Notre Dame Football News And Talk  


Come check out the news feed! DD Front Page

Go Back   Notre Dame Football News And Talk > Message Board > Open Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:22 PM
corysold's Avatar
corysold corysold is offline
Tenured
Domer Domain Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cortland, IL
Posts: 13,698
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
The evidence absolutely shows definitive proof that climate change is real and manmade

Also, in terms of money...how much money has the US government spent subsidizing the oil industry. You can't just pull the conspiracy card...address the evidence
I don't know how much they spent. According to this article, not nearly as much as you think.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillin.../#58f5087a6e1c
__________________
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

  #27  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:22 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
The evidence absolutely shows definitive proof that climate change is real and manmade

Also, in terms of money...how much money has the US government spent subsidizing the oil industry. You can't just pull the conspiracy card...address the evidence
So solar cycles or other natural phenomena have nothing to do with climate changes over millions of years? It's all manmade? Or what percentage?

Remember consensus or a majority does not equal causality. There have been many scientists who have questioned the validity of manmade climate change caused by and to what degree. They absolutely have been shouted down, attempted to be discredited, and outright locked out of publishing their findings and opinions by their peers.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:23 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
The evidence absolutely shows definitive proof that climate change is real and manmade

Also, in terms of money...how much money has the US government spent subsidizing the oil industry. You can't just pull the conspiracy card...address the evidence
I don't know if it's a conspiracy card but rather people trying to get paid. Follow the money

Do you believe that supermarkets that sell reusable grocery bags care about the environment or trying to cut the cost of buying the plastic ones?

We've seen scientist wipe out diseases only to see them come back. But now they can't be cured but only treated with expensive medication.

psychiatrist profession is booming because they can prescribe the "good stuff". Now everyone has ADHD. And doctors are riding this gravy train to the wheels fall off imo.

I do believe in following the money and they use fear to sell stuff. Probably 2 of my biggest rules in life.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:24 PM
Pregame's Avatar
Pregame Pregame is offline
Member
Domer Domain Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Corbys
Posts: 4,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corysold View Post
I didn't say that was peer reviewed. But it was science fact at the time.

Again, I'm not saying Global warming doesn't exist, I don't know, the evidence seems to be it is without definitive proof of why. But I also know that scientists aren't dumb and they know how to follow the money. The US government spent 32 BILLION dollars on global warming research between 1989 and 2009. If the first few results were, "Nope, not happening", that is a lot of money that wouldn't have gone into the pockets of the scientists.
Sorry, I meant that in jest/got your overall point. Just easing the tension baby.

__________________
My current signature has unexpectedly transferred....
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:28 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
So solar cycles or other natural phenomena have nothing to do with climate changes over millions of years? It's all manmade? Or what percentage?

Remember consensus or a majority does not equal causality. There have been many scientists who have questioned the validity of manmade climate change caused by and to what degree. They absolutely have been shouted down, attempted to be discredited, and outright locked out of publishing their findings and opinions by their peers.
Jesse, you seem to think everything is a liberal conspiracy.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:29 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,453
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
I don't have any published papers. I'm just a message board guy with an opinion. If we're just going to our corners citing "experts" that share our views then the discussion is pointless. I assume you can provide published papers and peer reviewed article but if I can't ask them questions, it does me no good.




it's not that simple. We learned about the earth rotating on it's axis and revolving around the sun in grade school. We all can see and understand seasons. But I guess your scientist are telling us that seasons as we know it will change due to climate change. If predicting longer time frames were easier then we should know when our last day will be or thereabouts. Like I said earlier, I say a guy with a fancy title say by 2010 we were gonna be wiped out.




So what you are saying is there is a chance that scientist may change their mind?.

I get it. But I think you are talking as if you are lecturing in a classroom, I'm talking like we're in a bar. From an everyday standpoint, I see wine is good for you and then bad, same with red meat. My older relatives lived without being gluten free, they drank from a creek and could shake hands without purel and many of them lived a long life.

I respect the hell out of what you are saying and i'm not saying we shouldn't do better but this planet is pretty tough and I don't know if our actions are just a drop in a bucket.
all good my dude. My main thing is if people don't quite understand the science behind climate change, I'm more than willing to share what I know =). There's a lot of misinformation, half-truths, and basic misunderstanding of the scientific process and what is and is possible. But all we have to do is discuss!

