< Prev  1 / 179  Next >
Top 10 climate change myths 96% Posted Apr 2018

Top 10 climate change myths

Comment: 4 days ago

It's obvious you still don't understand my point about AGW hoaxes. Your plausible hoax is not plausible. 

I'll try a different approach. If AGW is a truly a hoax, then in reality human activity is NOT affecting the climate - something else is. But 97% of peer-reviewed climate research says AGW is true. So what is the truth behind that research? Is it fraudulent - are 97% of climate scientists in on the hoax manipulating their studies to falsely claim that AGW is true? That is obviously not a plausible scenario. 

So are 97% of climate scientists hoodwinked by a few scientists sponsored by the Chinese? If that's the case, then the data they all used to reach the conclusion that AGW is true, must have been manipulated in such a way that all research came to the same conclusion - that AGW is true. And no one noticed something odd was going on. That scenario is not plausible either.

Or maybe 97% of climate scientists are so incompetent that they have wrongly interpreted the data, coincidentally all coming to the same conclusion - that AGW is true. Again, not a plausible scenario.

Whatever the hoax, there has to be a plausible explanation as to how come 97% of peer reviewed climate research says AGW is true when it isn't. And there isn't one, not unless this is a simulation or a dream.

"Plausible = possibly true or believable". Plausible does not = believable. Anything is believable, not everything is plausible. I can believe the world is run by lizards, but that is not plausible - because a lizard's brain isn't smart enough to run the world.

Top 10 climate change myths 96% Posted Apr 2018

Top 10 climate change myths

Comment: 14 days ago

You wrote this about AGW hoaxes: "... It really isnt hard to see the possibilities even if we dont believe them." It  sounds like you haven't understood my point. The consensus among climate scientists is around 99%. So for AGW to be a hoax, it would require these scientists to be either hoodwinked, or in on the hoax. Neither scenario is plausible. I challenge you to conjure up a plausible hoax that does NOT require the vast majority of climate scientists to be either hoodwinked or hoaxers. Because if it does, it is not plausible.

My "babyish assumptions" about you came from what you wrote about yourself: "Na, I'm gonna be dead before it's a real issue. Until then I will do what everyone does, do what I can to earn money." Sorry, next time I'll just make up some shit.

Because I think McPherson's prediction is plausible, and I have given you reasons why, it doesn't mean I think it's likely. Would you feel better if McPherson said human extinction within 20 years? Then you could earn money for a few more years before panicking. Or maybe you think climate change could never result in human extinction? 15,000 scientists signed a letter warning humanity that we are on the brink of crossing the point of no return. How many scientists do you need before climate change is, in your words, "a real issue". 30,000? 50,000?

Emmanuel Macron: There is no planet B 73% Posted May 2018

Emmanuel Macron: There is no planet B

Comment: 17 days ago

The planet's already great, let's make it cool again.

Top 10 climate change myths 96% Posted Apr 2018

Top 10 climate change myths

Comment: 19 days ago

McPherson's claims are about the effects of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not where they came from - that's a different conversation.

So you think it's plausible that climate change/AGW is a hoax. Please help me out - in this hoax, who is hoodwinking who? Is it the Chinese hoodwinking the rest of the world and only  Trump is not fooled? Or maybe 97% of climate research has been manipulated so that scientists can get grants to holiday in exotic locations like Antarctica? Are all the countries that signed up to the Paris Agreement (every country in the world bar two) in on the hoax? Or have they all been hoodwinked by grant-grasping climate scientists desperate for a topic to research? I'm really confused. Which hoax do you think is plausible?

"The diference between best and worst is fkking HUGE" No, it WAS fkking huge. You may have had a point 50 years ago, but not today. In 1992, 1,700 scientists signed a 'warning to humanity' of the consequences of doing nothing about climate change. First paragraph said this: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course ... Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about." Notice the word "urgent". That was 26 years ago.

In 2017, 15,000 scientists from 184 countries signed another warning to humanity letter, this time it was more serious: "Humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse. Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory." "Soon it will be too late..." That refers to what scientists are calling "the point of no return", or runaway global warming. It's when global warming accelerates exponentially due to positive feedbacks kicking in.

McPherson believes we are already past the point of no return, and many climate scientists would concur. His prediction is that the food chain will collapse over the next few years, mass human starvation and conflict will follow, and in the battle for survival in an exponentially increasing hostile climate, nuclear power stations are abandoned and left unmaintained, which will quickly lead to meltdowns killing off the majority of humans who hadn't already starved to death - all within 10 years. Sure it sounds like an unlikely movie plot, but if you factor in the nature of exponential growth, then I think that makes it a plausible scenario. There was a great video on BoreMe posted a while ago about exponential growth. It's well worth watching.

