Climate change is load of bull

[ZenRaiden]

It is essentially pseudoscience, but unlike MBTI criticism the criticism that applies for real for climate science.

First of all it literally is not science. Its not scientific, but they insist on calling it science.
Now MBTI never claims to be scientific. Its not called science. Its called personality inventory.

It cannot be tested and has zero predictive powers.
No one can really test climate change data. The models have no predictive powers, and telling people that temperature is going up is not exactly a scientific break through. I could have told them that.
No one MBTI actually claims to predict anything in any profile. The word predict is not used in anyone profile.
Unlike in climate change... see the difference?

Climate change is actually promoted by scientists, but MBTI is not.
Which is fallacy of authority. To put it in simple terms if I know a little bit of math I can scream of the roof tops "The sky is falling".
MBTI girls did the exact same, but everyone brings up the fact they did not spend their first semester studying philosophy and economics and therefore they cannot possibly know anything about numbers and statistics.
How could they know anything if they do not have any degree from Harvard?
You literally cannot use your brain unless you sit in school. Schools have invisible force fields that if you sit in classroom and listen to underpaid intellectuals you are only then allowed to do any serious thinking.
So only academia has monopoly on human intellect.
Therefore climate change is real, even though academics whoring for grants is also real, buut lets not talk about that.

Lots of big numbers and lots of data put into a model automatically means its true. Unfortunately a model that cannot be tested or has no predictable powers is as useless as any model. Its pseudoscience.

The energies and numbers we are talking about are not measurable.

Example. ... How much energy does the sun create on Earth. Impossible to calculate.
Monitoring the heat and energy of wind. Impossible.
Monitoring the heat that is trapped on water surfaces, impossible.
Monitoring the heat of atmosphere is impossible.
All these things are only partial data. No one actually has math models to calculate and verify these things on any significant scale. PERIOD>

If I tell you the temperature here is 14 celsius. It can be true, but maybe 2 miles from my thermometer there will be a place that has temperature of 12 celsius.
We can average out all the Earths temperatures over the planet in all the stations that measure temperature.
It will be only crude approximation that will tell us very little.

 

[Cognisant]

Your argument in brief is that meteorology is too complex for you to understand therefore it's not actual science.

Which do you think is more likely, that you're more intelligent than all the world's meteorologists combined or that you're a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

There is a huge amount of data that has been collated and analysed over decades of research which has resulted in the current scientific consensus.

Why do you care anyway?
How does this personally affect you?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Your argument in brief is that meteorology is too complex for you to understand therefore it's not actual science.

Which do you think is more likely, that you're more intelligent than all the world's meteorologists combined or that you're a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

There is a huge amount of data that has been collated and analysed over decades of research which has resulted in the current scientific consensus.

Why do you care anyway?
How does this personally affect you?

Meteorology is not Climate science.
Meteorology can predict only things in some ways, in many ways it can only guess, that is why they say things like there is 70 percent chance of rain.
Even simplistic models fail.

Which do you think is more likely, that you're more intelligent than all the world's meteorologists combined or that you're a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

There are thousands of scientist shitting all over climate science.

There is a huge amount of data that has been collated and analysed over decades of research which has resulted in the current scientific consensus.

The consensus that climate is changing is not exactly interesting and the consensus that humans change climate is also not exactly telling in how exactly we are changing climate. Pretty sure humans do change the world, but we need to know the way it happens not just declare it is so and therefore ..... something something.

Why do you care anyway?
How does this personally affect you?

It does personally affect me and I do care. Sue me.
First of all politicians can use climate change to make political changes like they already trying to push through. One is 0 carbon foot print or whatever, taxing people willy nilly, and pushing economic models that don't work.

Electric cars are one example. Surely impossible task, but it will have negative impact on economy and the retail customers as well as overall market freedom.

Also there are real goals that politicians conveniently ignore.
One is efficient recycling.
The other is processing of trash (toxic like batteries, chemical, etc. )
This sort of trash is called landfills and as of yet we build landfills all over the planet and no one cares. Even close to where people live and they wonder why they have 100 times higher incidence of cancer etc.
Overproduction. Companies manufacture massive amounts of things that never get used, but simply thrown out.
We buy more electronics than we need. These get thrown out.
People buy more cars than we need and so the carbon foot print is bigger. Be it electric car or diesel car or anything they all are scrap and trash toxic and waste of resources. Overfishing
Systemic destruction of habitats etc.
Drinkable water is being wasted.