And yup! I do have peer-reviewed scientific papers I can link
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:45 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
all good my dude. My main thing is if people don't quite understand the science behind climate change, I'm more than willing to share what I know =). There's a lot of misinformation, half-truths, and basic misunderstanding of the scientific process and what is and is possible. But all we have to do is discuss!

And yup! I do have peer-reviewed scientific papers I can link
I trust you. I'm clearly out of my depth in this discussion but it's cool that you take the time with someone who is probably more or less wasting your time.

I'm gonna observe from here on out. It's a good discussion though.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:50 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
Jesse, you seem to think everything is a liberal conspiracy.
I don't know where I brought up LIBERAL CONSPIRACY in anything. I'm actually right there with you on many of your points thus far. Taking politics out of it for a moment, the money train you alluded to is exactly why I was glad we pulled out of the Paris Accord. The US was going to have to pay a huge some of money, on the backs of its taxpayers, and watch it trickle down through many corrupt layers of bureaucrats and organizations before it gets to the intended target. Yet as we've seen thus far other nations haven't paid in their required share at all and have at less equal to or higher pollution output. So it's a wealth redistribution scheme.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:54 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,453
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corysold View Post
I don't know how much they spent. According to this article, not nearly as much as you think.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillin.../#58f5087a6e1c
First thing, this article is an opinion piece. Forbes even states "Opinions stated by Forbes contributors are their own"...

Secondly, he didn't debunk anything. He's trying to spin subsidies to make it look like they aren't actually subsidies specifically for oil, which is fallacious and disingenuous
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"

Last edited by Franco; 10-19-2018 at 11:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-17-2018, 08:03 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,453
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
So solar cycles or other natural phenomena have nothing to do with climate changes over millions of years? It's all manmade? Or what percentage?
First off, no one has said it is all manmade...And yes, scientists point to things like solar cycles (which we're actually in a cycle of low levels of illumination from the sun). No one has said that other natural phenomena do not cause climate change. In fact, they have a word for it. It's called "Forcing"

For example, Orbital Forcing is when the eccentricity of the earth's orbit causes an initial heating. From there, CO2 will then lead the way causing what's called a positive feedback loop

Quote:
Remember consensus or a majority does not equal causality.
I've never heard this...do you mean correlation does not equal causation? because I've heard of that

But in all seriousness, again, when there is an overwhelming consensus, it should stop you from automatically thinking to disregard what they say and to start asking "why do scientists insist that the earth is warming and it's manmade even though a handful of scientists state otherwise?"

Quote:
There have been many scientists who have questioned the validity of manmade climate change caused by and to what degree. They absolutely have been shouted down, attempted to be discredited, and outright locked out of publishing their findings and opinions by their peers.
Again, please send me a link as to these certain situations
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"

Last edited by Franco; 10-19-2018 at 11:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-17-2018, 08:07 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,453
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
I don't know if it's a conspiracy card but rather people trying to get paid. Follow the money

Do you believe that supermarkets that sell reusable grocery bags care about the environment or trying to cut the cost of buying the plastic ones?
I agree...this whole plastic bag and straw ban is ****ing ridiculous and will not really put a dent in the damage we're doing to the oceans (not necessarily connected to climate change)

Quote:
We've seen scientist wipe out diseases only to see them come back. But now they can't be cured but only treated with expensive medication.

psychiatrist profession is booming because they can prescribe the "good stuff". Now everyone has ADHD. And doctors are riding this gravy train to the wheels fall off imo.

I do believe in following the money and they use fear to sell stuff. Probably 2 of my biggest rules in life.
Again, please address the evidence provided by climate scientists on the premise of manmade climate change. We can go on and on about conspiracies and "follow the money" but I have yet to see any credible evidence that refutes climate change
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-17-2018, 08:16 PM
corysold's Avatar
corysold corysold is offline
Tenured
Domer Domain Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cortland, IL
Posts: 13,698
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pregame View Post
Sorry, I meant that in jest/got your overall point. Just easing the tension baby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z34r0ZVD_K0
Damn, my bad. I was even doing the timeline in my head. Ancient greek philosophers vs Egyptian papyrus, which came first?

