Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23310
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider » February 27, 2019, 4:09 pm

Dr Zaius wrote:
February 27, 2019, 4:08 pm
Northern Raider wrote:To be honest, in the debate about climate science it's very difficult to find a truly independent opinion on the topic. Pretty much everything published and readily accessible is pushing some form of agenda.
Which would be fine if it was a 50:50 split in opinions. But there is not, there is 98:2, which says to me that when it comes to people who know what they are talking about, there is no debate. There is always a 1-2% crackpot group in any craft group. More so when some of the most powerful companies in the world have a financial interest in those crackpot views.
Where does that statistic come from?
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10063
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm

Northern Raider wrote: Where does that statistic come from?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

On your previous post regarding agenda. In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist. Plus, in my experience the vast majority of scientists are not well paid. Most are motivated by their own curiosity. It’s not a profession particularly prone to agendas generally.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23310
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider » February 27, 2019, 5:23 pm

gangrenous wrote:
February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm
Northern Raider wrote: Where does that statistic come from?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

On your previous post regarding agenda. In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist. Plus, in my experience the vast majority of scientists are not well paid. Most are motivated by their own curiosity. It’s not a profession particularly prone to agendas generally.
I would argue that the scientific community are motivated by those that fund them.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 127315
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed » February 27, 2019, 5:28 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
February 27, 2019, 5:23 pm
gangrenous wrote:
February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm
Northern Raider wrote: Where does that statistic come from?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

On your previous post regarding agenda. In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist. Plus, in my experience the vast majority of scientists are not well paid. Most are motivated by their own curiosity. It’s not a profession particularly prone to agendas generally.
I would argue that the scientific community are motivated by those that fund them.
If that were true, then the scientific consensus would not be so one sided. The cash available to companies that generate greenhouse gases is huge...
Image

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10063
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » February 27, 2019, 5:32 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm
Northern Raider wrote: Where does that statistic come from?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

On your previous post regarding agenda. In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist. Plus, in my experience the vast majority of scientists are not well paid. Most are motivated by their own curiosity. It’s not a profession particularly prone to agendas generally.
I would argue that the scientific community are motivated by those that fund them.
I’d argue you haven’t worked in the scientific community.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23310
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider » February 27, 2019, 5:34 pm

gangrenous wrote:
February 27, 2019, 5:32 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm
Northern Raider wrote: Where does that statistic come from?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

On your previous post regarding agenda. In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist. Plus, in my experience the vast majority of scientists are not well paid. Most are motivated by their own curiosity. It’s not a profession particularly prone to agendas generally.
I would argue that the scientific community are motivated by those that fund them.
I’d argue you haven’t worked in the scientific community.
Its sounds like a blast
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23310
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider » February 27, 2019, 6:04 pm

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Just on this statistic claiming the 97% consensus. This is generated from a paper that is "based on 11,944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4,014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming." While I'm not questioning the 97% figure its acutally 97% of the 34% that drew a conclusion. So its actually 32.5% of the published research papers conclude that the current climate change is human caused. 66% are on the fence, while the remaining 1.5% support alternative theories.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6184
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear » February 27, 2019, 6:44 pm

Ouch that almost reversed the strength of the argument.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10063
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » February 27, 2019, 7:12 pm

Ah... no.

Because not in every paper related to climate change does it make sense to include a statement one way or the other. For example most papers relating to relativity will not include the line “we conclude relativity is happening”.

User avatar
dubby
Don Furner
Posts: 30746
Joined: May 16, 2006, 12:14 pm
Favourite Player: Mal Meninga
Location: Western Sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by dubby » February 27, 2019, 7:17 pm

The Rickman wrote:
dubby wrote:Check the alternative.

It's NOT man made
And you don’t think 98% of the world’s scientists are doing that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
No
They're chasing funding.

Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Image

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10063
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous » February 27, 2019, 7:23 pm

A huge percentage of the world’s climate scientists are all chasing funding and burning their time, legacy and dignity on panels and statements urging action?