The problem I have with McPherson's predictions, is not really the super short time scales, although they sound way too short to me, but it's that he doesn't factor in the biggest feedback of all, that's the human response. Do we heed the 15,000 scientists and pull out all the stops to stabilise the climate, or do we act like you, acknowledge there's a problem and choose to do nothing, or maybe we just give up. Pretending that it all might be a hoax is distracting from reality and provides an excuse for doing nothing.

About those scientists surprised by the rate of warming they were observing, they weren't merely surprised, they were SHOCKED. Did you know that the stratosphere, that's the higher part of the atmosphere, was 50C above normal this winter. Just think how much 50C is. It's the difference between a dusting of snow and peak summer in the middle of the Australian desert. The Arctic was 22C above normal. That's the difference between snow and a beautiful warm day in London. The Arctic hit 0C this winter when then sun doesn't even shine during the day. Last year the Arctic reached 16C above normal with Greenland ice melting 2 months earlier than expected. These observations, and many others, are very significant because they show that global warming is accelerating, as predicted - but at one helluva rate, faster than predicted. Watch that exponential growth video again. Maybe the penny will drop.

Top 10 climate change myths 96% Posted Apr 2018

Top 10 climate change myths

Comment: 21 days ago

We're not talking about AGW, we're talking about whether McPherson's claims of human extinction within 10 years, is plausible, and whether "climate change is a hoax" is a plausible best-case scenario.

For climate change to be a hoax, almost every active climate scientist in the world would have to be in on it, either participating in wrongly interpreting data, manipulating data, or remaining silent when their colleagues manipulate data. NASA, ESA, Chinese and Russian space agencies, would all have to have agreed on the same story to fool the public and governments around the world. It's simply not plausible. 

For climate change to be a hoax, the media would have to be in on it, making documentaries about animal migrations which are not happening, due to climate change that is not happening. Or maybe the animals are also in on the hoax and are migrating unnecessarily on behalf of wind farmers?

For climate change to be a hoax, there would have to be a plausible explanation as to how the increase of greenhouse gases is not warming the planet. There isn't.

If climate change is a hoax, scientists would already have persuaded almost every government in the world that climate change is a big enough problem to spend serious money when it is not necessary, because actually, the climate is not changing. Scientists are clever people, but they are not that clever.

If you think climate change is a plausible hoax, you're wrong - unless we are living in a simulation, or this is a dream and you'll soon wake up.

That's why climate change being a hoax is not our best-case scenario, it is fantasy with a political agenda routed in the fossil fuel industry. Ask a "mainstream" climate scientist what they think the best-case is, I doubt you'll find many who will be much more optimistic than "catastrophic".

So is McPherson's claim of human extinction within 10 years plausible? I gave you valid reasons why I think it is, from the point of view of a non-expert. Let me summarise. The range between best and worse-case scenarios is depressingly small, something like "catastrophic in the forseeable future" to "human extinction within 10 years". Had we asked the same question 10 years ago, best-case scenario would have been much better, and worse-case scenario would be not quite so bad. But we are where we are. When scientists are "shocked" by how fast the Arctic is warming 3 years in a row, that matters. It means that our computer models are significantly underestimating the sensitivity of the climate to atmospheric changes. Factor in the nature of exponential curves, and I'd say only a fool would claim that McPherson's claims are not plausible.

I understand why you feel McPherson's claims are ridiculous. "Human extinction within 10 years" - how could that even be. I feel the same, but I recognise that's an emotional response based on the inability to imagine such a future. Rationally, considering what we do know, I don't think it's that far fetched for the reasons I have already given. How our future pans out, depends to a large extent on how many people there are who think like you do. If there are too many, we could just sleepwalk into extinction. That would be a real shame.

Top 10 climate change myths 96% Posted Apr 2018

Top 10 climate change myths

Comment: 23 days ago

We know that climate change is definitely not a hoax, as definite as we know that the Earth is not flat. We have direct temperature measurements going back 150 years. They show the climate is warming. We have data showing ice in the Arctic is melting at an increasing rate. That means the climate is warming. We see animals changing their migration patterns due to a warming climate. We experience climate change in our everyday lives, or are you living under a rock. There is no doubt the climate is changing, and we know the cause - it's the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past 150 years. Climate change is definitely not a hoax, it is very real. The increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is also very real, we have measured it.