All of the above is not about climate change, but is being ignored conveniently to push agenda about some sort of dumb CO2.

So tell me how is switching from making diesel cars to electric cars, when manufacturing of cars it self produces CO2 a good thing.
How is it ecological when it clearly is not.
How is pushing the coal energy agenda in Europe better than simply making nuclear energy etc.

Climate change is only promoted to weaponize politicians and give them ability to abuse their power.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

fraudulent nonsense just like convid and orchestrated by the same luciferian cult

we are the carbon they want to reduce

 

[dr froyd]

one thing is certain: climate change has grown into a massive industry, financial sector, political movement, and is now the focal point of the Overton window. I don't think it's possible to analyse climate change without taking these factors into account.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Also glacier melting today, means the heat in the climate that melts them was accumulating decades earlier.

Which means even if we cut co2 emission to 0 right now glaciers might keep melting for another 50 years, and none will be wiser.

If after 50 years they continue to melt despite no emissions we will simply have to discount co2 emissions by humans and act like our models were wrong, but the economic hit to the market will be already done.

Its not the rich people that will be hit by it though. The rich will remain rich. They will just adjust production profile.

Industry cannot exist without emissions anyway.

So if billionaires go full retard today in the long run it might mean zilch, but our planet will be still fucked.

Not to mention we are eating pesticides and chemicals like its OK even in organic products and this is killing our testosterone, sperms and brain cells and god knows what.

People are being born crippled and what not and we act like it does not concern us.

Consider the fact that just few miligrams of some chemicals can totally alter the way you think or even personality, and we are eating foods day in and day out every day for decades, accumulating toxic shit in our bodies and none are wiser.

By the way miligram is 1 thousand of gram. Which is one milionth of kilogram.

Its basically homeopathic dose that can totally screw up your body from birth to death.

 

[Cognisant]

Meteorology is not Climate science.
Meteorology can predict only things in some ways, in many ways it can only guess, that is why they say things like there is 70 percent chance of rain.
Even simplistic models fail.

Weather is highly variable, a slight change in temperature or wind direction can change where rain is going to fall and even if meteorologist could say with 100% certainty that rain will fall in a given region it may not fall in every part of that region and explaining exactly where the rain will and will not fall is a tedious level of detail that nobody cares about.

Personally I just whip out my phone and look at the BOM radar for my region, usually when it's about to rain it's because there's an approaching storm front, likewise if I'm trapped by the rain and deciding whether to get or wait it out I use the radar to make my own prediction of how long it will take for the storm front to pass me by.

http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDR663.loop.shtml

Just because something isn't absolutely certain doesn't mean it's not scientific, I can't be absolutely sure a storm front will pass by as quickly as I think it will (or that I'll be able to get inside before it arrives) but I'm not just guessing either, I'm using the information available to me and my own experience to make educated predictions and even if I'm not absolutely correct what actually happens usually only differs by a small margin, and that's just armchair meteorology!

Likewise to say professional meteorologists don't know what they're talking about (but you do?) because they can't predict rainfall with absolute certainty is disingenuous, of course they can't predict it to that exacting level of accuracy and no one who understands what they're talking about would reasonably expect them to. Furthermore to use that as proof that they can't predict weather trends on a much larger scale is even more disingenuous, just because I can't predict the position of every water molecule when I pour a glass of water into another container doesn't mean I can't predict where most of that water will be when I finish pouring.

If temperatures keep rising (as they have been rising as evidenced by actual evidence) ice caps and glaciers will melt, reducing the area of highly reflective ice, which will in turn increase temperatures and as permafrost melts trapped CO2 will be released (which again we know is there and will be released due to evidence and experimentation) resulting in yet further increases in temperature.

It's a global phenomena, it's not simple, but it is predictable and the vast majority of evidence is pointing at the same conclusion, the climate is warming and human activity if not entirely responsible is certainly a contributing factor and what is important about all of this is how it will affect us.

Humanity's settlements are mostly coastal, our global trade infrastructure is based on ports and shipping, our agriculture is established in areas where the conditions are conducive to growing the vast quantities of food needed to feed our billions of mouths. We know the climate is changing, we know it will affect these vital aspects of our lives, but we don't know how much it's going to change (or how quickly) and the more it changes the more impacted we will be.