It’s completely unrealistic.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 127315
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed » February 27, 2019, 7:29 pm

If it is all about funding... we'd have a lot of studies proving that greenhouse gases are not an issue in climate change. Because the companies that produce them are rolling cash. But we don't have whole lot of studies that say that. Rather, the scientific community is quite clearly saying the opposite.
Image

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7229
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg » February 27, 2019, 7:31 pm

dubby wrote:
The Rickman wrote:
dubby wrote:Check the alternative.

It's NOT man made
And you don’t think 98% of the world’s scientists are doing that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
No
They're chasing funding.

Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Like I've said previously what happens if you're wrong? Answer. There will be millions of displaced people and many lives lost. What happens if you are right? Answer. We will have wasted money on better renewable technology. Now what is the better option?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: Climate change

Post by Green eyed Mick » February 27, 2019, 7:41 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
February 27, 2019, 5:23 pm
gangrenous wrote:
February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm
Northern Raider wrote: Where does that statistic come from?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

On your previous post regarding agenda. In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist. Plus, in my experience the vast majority of scientists are not well paid. Most are motivated by their own curiosity. It’s not a profession particularly prone to agendas generally.
I would argue that the scientific community are motivated by those that fund them.
Nasa, CSIRO and dozens of other leading research bodies are government funded as are 1000's of reputable universities.

User avatar
dubby
Don Furner
Posts: 30746
Joined: May 16, 2006, 12:14 pm
Favourite Player: Mal Meninga
Location: Western Sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by dubby » February 27, 2019, 7:50 pm

Illusion of validity.

Over trusting data that's consistent even if it's weak.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Image

User avatar
dubby
Don Furner
Posts: 30746
Joined: May 16, 2006, 12:14 pm
Favourite Player: Mal Meninga
Location: Western Sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by dubby » February 27, 2019, 7:53 pm

gergreg wrote:
dubby wrote:
The Rickman wrote:
dubby wrote:Check the alternative.

It's NOT man made
And you don’t think 98% of the world’s scientists are doing that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
No
They're chasing funding.

Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Like I've said previously what happens if you're wrong? Answer. There will be millions of displaced people and many lives lost. What happens if you are right? Answer. We will have wasted money on better renewable technology. Now what is the better option?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
This would be better in human discourse Image

We need coal. Or uranium as a legitimate source of energy. We just do.

Should we continue to find a cleaner solution? You bet!

But the targets in the meantime are unrealistic, unnecessary, and oppressive.



Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Image

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23310
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider » February 27, 2019, 7:58 pm

Green eyed Mick wrote:
Northern Raider wrote:
February 27, 2019, 5:23 pm
gangrenous wrote:
February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm
Northern Raider wrote: Where does that statistic come from?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

On your previous post regarding agenda. In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist. Plus, in my experience the vast majority of scientists are not well paid. Most are motivated by their own curiosity. It’s not a profession particularly prone to agendas generally.
I would argue that the scientific community are motivated by those that fund them.
Nasa, CSIRO and dozens of other leading research bodies are government funded as are 1000's of reputable universities.
Correct. ;)

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7229
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg » February 27, 2019, 8:15 pm


dubby wrote:
gergreg wrote:
dubby wrote:
The Rickman wrote:
dubby wrote:Check the alternative.

It's NOT man made
And you don’t think 98% of the world’s scientists are doing that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
No
They're chasing funding.

Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Like I've said previously what happens if you're wrong? Answer. There will be millions of displaced people and many lives lost. What happens if you are right? Answer. We will have wasted money on better renewable technology. Now what is the better option?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
This would be better in human discourse Image

We need coal. Or uranium as a legitimate source of energy. We just do.

Should we continue to find a cleaner solution? You bet!

But the targets in the meantime are unrealistic, unnecessary, and oppressive.



Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
The reason it seems oppressive is because the entire world has sat on their hands for the past 20 years. Tell the Pacific island nations that change is unnecessary and see how that goes.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24636
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: Climate change

Post by Manbush » February 28, 2019, 9:34 am

gangrenous wrote:
February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm
In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist.
This, so much this! You have no idea how often I have to make this point when discussing biology and cosmology.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R » February 28, 2019, 11:32 am

Manbush wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm
In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist.
This, so much this! You have no idea how often I have to make this point when discussing biology and cosmology.
You do that a lot??
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44079
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Rickman » February 28, 2019, 11:39 am

As a race, we absolutely should NOT be relying on coal as a means for generating electricity. It's absolutely mind-blowing that we "seemingly" haven't developed the technology to power the whole world through the sun and waves.