The debate is about how dangerous climate change is for human civilisation, which brings us back to worse and best-case scenarios. Unfortunately, the difference between worse and best is small. Ask "mainstream" climate scientists how serious they think climate change is, and answers will range from serious to extremely serious. Very few, if any, would say it is not a serious problem.

I don't have the expertise to judge whether Guy McPherson is right - but what I can see is that mainstream climate scientists are not that far behind McPherson, and that reality is running somewhere in between.

Top 10 climate change myths 96% Posted Apr 2018

Top 10 climate change myths

Comment: 24 days ago

Worse or best-case scenarios have to be plausible, otherwise what's the point. The idea that today's climate change is a hoax is simply wrong. It is not plausible because it is fantasy. It would be like saying best-case scenario is that god decides to get real and removes billions of tons of CO2 with a flick of his finger. It ain't gonna happen.

So how far-fetched is Guy McPherson's claim of human extinction within 10 years? I'm no expert but I think that sort of timescale, maybe 10/20 years, is plausible on the basis that scientists today have been shocked at recent warming in the Arctic. 

In 2016 scientists were so surprised at the rate of melting ice in Greenland they went back to recheck the data. 

In 2015 scientists were shocked at how thin Arctic ice was mid winter.

It seems that the world is warming faster than our climate models are predicting. Also, climate scientists are now regularly talking about "abrupt" climate change.

The really important thing to remember is that the scenario we will experience, is somewhere between worse and best, but where in that range depends on what we do now. The climate doesn't care about politics, or whatever anyone thinks or feels. It is just what happens when greenhouse gases increase. More heat is trapped, and this is what happens when more heat is trapped. It's not difficult to grasp.

Top 10 climate change myths 96% Posted Apr 2018

Top 10 climate change myths

Comment: 25 days ago

The difference between worse-case and best-case scenarios, is what humans do. 

Business as usual will lead to a worse-case scenario. Business as usual means we continue as we are - adding a few % extra CO2 each year into the atmosphere, and doing very little to change our ways. 

Sure, 10 years until human extinction sounds ridiculous, but if you rephrase it to: 10 years until global life-support systems collapse - that sounds more plausible. Scientists have been warning us for decades about runaway global warming - that's when positive feedbacks kick in and amplify the warming exponentially. There are many positive feedbacks, eg. ice reflects heat back into space, but when the ice melts, not only do we lose the cooling effect from heat reflection, but the darker water that is revealed absorbs even more heat, melting even more ice, that reveals even more water ... etc. The most worrying feedback is the melting permafrost, which has already begun. Locked in the permafrost is carbon, that if released as methane will dwarf our emissions many times over. If the permafrost is not 'permanent', ie. not frozen all year round, then the organic material within it will decompose releasing huge amounts of methane. Methane is about 85 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. It will accelerate the warming which in turn will melt even more permafrost, accelerating warming even more.

As the warming accelerates, phytoplankton may not be able to adapt fast enough to survive the warmer and more acidic waters. And phytoplankton are at the bottom of the food chain in the oceans. If they don't survive, then nor do the animals above them. On land, plants are at the bottom of the food chain. With increasing heat waves and droughts, extreme flooding and superstorms, plants may find it difficult to survive. Open field farming will simply be impossible.

But the worse-case scenario is missing: how, and how fast humans react. Humans will react, and are reacting now, but we need to up our game many times over to make a difference.

The best-case scenario is not that climate change is a hoax, because it isn't. Climate change today is caused by the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I think the best-case scenario is that - as in war, a nation puts aside its differences to come together to fight for its own survival - then the world population puts aside its differences to come together to "fight" climate change and transform the world into a sustainable planet that can support a diversity of life including about 10 billion humans. 10 billion is what the UN estimate the population will peak at before slowly decreasing. We can't rely on individuals like Elon Musk; there are simply not enough of them. The collective power of 7 billion people is huge. If we use that power, we may be able to slow down climate change enough to give other species a better chance of adapting, while we figure out how to safely geoengineer the climate and remove billions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere. Then over time, the climate will stabilise and we can all live happily ever after.

Top 10 climate change myths 96% Posted Apr 2018

Top 10 climate change myths

Comment: 27 days ago

You must be very old or very unhealthy. Worse case scenario is human extinction within 10 years!

What's the point of earning loads of money if you are going to pop off this Earth really soon. You won't even have time to enjoy it. And if you have family that you care enough about to leave them your wealth, then why be a part of making their future lives a living hell?

Psyche, NASA's mission to a metal world 87% Posted Apr 2018

Psyche, NASA's mission to a metal world

Comment: 27 days ago

Will the US tax payer be recompensed for this mission by the private companies that make a fortune from mining Psyche?