Make no mistake a global disaster is unfolding and that is why governments around the world are taking it seriously, despite political reluctance to push for unpopular policies, despite vested interests doing everything they can to cover up and obfuscate the issue, the writing is on the wall now and we are in damage control!

 

[Cognisant]

Also there are real goals that politicians conveniently ignore.
One is efficient recycling.
The other is processing of trash (toxic like batteries, chemical, etc. )
This sort of trash is called landfills and as of yet we build landfills all over the planet and no one cares. Even close to where people live and they wonder why they have 100 times higher incidence of cancer etc.
Overproduction. Companies manufacture massive amounts of things that never get used, but simply thrown out.
We buy more electronics than we need. These get thrown out.
People buy more cars than we need and so the carbon foot print is bigger. Be it electric car or diesel car or anything they all are scrap and trash toxic and waste of resources. Overfishing
Systemic destruction of habitats etc.
Drinkable water is being wasted.

All of the above is not about climate change, but is being ignored conveniently to push agenda about some sort of dumb CO2.

This is a classic obfuscation tactic, the fact that there are other environmental issues doesn't make climate change any less real or important and saying that addressing climate change is somehow preventing these issues also being addressed is disingenuous.

I totally agree that politicians are slimy bastards who won't do anything that isn't convenient to them unless the public is holding them accountable or it's such a dire emergency that it cannot be ignored. If you think these other issues are important, and I totally agree that they are, then you should be pushing them as issues to be addressed and not as an excuse to do nothing about another issue under the fallacious pretense that it's a distraction.

Politicians get paid a lot, if raising multiple issues gives them a lot of work to do that's good, let them earn their fucking pay for once.

 

[Cognisant]

Electric cars are one example. Surely impossible task, but it will have negative impact on economy and the retail customers as well as overall market freedom.

So tell me how is switching from making diesel cars to electric cars, when manufacturing of cars it self produces CO2 a good thing.
How is it ecological when it clearly is not.
How is pushing the coal energy agenda in Europe better than simply making nuclear energy etc.

Manufacturing everything produces CO2 but if it's a choice between manufacturing a vehicle which also produces CO2 throughout a lifetime of operation or an electric car that could potentially run off renewable and nuclear I think the right choice is plainly obvious.

Granted in many parts of the world burning coal is still the primary means of power production, but that is changing, in most nations the percentage of power produced by renewables has been steadily increasing and will continue to increase as it has become a global political issue. Again make no mistake this is a crisis and nations are putting political pressure on each other to meet targets to address the issue of climate change and the fact that coal power is still in use is just because overhauling global power infrastructure is a massive undertaking.

That's it's happening as quickly as it is, that's really phenomenal, getting the world's leaders to unite on anything much less something that's expensive and politically unpopular that's an incredible achievement and it wasn't achieved by us whining it was came about by scientists going "here's the evidence, here's our educated predictions, things are bad and getting worse, we're already kinda fucked but if you act now we could all be less fucked than what we otherwise would be".

 

[ZenRaiden]

Manufacturing everything produces CO2 but if it's a choice between manufacturing a vehicle which also produces CO2 throughout a lifetime of operation or an electric car that could potentially run off renewable and nuclear I think the right choice is plainly obvious.

Well, battery is basically something you need to dispose of and its fairly toxic.
Manufacturing process to make batteries is also fairly expensive and difficult and produces emissions. Also unless the electricity is not renewable its meaningless.
I don't know if you know how heavy a battery has to be to put the car in motion.
They are massive those batteries. They are not something you can just drop into a landfill and pretend its not there. Imagine millions of cars having those batteries and than having a whole process to disposing of those batteries. Its not like you can just pick the battery apart or something. You really have to know what to do with it.

Also cars with those huge batteries can barely cover third of distance of normal cars, and then you have to get recharged. So you have to pull over and sit there for 10 minutes for recharge after cover 200 miles lets say. Which is kind of pain in the ass if you do not have recharging facilities everywhere. Building those charging facilities is part of the cost. The recharging stations will have to have electric supply which will cost mucho monero. So the cost of cars will go whopping up.

Also batteries can go faulty and then you have to replace the battery with another battery for a huge cost. Its one of the most expensive components in the car.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also you need to do alot of not very ecological mining to make those batteries.