Global warming debate messes with my normal line of thinking.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-17-2018, 08:23 PM
irishwavend's Avatar
irishwavend irishwavend is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Happiest Place on Earth, FL
Posts: 6,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
Again, please address the evidence provided by climate scientists on the premise of manmade climate change. We can go on and on about conspiracies and "follow the money" but I have yet to see any credible evidence that refutes climate change
There is plenty of credible evidence to refute man made climate change:

1. The temperature measuring systems are in heat sinks and/or malfunctioning often.
2. Data is selectively shown over decades versus millenia.
3. Sea levels have not risen.
4. Solar activity clearly has a substantial impact.
5. NASA has arbitrarily and selectively adjusted temperature measurements.
6. There has been no significant geological adjustments, i.e. no new deserts or new rainforests.
7. The BIGGEST is that Warren Buffet stated that there has been no substantially different impact to property risks from weather related incidents requiring actuarial adjustments to property insurance premiums. That's a public statement saying there's no impact!
8. The founder of the The Weather Channel even declared what a joke the climate issue is.
9. Climate hysteria has been going on for decades with very specific predictions, yet...where is it? The models are crap and the data is crap.
10. Tons of dissenting data that was deleted by the European agency on the matter.

I can go on and on. Hell, look around! We're fine and we'll be fine. Why? More heat means more evaporation. More evaporation means more moisture. More moisture and more carbon means more vegetation and farmland. More vegetation and farmland means more people eat. And, don't give me the "more extreme weather" bit, because Buffet has confirmed it that the risk of property damage has not changed over the years. If the risk hasn't changed, it means the weather or severity of the weather hasn't changed over the years, meaning that the overall climate hasn't changed.

Refute that!

Again, climate science is nothing but garbage in/garbage out climate data with greedy professors appropriating "science" for their own personal benefit.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-17-2018, 09:13 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,453
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishwavend View Post
There is plenty of credible evidence to refute man made climate change:
I'm just gonna say this right now...you really gotta be more specific and provide sources so I can look into it. You can't just make overarching statements but I'll go ahead and try to respond to them below

1. The temperature measuring systems are in heat sinks and/or malfunctioning often. This one, I can't even respond to because I don't know which temperature measuring systems you're referring to...was it UW, NOAA, RSS, or UAH? Those are the four main ones
2. Data is selectively shown over decades versus millenia.That is absolutely and demonstrably false
3. Sea levels have not risen. And? In any case, that's false, it has risen a few centimeters in the past 100 years. But I get it, that's not really life threatening. But again, no one said the sea levels has risen significantly in the past hundred or so years...What they ARE saying is that it WILL rise.
4. Solar activity clearly has a substantial impact.Again, no scientist has refuted this. In fact, they factor in solar activity into their measurements
5. NASA has arbitrarily and selectively adjusted temperature measurements. Yes, they adjust temperatures. This isn't the conspiracy you're making it out to be. They adjust temps to account for any changes in the surrounding area of the temp stations. For example, city growth around stations. Because of any surrounding changes, they also REDUCE temp readings to account for unnatural heating affects like something called the Urban Heat Island effect (generally, urban areas tend to be significantly warmer than the surrounding area)
6. There has been no significant geological adjustments, i.e. no new deserts or new rainforests. What's your point? Not sure what this has to do with climate change, but I honestly could be mistaken.
7. The BIGGEST is that Warren Buffet stated that there has been no substantially different impact to property risks from weather related incidents requiring actuarial adjustments to property insurance premiums. That's a public statement saying there's no impact!He also stated "It seems highly likely to me that climate change poses a major problem for the planet" sooooooo....
8. The founder of the The Weather Channel even declared what a joke the climate issue is. He's a weatherman with a Bachelors in Journalism, not a climate scientist...
9. Climate hysteria has been going on for decades with very specific predictions, yet...where is it? The models are crap and the data is crap. You're right...climate hysteria has been going on for decades...by the media. Like I keep saying, address the scientific literature. They clearly quantify what they believe would be the effects of climate change in temperature and sea level readings. You will NOT find emotional words like catastrophic or hysteria in any scientific papers because those words mean different things to different people. Also, how are the models crap?
10. Tons of dissenting data that was deleted by the European agency on the matter. I assume you're referring to the email controversy...which was completely overblown and taken out of context

