Climate change

"One of the concepts they talked about in depth was, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"."

Who are "they"?

Have you even tried to answer any of these questions yourself?

"Is the extent of man on the climate enough for a few to control the many?"

That isn't a question for scientists. They can tell you what they know, what they don't know, and what they believe the wisest course of action is. Whether or not the cost can be justified is a matter for the people.

"This debate started back in the 1960s."

More like the 1860s. Environmental damage from human activity has been recognized for a long time, although usually on a more local level. Cases in point: the Great Smog of London in 1952, the Donora Smog of 1948, and others long before that. The evolution of the peppered moth as driven by pollution was noticed at least 200 years ago.

"What about the hole in the ozone? Where did that go?"

Seriously? A problem and its cause were identified, a solution recommended and implemented, and the results were a success. While the ozone hole hasn't fully recovered yet, it is well on its way to doing do, having gone back to about 1985 levels.

"Lots of people being chicken little screaming the sky is falling."

Some people scream like chicken little. Others stick their fingers in their ears and just figure if they ignore a problem than it doesn't exist.

"However no real answers."

You mean no real answers that you both like and understand.

"Each individual must do what's best for them, their prosperity, their families and their individual happiness"

Yeah. Fuck everyone else and their descendants.

<p> </p>

<p>"<span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:open sans,sans-serif; font-size:14px">Science is not based on "knowing for sure." Science is based on the preponderance of evidence."<br />
"We have established that man has a significant impact on climate change."</span><br />
</p>

<p><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:open sans,sans-serif; font-size:14px">tbr, your two statements contradict each other. I just had jury duty. One of the concepts they talked about in depth was, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". The preponderance of evidence is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I refuse to support the destroying of billions of people's lives on something that is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.</span></p>

<p><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:open sans,sans-serif; font-size:14px">Any yes, if we do what these climate change believers want us to do, billions of lives will be destroyed. </span><br />
</p>

Is the extent of man on the climate enough for a few to control the many? To use force to change behavior, much like a parent spanking or scolding a child? This debate started back in the 1960s. Since that time we have made massive strides in cleaning up our messes. From inefficient automobiles, to dumping of industrial wastes, asbestos, lead paint and packaging. Is there too many people on the earth? Should we force less? Is there to many cattle ranchers creating to much methane? What about the hole in the ozone? Where did that go? Lots of people being chicken little screaming the sky is falling. However no real answers. Each individual must do what's best for them, their prosperity, their families and their individual happiness.

"Man has had some effect on climate. To what extent?"

I think I addressed this.

We have established that man has a significant impact on climate change.

To what level of detail do you want it?

Within 1%? Within 0.1%? Within 0.01?

One cannot win an argument on this subject. Only defer to facts and history. From the dust bowl, to the Detroit River being on fire, to the historic blizzards of the 70s. Man has had some effect on climate. To what extent? What is the answer? Solar? Hydro? Nuclear? We have a piece of land with a creek flowing through it. Many times I wanted to build my own power station. Cheap, clean and renewable. Why not? Government. Lots of people run around crying the world is going to end. But what is the answer? Smaller homes? More efficient products that require less to operate? Or is it consumerism that needs to be changed? Afterall more durable products last longer require less of a carbon foot print. Just a thought. Time to fire up the diesel and start the sawmill up. Don't worry , I'll hug it before I saw it.

Scientists have long had a problem with communication with the general public. One of the biggest challenges is simply being polite when faced with the deadly combination of staggering ignorance and unshakeable confidence.

I can't tell you how often I, in a generally non-controversial field for the general public, have just wanted to tell people that they don't know shit and should shut the fuck up. I can't imagine what it's like being a climatologist or someone like Fauci, who I am impressed only once publicly called one of his showman interrogators a moron, and that wasn't even related to his actual expertise.

What tbr said.

"Facts" are pieces of data, like "it was X degrees in this place at this time".

We have observations, data, and reasoning, and we draw the best conclusions we can from them. Demanding "irrefutable proof" is setting the bar so impossibly high that no amount of evidence could ever meet it.