So yes, I see only theoretical benefit, but in reality it may be much much worse.
So its very likely we will eventually stay with fossil fuels.
Plus most of the third world will not afford electric cards even if they wanted to.
Big cars like Trucks will need massive batteries or multiple heavy batteries just to cover half or third of the miles. The sheer weight of the batteries is also what adds the to the weight of the vehicle making it less efficient.

Big Truck with 3000 liters of fuel essentially burns fuel and gets lighter. The batter on other hand has same weight all the time.

Also planes will use fossil fuels no matter what. There are simply no big enough batteries and light enough to make planes capable.

renewables has been steadily increasing and will continue to increase as it has become a

Renewable energy is limited. Manufacturing windmills costs money and produces CO2 as well, they have maintenance cost and you need material production to make sturdy wind mills that won't fall apart with little bit of gust.
One wind mill makes barely enough energy to be of any utility. U need huge spaces and 1000s of wind mills to cover electric production. All of them need to be maintained by crews and small wind mills are barely of any use, so they need to be massive and tall, and thus making them is very expensive.

Then you have rivers, and you can only build so many dams on rivers. Also dams limit wild life like fish.

Then you have solar energy, but that is only good in sunny countries and cost of making efficient panels is not negligible. Also lots of mining to mass produce these.

So essentially all energy production requires mass mining and expensive materials to be mined. Its not like wind mills are made of cheap stuff. Or solar panels are made of cheap stuff.

That's it's happening as quickly as it is, that's really phenomenal, getting the world's leaders to unite on anything much less something that's expensive and politically unpopular that's an incredible achievement and it wasn't achieved by us whining it was came about by scientists going "here's the evidence, here's our educated predictions, things are bad and getting worse, we're already kinda fucked but if you act now we could all be less fucked than what we otherwise would be".

Its all math. Just someone saying something is so it does not make it so.
IF you need rare earth metals for your economy to run smooth you also have to mine them and the devastation of mining is part of eco system.
Smog from cars can be reduced in many ways. Mainly making better inner city public transportation which is only way to go since most big cities are already clogged up with massive traffic and rush hours are resulting in massive economic losses anyway. People stuck in traffic cannot be productive.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Also everything we say is renewable green etc. is on small scale.

When everything is scaled up million times over the numbers can be very different.

Logistics will also change since you need different resources and cost of batteries will shoot up like crazy.

We aren't talking about small addition and substraction.
We are talking about massive math calculation models that have zero do with climate just pure economic models that don't exist.

Its basically casino royal, cowboy shooting from the hip type of ecology.

 

[Black Rose]

If climate changes we just change with it. Farming for example, rain falls in different places when climate changes, grow crops there. Now the real big problem is no oil for cars anymore because oil runs out. What do we do? Driverless cars with exchangeable batteries. But also by the time this all happens gasoline can be made through catalyst air filters. Solutions exist, we just need the economic incentives.

 

[Cognisant]

You cannot possibly convince me that fossil fuel powered cars are more ecologically friendly than electric cars, they're just not, for every problem an electric car has a combustion engine has more/worse problems.

An electric car is mostly solid state and it runs cooler than a combustion engine, the two primary causes of wear and tear are moving parts (i.e. friction) and heat. As things are currently combustion engines are a much more mature technology, decades of research and development has been spent on getting the smallest increases in power, efficiency, and reliability. Despite that the relatively new technology of electric cars is better in many regards and clearly has the potential to be better in all regards, including range, power and cost effectiveness.

Electric vehicles are the better technology, it's not a matter of if but rather when and when appears to be now, it's happening now and in 50yrs time I seriously doubt there will still be combustion engines on the road.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You cannot possibly convince me that fossil fuel powered cars are more ecologically friendly than electric cars, they're just not, for every problem an electric car has a combustion engine has more/worse problems.

An electric car is mostly solid state and it runs cooler than a combustion engine, the two primary causes of wear and tear are moving parts (i.e. friction) and heat. As things are currently combustion engines are a much more mature technology, decades of research and development has been spent on getting the smallest increases in power, efficiency, and reliability. Despite that the relatively new technology of electric cars is better in many regards and clearly has the potential to be better in all regards, including range, power and cost effectiveness.