Quote:
I can go on and on. Hell, look around! We're fine and we'll be fine. Why? More heat means more evaporation. More evaporation means more moisture. More moisture and more carbon means more vegetation and farmland. More vegetation and farmland means more people eat. And, don't give me the "more extreme weather" bit, because Buffet has confirmed it that the risk of property damage has not changed over the years.
First off, are you really using Warren Buffet as a source? And secondly, I looked into it, he also says, "As a citizen, you may understandably find climate change keeping you up nights," he writes. "As a homeowner in a low-lying area, you may wish to consider moving. But when you are thinking only as a shareholder of a major insurer, climate change should not be on your list of worries." Also, please see my quote above...And lastly he says "Berk made commitments to the future develope of renewables in support of the Paris Climate Agreement. Our fulfilling those promises will make great sense both for the environment and for Berk's economics"

Basically, he isn't saying that climate change isn't a thing because business has been "business as usual" It just so happens that it hasn't affected his business YET.

Now to the part about vegetation and farmland...
No one said that CO2 isn't a bonus for vegetation and farmland, but what study below IS saying is that drought, flooding, and heat stress due to climate change will more than offset the benefits derived from higher concentrations of CO2 for plant growth

"Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios" -- Parry et al, Global Environmental Change 2004
edit: wanted to include the link to the paper cited above: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/...production.pdf

Quote:
If the risk hasn't changed, it means the weather or severity of the weather hasn't changed over the years, meaning that the overall climate hasn't changed.

Refute that!
Lastly, I want to point out that Buffet doesnt' speak for all insurers...Other insurers have already expressed concern about these changes. Carl Hedde, head of risk accumulation for insurer Munich Re America, says: “The number of loss-relevant, weather-related natural catastrophes worldwide has almost tripled since 1980 […] we do think that the warming climate – depending on region and peril concerned – does play a certain role.”
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"

Last edited by Franco; 10-19-2018 at 11:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-17-2018, 11:21 PM
Soko Soko is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
I don't know where I brought up LIBERAL CONSPIRACY in anything. I'm actually right there with you on many of your points thus far. Taking politics out of it for a moment, the money train you alluded to is exactly why I was glad we pulled out of the Paris Accord. The US was going to have to pay a huge some of money, on the backs of its taxpayers, and watch it trickle down through many corrupt layers of bureaucrats and organizations before it gets to the intended target. Yet as we've seen thus far other nations haven't paid in their required share at all and have at less equal to or higher pollution output. So it's a wealth redistribution scheme.
What?

The US pulled out of the Paris Accord so it wouldn't have to abide by strict emissions standards and risk leaving developing nations drive ahead with dirtier, polluting energy polices and manufacturing practices. There is some merit in that but to be literally the only country in the world with it's head in the sand is beyond embarrassing. But that's par for the course these days being a laughing stock.

There is a 97% consensus amongst published studies that climate change is man made. That's about all that can be said.

When the president says that UN reports have an agenda then you just need to throw your hands in the air and say **** it, what's the point.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-03-2018, 04:21 PM
ckp160 ckp160 is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Freshman
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Washington State
Posts: 669
Default

I've never understood how climate change can be a partisan topic. We're all in this ****-show together. There's nothing wrong with trying to be better stewards of the earth. As a country we should do our part... no more and no less than the other industrialized nations.

Quote:
But that's par for the course these days being a laughing stock.
Yet we're the STILL the strongest presence in the world. Last I checked, the EU wasn't exactly chugging along.

Last edited by ckp160; 11-03-2018 at 04:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-04-2018, 12:37 PM
Kelly Gruene Kelly Gruene is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth
Posts: 1,572
Default

During my postgraduate training years I was involved in multiple scientific studies, being published in peer-reviewed journals.
I found the process disheartening.
The people leading the studies had grants, the funding provided by industries that had an interest in the outcomes.
If study results weren't aligned with what the lead investigators thought they should be (in order to be able to obtain future grants from industry), the data were re-grouped and re-thought and re-organized until a 'desired' outcome was 'found'.
Certainly an argument may be made that the lead investigators under whom I worked may have lacked moral compass and I didn't voice opposition strongly enough.
But, that was my droplet of experience in the ocean of scientific studies.
Point being: I don't trust a lot of scientific studies or scientists, and in many ways I am a scientist.

