People regurgitating information isn’t new, and certainly isn’t specific to climate change. People think they understand law, religion, statistics, etcetcetc. People spitting out info they don’t personally understand happens with nearly all facets of life.
Trying to apply personal experiences to “disprove” a scientific model isn’t nearly as common. Providing “evidence” of the contrary to a scientific concept is pretty silly if your saturation isn’t high enough to actually back you up.
You’re letting your personal political bias clout your opinion.
When you think about people warning about the dangers of Global Warming you’re thinking about Al Gore or some effeminate liberal arts major waving a placard chanting “save the rain forest”.
That’s the problem when provable scientific facts become associated with specific political stances - see the anti-vaxxers on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
Eratosthenes was a Greek from Egypt.
So much for the “people in the Middle Ages believed the Earth was flat”. Eratosthenes’ measurements were common knowledge at the time.
Well at least one common error has been dispelled today.
So lets consider it a given that the globe is warming. Where are the scientific facts that prove that our industrial activities are responsible for it?
Not theories. Facts. Like gas x introduced from substance S at rate y has caused temperatures to rise at z rate, and have changed the global temperature by N.
Just for clarity- Me and ED were arguing about the coal industries effects on a region, and I was using my observations of this region to counter the proposition that the coal industry permanently destroys a given region.
Then Loppar and I started discussing global warming.
I’m not saying that a bear living in a collapsed mine vent is a valid argument against global warming.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! WHAT A NOOB!
(Totally kidding, dude. Other MDs don’t know jack about the eye, much less lay-persons.)
Anesthetizing the surface of the eye is easy–drops work great. Anesthetizing the whole globe is much trickier–requires using a specially-designed, disconcertingly long needle to inject anesthetic behind the globe. But I digress.
Not for environmental reasons, but there have been a number of occasions when this medicine or that (including some related to anesthetizing the eye, interestingly enough) has become unavailable, thereby making my job harder. So I can sort of relate.
TBH, it’s hard for me to relate to this one. People are pretty protective and persnickety about their eyes.
Bite your tongue! Thankfully, this won’t happen in my lifetime (although I suspect it will happen eventually). OTOH, diagnostic radiologists and pathologists may lose their jobs to IBM’s Watson in the not-too-distant future.
Anyway, I feel I probably haven’t addressed the issue you were raising. But in that regard, I would point out that job losses secondary to regulation are an entirely different kettle of fish than are losses secondary to automation. Thus, these two topics might best be addressed separately.
You know you could just google global warming or green house effect. Surely theres a non American scientist thats independent of US interests could verify this. It cant all just be fake news. If scientists in Europe, Asia, S America, Africa you know the rest of the world all believe global warming is real and likely due to mankinds activities whats theyre agenda?? They dont live in USA so how do they benifit from usa politics? Global warming actually encompasses more than USA hard to believe there is a world outside of here but trust me it exists Ive seen it.
Long read but jist is 97% in world wide science comunity believe its real & man made… Kinda like 97% say smoking is bad mkay
Well, I literally don’t know where to start - there is so much overwhelming evidence for Global Warming.
I guess you can start from here - the links from thw Wikipedia article are not very popular-sciency but you asked for unfiltered information…
It seems the notorious America-hating arch-leftist draft-dodging radical socialist (that’'s sarcasm by the way) shares these concerns that are apparently ridiculed around here:
For at least two reasons - given the catastrophic impact that could occur, the better result result is prevention of the catastrophe, not trying to clean up the mess and the damaged lives. The stakes are simply too high.
Second, environmental catastrophes don’t always occur in close proximity to the error - think health effects that show up years after a chemical spill - so proof is extremely difficult to come by (companies change hands, memories fade, etc.) as well as clear lines of liability. It’s hard to feel confident that victims of the mishandling of dangerous substances would get the remedy they deserve.
So, we want to keep the avenues of lawsuits availablw, but that shouldn’t be the sole remedy. Much better that we prevent environmental catastrophes than have people and property suffer.
Completely agree, but itsit’s a classic case of not making Perfect the enemy of the Good. The government taking the lead here is simply the best of the options we have.
I also think a lot of non-government solutions can help - for example, land trusts. But leaving the integrity of the environment to the wilds of the commercial market and the naturally short-sighted viewes of companies trying to maximize shareholder value in the short run is the mother of bad ideas, in my opinion.
Ok so its a fact that the temprture of the planet has changed at various times through out its history.
I’d ask you again to provide one proven fact that justifies the current trend but then it will turn into a “do your own research” thing.
Trump rally starts
I’m gobsmacked by this. You have inspired a change of heart.
Job well done sir.
Thanks broskibrohamborbidybrobro. Mkay?
Trump just stated this quote I posted
LOLZ
Here you go. Mind you, Antarctica, Greenland and Siberia ice samples are just one small piece in the Climate Change puzzle. This rebuttal of false arguments against climate change has been going od ad nauseam in the scientific community - it seems to me that despite claiming to be a “sceptic”, nothing would drive you to acknowledge the validity of scientific conclusions drawn form data below.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple.html
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-2#
Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.
Oh FFS! I’m not nor have I ever said that conditions on our planet haven’t or aren’t changing. What I question is the magnitude and effect.
You are entirely typical of the man made global warming crowd. Any skepticism is considered denial.
Enough. You win. I’m a dumb rube.
Happy now?
How about a bridge between cleaning up old tech and creating new energy?
Well, even a cursory glance at the links provided would answer your “concerns” about “magnitude and effect”, from the rise of CO2 levels and other greenhouse gasses that closely follows the start of the Industrial Revolution to the current Anthropocene period etc. etc. as well as the rebuttal of the most common “scepticism” about previously high CO2 levels.
But you have been conditioned by the media to believe that accepting certain scientific facts is conceding points to the “other side” and accepting “their” political agenda. Science isn’t “liberal” or “conservative”.
I’m not exactly sure when did denying global warming became a part of a specific political agenda, but it seems it has morphed into a essential part of the identity…
Hope you’re not from Miami…
I know. It was sort of a loaded hypothetical. A friend of mine is an anesthesiologist, and we’ve discussed the subject a couple of times as he removed a couple of odds and ends that have gotten lodged in my eyes.
Ouch!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oPoQgyaVN8[quote=“EyeDentist, post:4321, topic:223365”]
Anyway, I feel I probably haven’t addressed the issue you were raising. But in that regard, I would point out that job losses secondary to regulation are an entirely different kettle of fish than are losses secondary to automation. Thus, these two topics might best be addressed separately.
[/quote]
Eh, I think you did pretty good. Its just typical when discussing certain heavy industries that an avalanche of reasons as to why a whole segment of industry is becoming or should become obsolete is presented, rather than parsing them out.
Right. Because sea levels have NEVER CHANGED.
Its all happening right now because of US.
Sorry I couldn’t understand anything else. I seem to have locked myself in the car again.
You know, cuz I’m dumb. Cuz we don’t agree.