Electric vehicles are the better technology, it's not a matter of if but rather when and when appears to be now, it's happening now and in 50yrs time I seriously doubt there will still be combustion engines on the road.

Potential is great in deed. But batteries are not made of something that you find everywhere. In fact the elements used in batteries are quite a problem.

Also sci fi vs reality is big issue. Electric and hydrogen power cars have existed for decades. First electric car was made 100 years ago.

Just because we can make something does not mean we should. Same way just because I can punch someone in the face does not mean I should.

Humans get hyped up by every tech we invent. We have some severe pathology because we made so many nukes just to scary each other yet we never used a single one.

I have no doubt electric cars are the future. We could possible even science the shit out of reactors and make plutonium powered cars if we made the effort.

The question is if the tech we have delivers the dream we dream.

I am bit worried that there is huge initiative to make electric cars, when they are not on par with cheap indian gasoline cars.

Its not like automakers are forbidden to make electric cars or develop the tech further.

Plus corona is will be here for few more years, and we are already at the start of pretty major economic depression world wide.

Just saying pessimism, makes a shit ton of sense.

 

[dr froyd]

looking forward to the day when all people drive electric and electricity prices are $1,000 to power a lightbulb for 1 minute.

people haven't thought this shit through. Even nowadays when 2% of cars worldwide are electric, there's already a power shortage. Unless aliens supply us with unlimited LNG , or we build wind turbines on every square inch of the planet, where in the hell are we getting the electricity from?

this is why they put that battery concept into the Matrix movie - people don't understand basics of energy. Like, your car is electric, that doesn't mean the power just magically appears inside it

 

[Daddy]

Idiocracy + Don't Look Up = projectedAwesomeFuture;
try {
run Future(projectedAwesomeFuture);
printfln("No idea how this works, it just does; compile for Earth v2.0.");
} catch {
printfln("The rapture is here and all you sinners are going to Hell! YEEHAW");
exit(69);
}

 

[ZenRaiden]

looking forward to the day when all people drive electric and electricity prices are $1,000 to power a lightbulb for 1 minute.

people haven't thought this shit through. Even nowadays when 2% of cars worldwide are electric, there's already a power shortage. Unless aliens supply us with unlimited LNG , or we build wind turbines on every square inch of the planet, where in the hell are we getting the electricity from?

this is why they put that battery concept into the Matrix movie - people don't understand basics of energy. Like, your car is electric, that doesn't mean the power just magically appears inside it

Yeah,

 

[sushi]

How do you explain rising sea levels then, and trapped carbon.

I think Al gore started the whole movement , awareness.

 

[ZenRaiden]

How do you explain rising sea levels then, and trapped carbon.

Same way we explain black holes. We simply don't have the science to understand it, so we don't.

The planet is getting warmer and the glaciers have been melting for some time. Its not like the warming started only yesterday.

Sometimes having no explanation is preferable to having a bad or completely wrong explanation.

We humans have this monkey brain that loves to fill in the gaps. Precisely defying this monkey brain is what makes science of value.

It allows us to look at reality without the vestigal cognitive process of chimp.

The only people who need an explanation is the ones who are doing a career in climate change. They probably need it so bad they will invent one to get some money.

 

[Black Rose]

How do you explain rising sea levels then, and trapped carbon.

Same way we explain black holes. We simply don't have the science to understand it, so we don't.

We have evidence of an object at the center of the galaxy with the mass predicted for black holes. There is a wealth of papers on black holes. It's been concluded that no doubt they exist and we understand them. Have you not seen Interstellar the movie?

 

[ZenRaiden]

How do you explain rising sea levels then, and trapped carbon.

Same way we explain black holes. We simply don't have the science to understand it, so we don't.

We have evidence of an object at the center of the galaxy with the mass predicted for black holes. There is a wealth of papers on black holes. It's been concluded that no doubt they exist and we understand them. Have you not seen Interstellar the movie?

Yeah and I suppose scientist having seen an object means they understand it.
There is wealth of paper on the toilet does not mean we actually understand how gastric tract works.

I don't remember any scientist actually knowing what black holes are, what they have is theoretical models for it and if they turn out to be wrong well.... nothing will happen.