I'm a fully-fledged scientist and I myself don't fully understand the validity of the conclusions climatologists reach. But I must defer to them, as I am not equipped to challenge their expertise on the matter.

While that might seem weak - I have published work on aryl-group transfers onto allylic groups from antimony, and on neuromuscular junctions of crayfish. Like me being unable to challenge climatologists on their findings, I doubt you'll find a climatologist who is equipped to challenge my work. You probably will have a hard time finding a physicist, geologist, or medical doctor who can intelligent discuss some of what I've done, let alone offer a serious challenge to it.

Basically - unless you're a climatologist, you are almost certainly laughably ill-equipped to discuss the matter in any detail at all, let alone tell the people who do understand it that they are full of shit. Kind of like me taking the half dozen words of Chinese I know and telling a native Chinese speaker that they don't know what they are talking about with regards to their language.

"FACT: No scientist or any human knows for sure if the climate is significantly changing and if it is, that it was caused by humans."

LOL. This is also a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

Science is not based on "knowing for sure." Science is based on the preponderance of evidence.

The preponderance of evidence is that the climate is changing and that humans have an effect.

As far as you doing "extensive research" on the subject, you lack the underlying knowledge to discern whether what you are looking at is valid and reliable. Hell, I have a Ph.D., and I don't have the underlying knowledge to understand everything that it included in the model.

Certainty has no place in science.

As far as only having 150 years of climate data, that is also incorrect. We have indirect methods of measuring climate, including ice cores, tree rings, and other methods.

You don't like indirect evidence? How do you know the election was stolen? Your opinion is totally based on indirect evidence, since you were not at any of the ballot counting locations...

@Wayne

"FACT: No scientist or any human knows for sure if the climate is significantly changing and if it is, that it was caused by humans."

No.

That is not a fact. You have two premises there and you are trying to tie things.

Is the climate changing? Yes or no.

Is the climate changing faster than it has in the past? Yes or no.

Is man having an impact on the changing of the climate? Yes or no.

If man is having an impact, is it significant enough to move the needle? Yes or no.

Those are the questions that should be asked.

We can through soil samples taken from various parts of the world determine what the climate was like at that point in time. Hell, you are not far from proof! Go to Devil's Millhopper.

Is it moving faster than in the past, in essence before man was around? Yes, you can see that in the soil samples.

The rest . . . well, with 8bn people on the rock, to say we do not have an impact . . . ROFL.

Now in regards to the anti-solar argument.

To me, this is really funny because it shows that people just want to argue a side because they want to be that rebellious 13 year old girl who is telling their parents that they are ruining her life.

Jimmy Carter nailed back in the 70s by saying that if YOU want to be independent of the middle east put solar up. Solar allows for decentralized power production. No longer are you completely dependent upon anyone for electricity. You can argue the cost as much as you want, the math will always work out that solar is cheaper in the long run. The best argument you have is the point in which it does. But until electricity is free from the power company, ANY solar investment will pay for itself. That is just math.

Here is some simple support for that concept. I had a friend in 2015 go solar. They did all the calculations, worked with the installers, etc. They came up with an ROI of 12 years. Right now, they are on track to hit the ROI this year. But what is interesting . . . they redid the ROI with new equipment for fun. Now, the ROI, if they bought today, is 7 years.

If you think solar is foolish, I think all the residents of Babcock Ranch in Fort Myers might want to invite you to listen to them. They are a community of homes. It is 100% solar. Hurricane Ian just went through there. Guess what . . . they lost zero power. They did not lose internet. A few houses had some tiles blow off, there were a few uprooted trees. But they were perfectly fine.

<p> </p>

<p>Esperanza911,</p>

<p>What source are you using? I have researched this extensively and I can find no irrefutable scientific evidence to support climate change. At best we have about 150 years of climate data and the accuracy of some of that early data is questionable. According to current science, the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. 150 years out of 4.5 billion is not a large enough sample to be able to base any "factual" claims off of it.</p>

<p>You and everyone else's belief in climate change is 100% faith based.</p>

<p>FACT: No scientist or any human knows for sure if the climate is significantly changing and if it is, that it was caused by humans.</p>

"The planet has been through several ice ages and tropic events? "

That is the justification for bad behavior. That line of thinking is what causes a lot of this shit. That line of thinking leaves out . . . the time component.