Reza Aslan - Who is God? 86% Posted Apr 2018

Reza Aslan - Who is God?

Comment: 36 days ago

There are plenty of things that are 'utterly unhuman' - like intestines, or black holes - but there's no tendency for humans to humanise those. Could it be that's because they actually exist outside of our imagination, so there's no need to?

I think Aslan is confused.

Reza Aslan - Who is God? 86% Posted Apr 2018

Reza Aslan - Who is God?

Comment: 38 days ago

Aslan talks like an atheist, making a strong case for god being a figment of our imagination. But then he throws in a plug for Christianity.

Antarctica's glaciers are retreating fast and show signs of collapse 86% Posted Apr 2018

Antarctica's glaciers are retreating fast and show signs of collapse

Comment: 48 days ago

Congratulations, you finally understand. CO2 and methane have warmed the planet many times in the past, and to a much higher temperature than today. That is because they are greenhouse gases. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped, so the climate warms.

All you have to do now is figure out where the increase in CO2 and methane since the Industrial Revolution came from.

Antarctica's glaciers are retreating fast and show signs of collapse 86% Posted Apr 2018

Antarctica's glaciers are retreating fast and show signs of collapse

Comment: 48 days ago

And if I provided sources, how would that change your thinking?

Oh, and you want to know how CO2 got into the ocean prior to 11,000 years ago? It's quite simple really. Just think about it and the answer should pop into your mind quite quickly. Check with your friend Google, and if you were right, you can experience the satisfaction of figuring something out all by yourself. 

Antarctica's glaciers are retreating fast and show signs of collapse 86% Posted Apr 2018

Antarctica's glaciers are retreating fast and show signs of collapse

Comment: 50 days ago

Human activity 11,000 years ago was too insignificant to cause climate change. 26,000 years ago was the peak (coldest) of the last ice age. The climate warmed up because of the increase in solar radiation due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun. That was amplified by increased CO2 release from the oceans as the planet warmed. About 11,000 years ago, the warming plateaued resulting in a relatively stable climate that allowed human civilisation to develop.

Since the Industrial Revolution 150 years ago, humans have added about 600 billion tonnes of new CO2 to the atmosphere - CO2 that was previously locked up underground in the form of oil, gas and coal. Considering CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, it's not surprising the climate is warming. What did you expect? No effect?

Tony Blair - The strategy that is Parliament's duty to foil 88% Posted Mar 2018

Tony Blair - The strategy that is Parliament's duty to foil

Comment: 55 days ago

When we joined the Common Market in 1973, we were the "sick man of Europe". While in the EU, we grew to become the 5th biggest economy in the world, and 2nd in Europe after Germany. Today, since the Brexit vote, we are the slowest growing economy in Europe, and we haven't even left yet. Europe is good for us, and we are good for Europe - that's why they want us to stay and that's why we should.

London's underground farm produces 2 tons of food a month 87% Posted Mar 2018

London's underground farm produces 2 tons of food a month

Comment: 70 days ago

I disagree. "Indoor" farming is the future because it has to be. As the climate gets more crazy every year, the only way to grow food reliably is in a controlled environment.

I take your point that this city farm is tiny for London's needs. If I was London Dictator, I would ditch the requirement for affordable homes in luxury developments, and replace it with an indoor farm. Every new high-rise development would be required to provide a 1st floor designed for, and dedicated to indoor farming. The council would run the farm, paying a rent to the developer, and selling fresh fruit & veg to local businesses.

To make up for the lost "affordable" homes, I would sell off council homes, but require that the money from the sale is used to build an equivalent within a 5 mile radius. The price of the council home would not be related to the market, but to the cost of building an equivalent. It would be an affordable way for poorer people to get on the housing ladder. The more people who buy their council home, the more new homes are built.

Luxury two-pool house 86% Posted Mar 2018

Luxury two-pool house

Comment: 71 days ago

Not my kind of place. I like privacy.

Let minnow if you catch anything 85% Posted Mar 2018

Let minnow if you catch anything

Caption: 74 days ago

UK fishing industry post Brexit.

TYT - The real reason Russia meddled in US election 87% Posted Mar 2018

TYT - The real reason Russia meddled in US election

Comment: 75 days ago

You could well be right. Once the Exxon-Rosneft deal was no longer possible, Tillerson is not needed anymore. So it's quite likely he was about to jump anyway.

It's really disturbing how blatant and deep the corruption is - and Trump fans still support him.