Another big thing that needs to happen is more trees need to be planted (although a lot of countries are actually taking this initiative), and obviously the shift to electric cars will make a massive impact too.

And anyone here arguing the 98% are just doing it to "chase funding" when all the biggest players on the globe money-wise would be backing the 2% is just absolutely kidding themselves.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24636
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: Climate change

Post by Manbush » February 28, 2019, 11:41 am

T_R wrote:
February 28, 2019, 11:32 am
Manbush wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm
In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist.
This, so much this! You have no idea how often I have to make this point when discussing biology and cosmology.
You do that a lot??
With one of my known passions yes it comes up a lot.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44079
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Rickman » February 28, 2019, 12:03 pm

Manbush wrote:
February 28, 2019, 11:41 am
T_R wrote:
February 28, 2019, 11:32 am
Manbush wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm
In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist.
This, so much this! You have no idea how often I have to make this point when discussing biology and cosmology.
You do that a lot??
With one of my known passions yes it comes up a lot.
Ah yes, would be careful with that though, Pell just got brought down for the same thing!
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24636
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: Climate change

Post by Manbush » February 28, 2019, 12:06 pm

:lol:

I would have to say the same thing to Pell after his run in with Richard Dawkins on Q&A a few years ago.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6184
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear » March 1, 2019, 8:07 am

gangrenous wrote:
February 27, 2019, 7:12 pm
Ah... no.

Because not in every paper related to climate change does it make sense to include a statement one way or the other. For example most papers relating to relativity will not include the line “we conclude relativity is happening”.
lack of affirmation doesn't infer disagreement.

But equally it doesnt infer agreement, it is no position.

Your right, the argument isn't reversed, but it certainly isn't as strong as how it is referred to.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23310
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider » March 1, 2019, 10:42 am

Manbush wrote:
February 28, 2019, 12:06 pm
:lol:

I would have to say the same thing to Pell after his run in with Richard Dawkins on Q&A a few years ago.
I think Nickman was more suggesting that pursuing your 'passions' is not always a good thing.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24636
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: Climate change

Post by Manbush » March 1, 2019, 1:21 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
March 1, 2019, 10:42 am
Manbush wrote:
February 28, 2019, 12:06 pm
:lol:

I would have to say the same thing to Pell after his run in with Richard Dawkins on Q&A a few years ago.
I think Nickman was more suggesting that pursuing your 'passions' is not always a good thing.
I know what he was suggesting but instead of pointing out the false equivalency I’d redirect to more on what I was originally talking about.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: Climate change

Post by Green eyed Mick » March 3, 2019, 6:01 pm

Did some more research on George Soros. Dubby might be onto something :hmmm


User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24636
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: Climate change

Post by Manbush » March 3, 2019, 6:44 pm

Jones cracks me up, absolute nutjob. :lol:


"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

yeh raiders
Laurie Daley
Posts: 15436
Joined: June 21, 2008, 3:04 pm
Favourite Player: Jack Wighton
Location: Sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by yeh raiders » September 25, 2019, 2:01 pm



Severe cringe warning :!:

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44079
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Rickman » September 25, 2019, 2:05 pm

Yayyyy, I've been waiting for this thread to be bumped in light of recent events!
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
-TW-
Mal Meninga
Posts: 30556
Joined: July 2, 2007, 11:41 am

Re: Climate change

Post by -TW- » September 25, 2019, 3:45 pm

Greatest ham acting ever

Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk


User avatar
bonehead
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13314
Joined: March 1, 2005, 5:29 am
Location: Smelling The Shiraz

Re: Climate change

Post by bonehead » September 25, 2019, 8:34 pm

massive ballsy effort
Edrick The Entertainer

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44079
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Rickman » September 25, 2019, 9:44 pm

bonehead wrote:
September 25, 2019, 8:34 pm
massive ballsy effort
Yeah, I thought what she did was amazing... I honestly can't see why so many people are giving her **** for just being passionate about doing the right thing.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10063
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » September 25, 2019, 10:00 pm

It seems to always come back to people are jerks.

Post Reply