General Climate change is bullshit?

[Ted Williams' head]

I think climate change will go the way of Y2K, 2012, Capone's vault and all that other horse shit. I think scientists just like taking the piss. They get bored sitting around in labs all day with other dudes so they like yanking the public's change every now and then.

Just because someone knows more about a subject doesn't mean they're right, or giving you accurate information. The used car salesman knows way more about cars than I do, but I'm not going to take his word as gospel.

 

[1031]

@GoSensGo
I used to have classes with these two guys:
1. Ph.D. in Thermal Dynamics...something to do with Flue gases.
2. Ph.D. in something Nuclear Radiation, works in a lab and has those initials and I'm a lazy stupid cunt so don't hang onto that info)
Basically, I tutored them in English usage and put the question to them (which was slightly dishonest of me because none of it was planned and I wasn't really giving them any instruction at that moment) and they both agreed that yes the climate is changing in many parts of the world but the data is not conclusive AT ALL.

They were very adamant in that the amount of data we have is not sufficient to be making any conclusions, no ifs, ands or buts about it. They were also equally, if not more, adamant that it's not because of Co2 in the atmosphere. They surmised it's most probably politicians and business corrupting science and that's what the media (corrupted by politics and business) is running with.
They made it comprehensible to me, they managed to discern what I knew and then broke down their explanations so I could digest it and make sense of it. They weren't fucking around and knew EXACTLY what data is crucial in forming a logical connection of one factor to another. No mincing words, no weird-ass metaphors, just straight to the facts.

edited cause typing and thinking is hard today

 

[Ted Williams' head]

@GoSensGo
I used to have classes with these two guys:
1. Ph.D. in Thermal Dynamics...something to do with Flue gases.
2. Ph.D. in something Nuclear Radiation, works in a lab and has those initials and I'm a lazy stupid cunt so don't hang onto that info)
Basically, I tutored them in English usage which was slightly dishonest of me because none of it was planned and I wasn't really giving tehm any instruction there) and they both agreed that yes the climate is changing in many parts of the world but the data is not conclusive AT ALL.

They were very adamant in that the amount of data we have is not sufficient to be making any conclusions, no ifs, ands or buts about it. They were also equally, if not more, adamant that it's not because of Co2 in the atmosphere. They surmised it'ms most probably politicians and business corrupting science and that's what the media (corrupted by politics and business) is running with.
They made it comprehensible to me, they managed to discern what I knew and then broke down their explanations so I could digest it and make sense of it. They weren't fucking around and knew EXACTLY what data is crucial in forming a logical connection of one factor to another. No mincing words, no weird-ass metaphors, just straight to the facts.

Check out the big brain on Blank

 

[Leigh]

I put this on my Facebook for discussion. I had some interesting responses that convinced me that climate change is a real concern.

Firstly, this page gives an indicator of temperature changes:

xkcd: Earth Temperature Timeline

Yes temperatures and carbon levels have been higher in the past. The issue now is the rate of change; temperatures have never increased this quickly. Eco systems and species have much more chance of tolerating a gradual change than a fast one.

For example, sea water rising 4C over 10,000 years thousand years will not have the same impact as rising 4C over 100 years, which could decimate or even extinguish fragile eco systems.

 

[Disciplined Galt]

Fucking bullying.

 

[Robbie Hart]

Check out the big brain on Blank

This deserves a winner but I had to pick one and funny was the first reaction

 

[jason73]

climate change is a social construct

 

[Hauler]

Take some science classes fellows.

To be fair, did they have science classes in the 70s/80s when they said an ice age was coming?

 

[1031]

This deeerves a winner but I had to pick one and funny was the first reaction

funny was the right choice but I feel your pain: at times it's hard to choose in life.

 

[member 3289]

A little too much bro science ITT

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

 

[bully4me]

I don't think it's complete bullshit, but when folks start regulating processes, procedures and products - and those same folks are making millions and millions of dollars from those changes - I do look at the story that is being sold to the public with a bit of skepticism. I also tend to question the ridiculous predictions, many of which have already proven to be false.

The scare tactics need to stop.

All that said, I think it's a good thing to give a hoot and don't pollute.

I agree with most of what your saying but will also add that BOTH sides use fear mongering. With BOTH SIDES it's about money. For sure BIG Business doesn't want to have to make any changes as it will cost them large to do so... in the Millions which would effect the bottom line to make changes. So they also hire scientists to come up with answers they want. That is the entire problem. Nobody has an unbiased agenda. They are all trying to come up with the science to prove a theory. What is needed are scientists who are neutral to collect data and see what it uncovers.

I think the truth lays somewhere in the middle.

 

[Hauler]

I think the truth lays somewhere in the middle.

Couldn't agree more

 

[Ted Williams' head]

I think the truth lays somewhere in the middle.