Has the earth been in different phases? HELL YEAH. Did it go from one to the other in 100 years? No. Did it do it over a long period of time? Yes. Most of these changes happened SLOWLY over hundreds of thousands of years.

What is happening now is the acceleration of the issue beyond the 'natural' shift. OUR human behavior is making it occur faster.

When I was a kid living in Alabama, we had Flavorice. Wasn't it interesting watching the plastic sit out in the sun and suddenly, the empty container look cloudy and full. Hmm. Dang . . . there was the concept of climate change being indirectly taught; the trapping of gases.

Back to that line of thought. It is the same as saying, aww, this one cig is not gonna give me lung cancer. You may be right. But it is the 3000 others that you have had over the course of your life that has added to it.

While I am sure spewing Fox rhetoric attracts a lot of Gig Harborites to your door in droves, intelligence is WAY sexier.

Fundamental mis understanding of science.

The best available information is that climate change is happening and humans are major contributors.

What about cow farts and all that other stuff?

Scientists are actively working on everything you mentioned, and if any data discovered during those investigations changes the basic model, the model will be changed to take that information into account.

But that does not change the fact that anthropomorphic climate change is happening.

Then one would agree the planet has been here for billions of years? The planet has been through several ice ages and tropic events? The fact that one eruption event from a volcano produces more pollution than the entire history of the industrial age? If one looks at the evolution of society, we have made extremely large strides in cleaning up the environment. From rivers burning to superfund clean ups. Is the answer to eliminate all forms of fossil fuels? Is it to restrict one's right to heat thier homes in winter or cool them in summer? Who does this impact the most? Do we force people to live in urban areas to reduce thier carbon footprints? What about cow farts? What about the coming ice age? The effects of the pole shift? Nope, follow the money and the power.

Climate change is a fact whether people are smart enough to understand that or not. The facts are clear. Talking about climate change as though it were a question of belief is insanity. This is not religion. It's science.

@mayhem: until the efficiency ratings are higher, the costs are lower and the reliability of solar are better. It's not a consumer friendly option. Besides I have always wondered, how much reflective heat is being sent back into the upper atmosphere. It is my opinion, that if one has to be pushed into something it will never work. Politics, regulations and bureaucracy all have created bitter emotions on both sides of the debate. Back in the 1970s we were going into an ice age again and the scientists all wanted to spread a layer of coal dust on the poles. Crazy. Now, we wanna ban wood burning stoves to heat homes. All the while restricting other forms of energy. Remember the debate on cow farts and the impact on the environment? Or the hole in the ozone? But yet we are doing more to protect the earth than ever before yet other countries are allowed to dump, drain, cut and otherwise pollute.

Seems a number of people want to discuss this topic and it expands into so many different areas, but not really a Covid vaccine topic, so I created this thread. A comment from @funfor in the vaccine topic was -

"It is all about control. Climate Change , Global Warming or whatever you want to call it is next.. You will do what they say because you are scared...."

Fear is a motivating factor, as is "doing the right thing" but money tends to be a better one. When it comes to money vs doing the right thing, many times money will win because there is no other viable choice.

I do see what looks to be a big push to get people into solar. It helps ease the demands on a somewhat over taxed electric grid, and overall, even taking into consideration solar manufacturing and recycling impacts and all, it seems to be a better choice than burning fossil fuels or just buying electricity to heat/cool homes.

As for "control", we saw the 30% Federal tax credit for solar reinstated till 2032, and not sure how much of a control thing is is, but costs of fossil fuels have increased to make solar look more attractive.

Whether you believe that climate change is real or not, it would at least seem that the skids are being greased to push us in a particular direction. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, because some people just won't change toward a greater good unless the benefits for doing so far outweigh the costs for doing otherwise. As an example, I was content to heat my house with coal for the last 10 years because it was a fraction of the cost of the alternatives in relation to ACTUAL $$ in my pocket.