 

[Black Rose]

Indirect evidence is still useful for practical understanding. It's not like it's a black box, we are descriptive of what exists and so can extrapolate from known reference points.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Indirect evidence is still useful for practical understanding. It's not like it's a black box, we are descriptive of what exists and so can extrapolate from known reference points.

Ok another analogy. We know so many things about DNA human body and cancer.
We have all this evidence. Yet people still get and die of cancer.
Seems we still lack the intelligence for understanding complex systems like the human body, climate, or black holes.

Its not a casino or enterprise ship. We cannot will our way into better climate by taking the initiative and being bold and daring. Its not the military.

Everything we do will have consequences, and the consequences might be different from what conclusions we make. Jumping to conclusion is not that hard. Anyone can do that.

 

[Black Rose]

When is enough understanding too little understanding? We can know enough to save a baby from a cancerous brain tumor. We can know what happens to the information at the horizon of a black hole. We know the climate will change so much that the weather will shift crop yields and forest and grassland growth. When is understanding not enough?

 

[ZenRaiden]

When is understanding not enough?

Yeah that is a good question, quite a trivial question people should ask often about just about everything.

The answer is not easy, but its a question easy to dodge and evade by scientist and a question that never comes up.

See its easy to bamboozle people with numbers and science speak.
The simple answer is "enough is when you can predict something to useful degree"
which has not been test nor can be tested nor is there anything indicating they can.

I can measure someones height. Then does that mean I can tell if you they get cancer and if I can cure it? Should I then measure their spleen or the number of T cells.
Is their immune system the key. Or the genes that grew the immune system. Or is it the free radicals that got into the body that slashed the DNA and made the tumor grow.

With little understanding of climate we risk throwing tons of effort and work towards something and wasting our time, instead of doing something much easier, but much more useful.

For example we know there are giant torrents cycles from equator to the north pole.
Maybe when the North Pole reaches critical heat the torrents will change and Earth temperature will go down. I do not know, I just pulled that out of my ass, but the point such things happened before on this planet and we don't know why. So what makes us think that we know now it will work to reduce CO2 when the amount of CO2 changed in Earths history so many times before.

 

[Black Rose]

So what makes us think that we know now it will work to reduce CO2 when the amount of CO2 changed in Earths history so many times before.

Add more energy to a system and things are bound to change. Heat creates more movement in the weather system and they predict the degrees of change is between 1 and 3 degrees celsius. It is a fact that they know what will happen to the weather system at 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3 degrees. which areas will become wetter and which will become dryer and at what time of year practically. Because weather dynamics can be predicted based on heat energy entering the system. Just like how we can predict the severity of a fever by degrees. 98.6 is a normal body temperature. what happens when it's 99.6, 100.6, 101.6 - we know what happens when the body raises 1 degree and 3 degrees. It may not seem like much but 3 is much worse than 1. It is predicted that 1 degree of heat increase we will be better off edgewise. Reducing the rate of carbon into the atmosphere will prevent an eath fever of 3 degrees. We DO NOT want a change of 3 degrees. That is what the scientists tell us. Can we do it, keep it down to 1 degree instead of 3? maybe but the technology needs to be there otherwise "Earth Fever".

 

[Daddy]

So ummm,
Let's say you are right that it's all bullshit.

We do know some scientific things

1. CO2 reflects infrared light (which generates a lot of heat), whereas O2 does not. So if we replace O2 with CO2, we will reflect infrared both away and toward the Earth depending on where it comes from. That would cancel out, except that most of the light from the sun isn't infrared and when that light hits the surface of the Earth, it gets absorbed and reflected back as mostly infrared, which the CO2 then traps and reflects back on Earth.

2. Scientists can measure the CO2 concentrations at different sites around the world for both the oceans and atmosphere and can get a pretty good average estimate of CO2 concentrations on Earth. They can also study the soil and fossils to get an idea of CO2 concentrations over time. I guess this is wrong, apparently they measure air trapped in ice in the Antarctic? (https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-CO...ere-tens-of-thousands-of-years-ago-determined) What they have been finding is that CO2 concentrations have drastically gone up in a way that isn't naturally explainable by nature or historical records, but does coincide with the beginning of the industrial revolution and our tremendous use of fossil fuels up to this point.

3. The Ice Caps are melting at a rapid rate that also isn't explainable by historical records. One explanation is the hole in the ozone that we damaged with chlorofluorocarbons; however that hole has been repairing, while the ice caps continually melt at a faster rate. This leaves the more likely explanation of CO2 emissions.