It is entirely possible that the planet is warming.
It is entirely possible that man may be contributing to that.
I agree that we should take efforts to minimize damage to the environment.
I am glad that I don't have to make the decisions that impact 7 billion people in this regard. The cost of implementation of these things is astronomical and countries don't really keep their ends of the treaties anyway. In 2017 the US lead the world in decreasing carbon emissions, while Canada, Spain, the EU, China, and India (all signatories of the Paris Accord) all increased carbon emissions.
I will never ever claim to be a climate change expert and I don't really follow the studies and reporting due to my experience in scientific research.
I love seeing efforts to change to solar and wind and geothermal energy. Those make sense. I hope they continue. By all countries.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-04-2018, 01:03 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Gruene View Post
I love seeing efforts to change to solar and wind and geothermal energy. Those make sense. I hope they continue. By all countries.
Why not nuclear energy?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-04-2018, 01:20 PM
Kelly Gruene Kelly Gruene is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth
Posts: 1,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Why not nuclear energy?
Nuclear too.
Bill Gates is really big into this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#5e8443852c12

The countries with the most nuclear plants:
1. US: 99
2. France: 58
3. Japan: 43
4. Russia: 34
5. China: 28

So, as is almost always the case, follow the money. The title of this thread implies that Bill Gates is doing a great thing for the world. And, it may turn out that he IS doing a great thing for the world. But...he clearly has a MAJOR financial interest in climate change policy. Major.

Last edited by Kelly Gruene; 11-04-2018 at 01:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-07-2018, 02:58 AM
Phillydomer Phillydomer is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Walk-On
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 464
Default

I love how people are content to take medications developed by scientists; to rely on technology in their everyday lives that was developed by scientists; and to generally take for granted scientific theories like evolution. But all of a sudden, there's this ONE issue where every Tom, Dick, and Harry with not a whit of scientific expertise want to question the scientists whom they trust in all other areas of their life.

What's more likely, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is wrong, or the amateurs are letting political ideology shape their viewpoint? These arguments are beyond stupid, because people who are questioning the evidence of climate change have no interest in actually weighing evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:19 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillydomer View Post
I love how people are content to take medications developed by scientists; to rely on technology in their everyday lives that was developed by scientists; and to generally take for granted scientific theories like evolution. But all of a sudden, there's this ONE issue where every Tom, Dick, and Harry with not a whit of scientific expertise want to question the scientists whom they trust in all other areas of their life.

What's more likely, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is wrong, or the amateurs are letting political ideology shape their viewpoint? These arguments are beyond stupid, because people who are questioning the evidence of climate change have no interest in actually weighing evidence.
What's your definition of scientist, or rather how broadly or specific do you want to get with that title? Advancements in technology happen all the time, with big impacts on the world, by people with little to no formal education or titles in science. They are amateurs, they tinkered with something or had a unintended reaction to something they were working on that revolutionized a concept, a machine, a chemical, etc.

Regarding your second paragraph. Political ideology seeps into the mainstream sciences a lot. What's more is the big money that's involved in science, and how money and power will drive agendas for any side of an argument. If I (your words) have no interest of actually weighing the evidence, how can I also accept the evidence presented by the UN commission and scientists associated with the Paris Accord who state that if all the proposed efforts are made to address man made climate change, very little to no temperature change will occur before the end of the century?

