections aren't adding to the stress?
Pretty much everyone in the world desires to live by US and European standards hence global migration patterns.
Restrictions against migration and global resource distribution are the only reasons matters aren't already worse.
The chinese and indians dont pollute less and impoet our pollution to export us stuff because they want to. Believe me they want to consume just as much as we do. And they have every right.
So, we have to be the first to show them how great it is to consume decent amounts.
It's not like obesity is a good thing after all.
Population is gonna top out around 9-10 billions anyway, where most additional is just due to the extended live expectancy.
All of us in the north will have to learn how to live with less.
All this plastic stuff, changing phones every year, cars every 5 years. Our economy is based on an ever-growing model.
A German scientist once said it will. There is only one thing that grows consistently in high rates in nature, cancer.
And like I said, this doesn't even have to impact our quality of life, we exchange waste products for reusables, we recycle more, we build products with a longer lifespan, etc.
You mean going back to the days when things like cars 🚘 were built to last not fall apart like the new ones.
Posted using Partiko iOS
The moment our society makes it more "acceptable" to stay with a car for a couple of decades, we can afford a car which is made out of more valuable materials which then will not fall apart like the new ones, yes.
I don't think they will just follow our lead.
We definitely should continue research and strive to waste less. It's just some of the ideas aren't for everyone and environmentalists need to come to terms with this. Meat is a good example.
Population will solve itself. However so will carbon. It's the effects of the cycle I'm concerned about. Humans are fully responsible for human population. This isn't the case for ghg or carbon.
One thing I heavily support is nuclear technology. However it was the environmentalists who said no. Fossils kill many more people a year than nuclear. Deaths from fukushima are 0 (we are uncertain 9f canver but it is also much lower than cancer from fossils), but its all we hear about. Then we get people offering unrealistic solutions like solar and wind. If research into nuclear wasn't thwarted who knows where we would be at?
So, I agree that leaving Nuclear behind was a bit rushed and resulted in a higher usage of fossils, if that had been planned better the result would be much more sustainable too.
But I disagree that they will follow our lead, the entire world follows the lead what the European and northern american cultures dictate them. Starting with music, clothes, lifestyle, etc.
Hey have you seen this?
It's AMAZING. Not sure if it is "fast enough", but it really is interesting and well presented.
I will take a look at this video later. I think I may have seen it.
I thought it looked familiar and I've seen this video, but it has been a couple of years. I'm quite familiar with this topic.
His development theory is correct (for the most part) and just a branch of modernization theory which has been studied and applied since the early 1960s and has its roots in the ideas of Max Weber.
However there are a few problems:
Don't forget those who need to act as if we have huge problems so they can sell us expensive solutions.
Malthusian theory has been shown to lack a basic understanding of economics and demographics. For example, "Human populations, once they reach a certain size and complexity, always develop specialized orders, of priests, doctors, soldiers. To the members of these orders sexual abstinence, either permanent or periodic, or in "business hours" (so to speak), is typically prescribed. Here, then, is [a] fact about our species which is contrary to what one would expect on the principle that population always increases when, and as fast as, the amount of food available permits." (David Stove)
Malthus also failed to take innovation into account; he was applying current agricultural methods against future populations. "Any numbskull can find statistics to show that if the resource base stays the same and population increases then all hell will break loose. This is the Malthusian mirage." (Ben Marks) With population increase you also have an increase in production. Increased production increases wealth (that includes food) and efficiency (that includes carrying capacity or storage space).
Population increases solve themselves via increased production; in fact, a decreasing birth rate often concerns communities and societies because that means a decrease in production, as well.
There is some CLEAR CONSENSUS on Climate change. 97% of Climate Scientists agree.
There is some clear consensus on the cause... INCREASED CO2.
AND, humans are now the major cause of increased CO2 in the past Century.
As well, the big issue facing us going forward:
40% of the world's population lives within 100KM of the coast. MOST of the WORLD's goods are moved at some point via oceans.
It's going to impact the world economy. Right now, it hits Miami, LA, and NYC monthly. Within the next few decades, the oceans will rise enough that major populations will have to MOVE.
So, my question is, why deny what is agreed upon by the world's scientists?
AND, why get upset when someone like Great calls out the heavily funded Deniers?
Deniers are funded by Major Oil and Gas Corporations and Investors.
How many scientists are there.. (I just stole that line)
Sounds like we are in for a wet ride.
Greta is a child, she isn't even educated yet. It's hilarious.Not sad, not guilt provoking, not thought provoking.
Also, if there is agreement and yes, I think there is some... is there agreement on the solution?
:)
The consensus on Cause is settled.
That's the neat thing about fact... you don't have to agree with it, for it to be true. - I stole that line!
Tens of thousands of scientists
Dozens of Countries
Dozens of major scientific organizations
The consensus on the cause is settled.
The range of solutions are from, it's too late, to stop using oil, to cut back, to switch to solar, nuclear, wind, and hydro.
Is there consensus on a solution?> not as long as Big Oil and Gas money keeps pouring in to US Policy.
The irony is, China,m which used to be the biggest stumbling block, is on board. The US, which was a leader, and a global architect of Solar Power, is now out of the top 10 producers, and manufacturers. We lost the lead, and now, we're buying Chinese made product, since the man in office has slapped huge taxes on US companies making solar AND cut taxes on Oil and Gas.
As for Greta's age? Doesn't matter. The message is right on.
We're ignoring the future.
I see it personally in the shore lines, marshes and fields where I shoot my photos.
I see the migrating species patterns changed, because of how the warming of oceans has affected marine life. Same with how the climate has changed the patterns of the birds, and plants.