I mean I wish scientists were wrong because I don't think humanity can really come together to do anything about this. It's just not in our nature to be borg-like; we are individuals that see each other as competition and will go for self-interest more often than working together for less to save the environment. It just doesn't make sense for humans. Maybe, regardless of the potential of our intelligence, it will be our massive egos and individuality and inability to work together or trust other people that will result in our downfall. At least with AI, there is more potential for cognitive cohesion, understanding, empathy, and the ability to work together for reasonable and proactive goals.

But anyway, can you refute that science? Maybe you can. I hope you can.

 

[ZenRaiden]

But anyway, can you refute that science? Maybe you can. I hope you can

The point is that science does not need refuting. Its good science.

But it does not mean we can make changes that actually work unless we have specific solutions, and yes CO2 has gone up.

 

[Daddy]

But that's the thing. There's a lot we could do, but don't.

In the US, people could drive scooters more, could use public transportation more that can affordably use electric engine, we could spend extra on solar panels for houses, build smaller houses, more efficient electronics and less ac or none at all, we could carpool more and have carpool services, we could buy the cheaper electric cars as well or just drive the small cars and not giant 4000lb+ fuel cars. We could spend more on capturing carbon exhaust and putting it back into the soil (cars more expensive - diesel dex comes to mind). We could do a lot, but it means spending more money and sacrificing more convenience and wealth. Try selling that to US citizen that is a workslave and needs more, not less.

So I guess I agree with you. But I don`t think specific solutions are really politically and thus practically possible, unless they are also cheap, which will never happen. Always easier to pollute than to clean up pollution.

Edit: I mean the only reason we cleared up the hole in the ozone is because we could use something else, so we still pollute, it just isn't bad pollution. So I guess the solution is less harmful pollution?

 

[BurnedOut]

you're a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Good one.

 

[BurnedOut]

It is essentially pseudoscience

Why don't you read about displacement due to climate change? You should read up on how Africa, India, Thailand, Malaysia are getting sodomized due to coastal submergence.

 

[ZenRaiden]

It is essentially pseudoscience

Why don't you read about displacement due to climate change? You should read up on how Africa, India, Thailand, Malaysia are getting sodomized due to coastal submergence.

Yeah water goes up. So?

 

[petercabbie]

You cannot possibly convince me that fossil fuel powered cars are more ecologically friendly than electric cars, they're just not, for every problem an electric car has a combustion engine has more/worse problems.

An electric car is mostly solid state and it runs cooler than a combustion engine, the two primary causes of wear and tear are moving parts (i.e. friction) and heat. As things are currently combustion engines are a much more mature technology, decades of research and development has been spent on getting the smallest increases in power, efficiency, and reliability. Despite that the relatively new technology of electric cars is better in many regards and clearly has the potential to be better in all regards, including range, power and cost effectiveness.

Electric vehicles are the better technology, it's not a matter of if but rather when and when appears to be now, it's happening now and in 50yrs time I seriously doubt there will still be combustion engines on the road.

Potential is great in deed. But batteries are not made of something that you find everywhere. In fact the elements used in batteries are quite a problem.

Also sci fi vs reality is big issue. Electric and hydrogen power cars have existed for decades. First electric car was made 100 years ago.

Just because we can make something does not mean we should. Same way just because I can punch someone in the face does not mean I should.

Humans get hyped up by every tech we invent. We have some severe pathology because we made so many nukes just to scary each other yet we never used a single one.

I have no doubt electric cars are the future. We could possible even science the shit out of reactors and make plutonium powered cars if we made the effort.

The question is if the tech we have delivers the dream we dream.

I am bit worried that there is huge initiative to make electric cars, when they are not on par with cheap indian gasoline cars.

Its not like automakers are forbidden to make electric cars or develop the tech further.

Plus corona is will be here for few more years, and we are already at the start of pretty major economic depression world wide.

Just saying pessimism, makes a shit ton of sense.

The first known space hurricane pours electron ‘rain’

Earth’s upper atmosphere cooks up a storm.

www.nature.com

Well, if there's climate change then why did this unusual hurricane cum cloud appear by coming out early (as hurricanes go) and get itself pushed up to, and onto, the north pole by a more timely hurricane?