I agree, but not in the direct middle, closer towards the "climate change is bullshit" side IMO. If it were a football game and they were on 4th down going towards the "climate change is bullshit" end zone, they could kick an easy field goal.

After all, science is just a social construct, rooted in colonialism and oppression

 

[Leigh]

Another update from my Facebook (LOL).

An actual climate change scientist popped up. He said that it's difficult to determine previous global temperatures with accuracy and there are a number of models that vary. Hence, it's difficult to be certain. We could be in trouble or we may not be. The data simply isn't accurate enough.

 

[IschKabibble]

I agree, but not in the direct middle, closer towards the "climate change is bullshit" side IMO. If it were a football game and they were on 4th down going towards the "climate change is bullshit" end zone, they could kick an easy field goal.

After all, science is just a social construct, rooted in colonialism and oppression

The irony of bullet #3 runs deep.

 

[Rambo John J]

I think we do influence it

hard to say how much

Climate is fluid

 

[jasonhightower]

The debate seems to be endless with politicians, but scientists seem to be overwhelmingly in agreement, at least to some extent.

I try and keep it simple for myself.

1. Would I rather breath in less carbon-filled air or the same/more? Of course, it's less.
2. Would I like to see more jobs in "green energy" fields? Hell yes, they are currently massively more than those from fossil fuel jobs, and still growing.
3. Would I like an energy source that has virtually an endless supply? Absolutely, more supply means less cost (eventually). I want to be able to use fuel at the lowest cost possible to myself, selfishly.

I mean the sun provides more energy in an hour than we'll use in a lifetime, yet we're hell bent on the destruction of our earth to pull shit out of it. Seems pretty logical to me to rid ourselves of fossil fuel dependencies.

 

[1031]

1. Would I rather breath in less carbon-filled air or the same/more? Of course, it's less.

CO2 is a neutral gas, if you are referring to carbon particles (soot) then of course that makes sense to avoid breathing in that shit.

 

[jasonhightower]

CO2 is a neutral gas, if you are referring to carbon particles (soot) the of course that makes sense to avoid breathing in that shit.

Yep.

 

[SongExotic2]

A little too much bro science ITT

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

Fuck NASA. They stupid

 

[kneeblock]

I agree with most of what your saying but will also add that BOTH sides use fear mongering. With BOTH SIDES it's about money. For sure BIG Business doesn't want to have to make any changes as it will cost them large to do so... in the Millions which would effect the bottom line to make changes. So they also hire scientists to come up with answers they want. That is the entire problem. Nobody has an unbiased agenda. They are all trying to come up with the science to prove a theory. What is needed are scientists who are neutral to collect data and see what it uncovers.

I think the truth lays somewhere in the middle.

Corporate funded science is overwhelmingly in the minority when it comes to climate science. Most research into climate science is funded by governments, occasionally foundations, and international organizations. This idea that there is one body of research being created by big oil and one body of research by the solar and wind energy industries is nothing like what happens in reality. There are corporate funded studies, but they are a very small part of what gets published or paid attention to.

What you're suggesting is more in line with how policy is created as segments of the traditional energy sector lobbies congress and the green energy sector does the same. There's a decent argument to be made that the debate is more about spending on new projects rather than just urging citizens to conserve more because corporate influencers have taken control of shaping the POLICY debate rather than the SCIENTIFIC debate, which is more or less settled. So the questions have less to do with whether there is a problem than what should be done.

 

[SongExotic2]

Corporate funded science is overwhelmingly in the minority when it comes to climate science. Most research into climate science is funded by governments, occasionally foundations, and international organizations. This idea that there is one body of research being created by big oil and one body of research by the solar and wind energy industries is nothing like what happens in reality. There are corporate funded studies, but they are a very small part of what gets published or paid attention to.

What you're suggesting is more in line with how policy is created as segments of the traditional energy sector lobbies congress and the green energy sector does the same. There's a decent argument to be made that the debate is more about spending on new projects rather than just urging citizens to conserve more because corporate influencers have taken control of shaping the POLICY debate rather than the SCIENTIFIC debate, which is more or less settled. So the questions have less to do with whether there is a problem than what should be done.

What are you trying to tell me here?

 

[Yossarian]

edited cause typing and thinking is hard today

Glad to see you are also a grammar nazi to yourself.

 

[Yossarian]

I agree, but not in the direct middle, closer towards the "climate change is bullshit" side IMO. If it were a football game and they were on 4th down going towards the "climate change is bullshit" end zone, they could kick an easy field goal.

After all, science is just a social construct, rooted in colonialism and oppression

Snowflake 101 class.

 

[Ted Williams' head]

Most research into climate science is funded by governments, occasionally foundations, and international organizations.

But isn't being funded by the government just as open to corruption as being privately funded? You tell the government there's no problem and the money gets cut off and goes to something else. You tell the government there is a problem and you need more resources to study it further and come up with solutions, and they start throwing money at you. There's much less accountability with government spending it seems.