A non-scientific emotional temper tantrum is right?
lol.. How dare you Bluefin! How dare you.
Totally kidding, I got over it. I'm not voting for any carbon tax deals until there is some science to support it
And that's a fact. :) (no tone here)
Peer-reviewed climatologists were correct right up until Koch Industries cut me a nice fat check.
I'm confused by this answer.
It’s not as if there’s a real debate about manmade global warming. One side has peer-reviewed science, the other has money and pseudoscience. Koch Industries has been funding denialist groups for decades.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Denialists wrap themselves in pseudoscience, and their latest shtick is to deny warming altogether and instead claim that we’re headed for an ice age because of an upcoming “Grand Solar Minimum”, but they never seem to explain why the Little Ice Age started before the Maunder Minimum.
Care or don’t, your choice. But why would Greta’s youth be any kind of a disqualifier? She was invited to speak at the United Nations, with or without special qualifications. Lots of people wanted to hear what she had to say. Many senior government officials showed up to listen, some didn’t. Trump for instance went to a “religious freedom” conference instead and pretended he cared about religious freedom, fresh from kissing Saudi keister.
Really??? It sure seems to me that it’s very much both of those.
There obviously is real debate. Just watch the topic anywhere.
The denialists say the same about the "warmers"
It's not just her youth, it's her lack of education or real information and basically just emotional vomit.
I think maybe we should consider relocating or renovating some of our coastal cities to handle the changes.
Morons and liars say lots of things. Doesn’t mean we should give them any credence.
My favourite climate study is the one by Exxon in the 70s that convinced them they had to spread confusion and misinformation about the topic to preserve their business model. It is an 'inconvenient truth' for believers in endless growth on a finite planet. Most of the voices declaring it is a fraud or non-issue seem to have a financial motive. The stalling they have achieved has made it ever harder to counter the effects of business as usual.
A lot of the actions we need to take will be unpopular and most politicians lack the courage to attempt them, but the public mood is changing.
Greta is an icon, but maybe we need a child to guilt politicians into action after they have ignored their own scientific advisors. The Trump efforts to erase any mention of climate change from government literature made their motives clear.
I don't think guilt is going to do the trick. I think it just looked ridiculous.
My usual repsect for you as you were able to read the post and respond to what I said and not just repeat the MSM lines.
Cheers.
I think it is a bit unfair that all the attention is on her, but she has become a figurehead. People say she is being paid, but do they have proof. I did see she won a 'peace prize'. I would expect she is not that interested in the money, but it's up to her what she does with it. We have seen that money does not always solve problems.
When I see people mention 'MSM' I tend to think they have bought into a certain mindset that 'dark forces' encourage. There are parts of the established media that I trust more than others. I am less like to trust a random vlogger or blogger. Just being on the internet does not necessarily make you credible. That goes for me too :)
Our news has become so tangled in politics and corporate money that it is unreliable at this point and there are very few standards of Journalism left, but there are agendas.
I agree that being a blogger does not make you creditable, (or me).. However, you can watch the same "News" here on two different channels and barely recognize the story due to the spin.
That is not dark forces that is just simply the fact that if you follow the ownership of the main media you can clearly find out who owns our "For Profit" news. That's not light and dark that is just money and news and ratings.
It's just business. :)
I do not think you can generalise about journalists. In many places in the world they risk prison or worse for reporting what is going on. Be grateful if you media is actually free to write what they like. Of course money is involved, but so is reputation. If you are caught out lying all the time you lose trust. Meanwhile we have a news source that is known for lying being the main source of news and general info for the most powerful man in the world whilst he condemns others as 'fake news'. Journalists in the USA have been killed at their desks by people influenced by him. You have to consider who has the most to lose from the truth getting out.
Both sides of our mainstream news is ruled by money and power. One can not deny that.
I watch both sides and believe the truth is in the middle. You can't look at the money on one side without looking at it on the other.
When people in the US say MSM we are just acknowledging that most of our media is owned by a small number of people, you could liken it to the whales on Steem.
Are there only two sides? There's a lot more money in oil and other vested interests. In the end it's all imperfect people with their own bias, but you can make some judgement on what that is.
So, quick question: who would benefit from the narrative that there is no climate change?
Us, poor mortals that have small influence on the grand scheme of things, or the multibilionaires industries that are the main catalyst of these environmental changes?
Also, do you know how the scientific method works? (Not sarcastic or agressive question. Just curious)
I did not ever suggest there is no climate change. Nor did I suggest that it isn't man made. You can't break out of the narrative you've been handed long enough to read or engage.
It's not a "narrative" it's scientific studies led by real scientists using the scientific method.
I am not a climate scientist, but I know how science works.
If there is some conspiracy I would bet all my money on the industries conglomerates wanting to create doubts about about climate changes to keep on doing their cheap and highly pollution production methods to keep their profits high.
Posted using Partiko Android
I have no idea who you are talking to... You are just screaming your lines.
I see that you have them so well memorized that you can not engage in the conversation that is happening here.
Yeah whatever...
Like I said, there is no point "engaging" a discussion with the new conspiracy theorists.
It's just a waste of time.
Posted using Partiko Android
I couldn’t disagree more that climate change is political. You have climate deniers leading both America and Australia and yet the public is calling out for change given that so many of us recognise the urgent need for change.
And as a scientist, I can see very clearly that the science does indeed stack up.
I don’t feel the need to quote studies or authors. Very simply, it’s illogical to think that digging up and pumping millions of tonnes of ancient carbon into the atmosphere while clearing more than 50% of our planets remnant vegetation won’t have some type of impact on our climate.
And people claiming that we should take a “do nothing” approach are the most dangerous people in power right now.
Posted using Partiko iOS