In all seriousness the only way to resolve this issue is to actually reverse human progress by centuries or millennia. That is all those inventions and other wonders people have come to rely on disappear because they are unsustainable to keep producing. We have to devolve back to a Stone Age way of life. That's patently absurd of course. Who in Western developed society especially is willing to give up all the wonderful perks that make life so easy to live in today? No one.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-07-2018, 02:14 PM
Phillydomer Phillydomer is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Walk-On
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post

In all seriousness the only way to resolve this issue is to actually reverse human progress by centuries or millennia. That is all those inventions and other wonders people have come to rely on disappear because they are unsustainable to keep producing. We have to devolve back to a Stone Age way of life. That's patently absurd of course. Who in Western developed society especially is willing to give up all the wonderful perks that make life so easy to live in today? No one.
This is why these arguments are pointless. Because climate-science deniers believe absolute idiocy like this, i.e. we have to be cavemen to revert climate change.

The other point I'll make here, because this post illustrates it so well, is the following: Jessemoore97 begins by denying the science, but he concludes by shrugging his shoulders and saying that to change the climate back we would have to change our way of life too much. That is to say, Jesse simultaneously denies climate science, then acknowledges it's probably true but expresses his unwillingness to combat it. It's the latter point that reveals the crux of the matter.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-07-2018, 02:43 PM
jbrown_9999 jbrown_9999 is online now
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,839
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Gruene View Post
In 2017 the US lead the world in decreasing carbon emissions, while Canada, Spain, the EU, China, and India (all signatories of the Paris Accord) all increased carbon emissions.
If this is true, then why are people so against the US pulling out of the Paris Accord?

Also, side question, Is Spain part of the EU? (I ask since they were listed separately by Kelly Gruene)
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-08-2018, 01:25 AM
Kelly Gruene Kelly Gruene is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth
Posts: 1,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrown_9999 View Post
If this is true, then why are people so against the US pulling out of the Paris Accord?

Also, side question, Is Spain part of the EU? (I ask since they were listed separately by Kelly Gruene)
It is true: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier.../#769eecdc3535.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...g-environment/
https://www.instituteforenergyresear...-in-the-world/
There are nuances to it, but it is true.
You will have to answer the question about why people are so against the US pulling out. Lots of answers to that question.

And, you're right. Spain is part of the EU. Sorry about listing Spain separately.
Here's a list of EU member countries by population: http://www.worldometers.info/populat...by-population/.
I'm always intrigued by populations and comparisons. For instance, the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area has 7.4 million people. That's more people than 13 of the 28 members of the EU.

Last edited by Kelly Gruene; 11-08-2018 at 01:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-09-2018, 03:16 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillydomer View Post
This is why these arguments are pointless. Because climate-science deniers believe absolute idiocy like this, i.e. we have to be cavemen to revert climate change.

The other point I'll make here, because this post illustrates it so well, is the following: Jessemoore97 begins by denying the science, but he concludes by shrugging his shoulders and saying that to change the climate back we would have to change our way of life too much. That is to say, Jesse simultaneously denies climate science, then acknowledges it's probably true but expresses his unwillingness to combat it. It's the latter point that reveals the crux of the matter.
Re-read what I said. In no way am I advocating reverting human progress to stave off "man made climate change", I even said it's patently absurd. I don't believe all the science answers or can account for all the things that impact climate, let alone specify that a majority of it positive or negative is caused by human activity. That is my stance, uneducated, ignorant, or whatever you wish to label me.

Sorry I didn't frame it as well as I wanted before. Like I said when the science claims X is going to happen unless we do something, and the Paris accord, UN, etc say that
the proposed counter measures to X will actually do very little to nothing to alter what's happening before the end of the century. We've heard all sorts of science based doomsday predictions that were supposed to have come true by now that were predicted over the past few decades. Nothing's happened. So for "deniers" like me healthy doses of scepticism and questioning of the science and motives that go into this matter is certainly well within my ignorant and uneducated ability to do so. I dare compare it to the people who follow things like the Mayan Clander, Nostradamus, or religious cults in predicting the end of the world which so far seem to be hitting about the same average for accuracy. When their predictions don't bear out, they trot out any number of excuses for the error, re-adjust and set up a new doomsday date. Sound familiar?

I guarantee there are radicals out there who have suggested a reversion of human progress in the name of staving off global doom. My tongue and cheek didn't come off very well, sorry. I'm personally content with human progress as it stands currently, though I have concerns in other science fields that are wholly different subjects altogether.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Also visit IrishEnvy, our Notre Dame Football partner site

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:56 AM.

Last Updated: June 26, 2019

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.