Discussion in 'BlackHat Lounge' started by The Scarlet Pimp, Oct 6, 2015.
I don't think people doubt global warming. Their argument is that it isn't or at least the majority of it isn't human caused and its warming cycle since the last ice age. I don't think people dispute the fact that average global temperatures are rising as there are clear statistics for that.
Could be natural occurring, could be a man made phenomena, not going to change anything in our life time.
I always liked this for putting it in perspective:
We know for a fact its happening its just a matter of will we change it.
Today's world is stuck in its greedy ways, people dont do anything if it wont make them money or get them likes on instagram.
Sad world, we will wait until its 120 degrees outside everyday before we make a change.
Sad thing is that people believe propaganda that they are the reason causing it.
Just because it's happening doesn't necessarily mean we caused it. I don't know whether we did or not. Moving to renewable energy and being more considerate of our environment makes good sense either way.
Also, you can't fight over wind, water and solar so the faster we lose our oil dependence the better.
And If you can only know that most of the papers produced by the science community and published in the most popular and prestige science news publishers are mostly misleading and fill with inaccurate data.
I know this becouse my gf is a PhD in Germany in bio-chemistry and I can tell you that 80% of the papers produced are containing inaccurate data or false data (manipulating data) to came to an conclusion they wanted. This is happening mostly because the private founded research groups are obligated to purplish papers and if they don't fill the quota they will loose there project = job. Also its similar with the government universities but they are mostly trying to pomp out more papers becouse mostly that way the professors can easy find new findings and also everyone is competing to have more published papers.
And most of the global warming papers are produced by the private sectors or organizations with interest funding projects that are trying to prove that and its easy to manipulate data and also when its published its published, no one is checking the data or doing independent test to validate before publishing. And mostly of the published papers are proven wrong by others research groups around the world but usually they are not being published.
So because your girlfriend is a scientist, you know that all science is wrong? How do you know that she knows which papers to read that are true? If 80% of the papers are rubbish, that still leaves 17% against 3%. Or wasn't it a real statistic but just an arbitrary figure picked to demonstrate a point based, not on your expertise but on your girlfriend's expertise - in biochemistry?
Its not an abstract concept so your belief isn't required. It's a thing that will either happen or not happen, regardless of our opinion. Let's say you & your girlfriend are right - you can feel smug when all the extreme weather events settle down from their natural high. Let's say the 97% of scientists are right - that would be bad.
I LOVE this topic - I'm a big admirer of propaganda (which is marketing at a humongous scale). Those guys are professionals, it's very much worth studying them.
OP, you are still on the OLD propaganda material. We do NOT call it Global Warming any more Nope. No sir. Now it's called Climate Change. Global Warming is a deprecated term and for good reason.
See, the earth has stopped really getting warmer since around 1998. Imagine that. Since it's a bit difficult to ignore the numbers for 15 years in a row, we changed the term. Now you are no longer in danger from the planet getting warmer, now you should tremble for the planet going warm, cold, warm, cold, warm, cold, warm, cold etc. The damn thing can't decide and this is all our fault (whose else, right?).
This was acknowledged in the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "the Pause" (nice name btw). But unfortunately, it seems that Climate Change doesn't vibe as well as Global Warming, so you will be happy to know that we are fixing that!
"Researchers revised the NOAA data set to correct for known biases in sea-surface-temperature records" ( http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700 )
Lesson of the day - when numbers are against you, change the numbers.
First off I never said that all science is wrong, you made that assumption. And how she knows that 80% of the paper are with manipulated data is becouse most of the PhDs are continuing work from previous scientists and most of the time the results are totally different then the previous scientists have published.
And I can tell you that in the silence world the privately funded and corporation scientist published papers are never taken seriously in the science community.
I am not trying to convince you but I am merely trying to tell you that doesn't mean if some scientist says something is true.
I am really interested on how did you come up with the 97% of scientist telling something is right? I can also trow around percentages out of my hat but that does not make me right.
Jazz, you magnificent bastard - we have got to stop meeting like this
The propaganda around the subject fascinates me too - can we at least agree it occurs on both sides? You've clearly read more about this than me, what's the position on the frequency of extreme weather events?
then how can we believe your girlfriend is telling the truth when she says the others are lying? Can you see the logical inconsistency? I'm actually not denying that there's a huge amount of bias in published papers but I just wanted to make a point that you can't state "lots of scientists lie. My girlfriend's a scientist and she told me so it must be true."
Nasa - I can cite mine. Where's your 80%?
Regardless, it's not an argument I'm interested in pursuing. Like Jazz says, there's a vast amount of propaganda around the subject and arguing about it is just going to entrench polarised positions. I'm interested in the meta-discussion. Hmm, can't believe I just used that term.
That percentage is just of few organization that are in that field in nasa, probably not more then 20 scientist. Its not only US that are reaching the effects of climate change, there are lot more around the world.
My point was misunderstand, I don't say everything about climate warming is fake, I am just trying to say don't believe blindly in something when someone says its backed by science. Did you all forgot about the IPCC scandal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Yeah, but it's a bit one-sided, like say the Russians invading Monaco. Sure, they both have armies but ...
The "omg we're doing it" side has an amazing amount of political and monetary interest. If global warming is not man made, there is no need for solar panels, electric cars, green whatever etc. If global warming is not man made, it's hard to say to developing countries "don't increase your industry or I'll embargo you to the stone age because climate". The "ehm, it's doing it on its own" side has amazingly lower resources to draw from in comparison.
Depends on what one calls extreme. For example, England used to be a warm cozy place, like say South Italy until around the 14th century. Grapes fields everywhere, the whole jazz. And then poof, the climate changed and England become what it is today. Now, that's what I call extreme!
Since no one denies the Little Ice Age and no one seems to claim that it was man made from the 14th century cars, we can consider as fact that the climate can radically change on its own beyond any doubt. So, a hurricane and a drought here and there ... extreme? And even worse, man made?
My problem is the god damned politics behind it. On one hand, you have cold hard facts. We have clearly noticeable effects, we have substantial evidence showing that it's been getting worse since the industrial revolution, and we even have 99% of scientists saying yes, it's real and it's us. All of this alone should be enough to convince anybody, but nope, leave it up to the politicians and lobbying for/against it to plant seeds of doubt in Joe Shmoe watching Fox News or listening to NPR, leaving them convinced it's alllll a big hoax. Ffs
Seriously, this does not happen ONLY in the entertainment industry.
Thank you for this insight
Since you seem to love hard facts, can you please take a look at them facts and show me where it says "man made" on the label?
I guess you and them know better than 90%+ of scientists then?
Regardless of that, humans are screwing the environment in so many other ways. Just take a look of these pictures from China and tell me you don't find it extremely disturbing:
This is a country with a population of over 1.3 billion and where 4,000+ people die every single day from air pollution. And that is 100% human caused
Here's a university study from 700 scientists, with 92% of them believing climate change is man made:
But of course I'm sure you have more knowledge and experience on the matter
Separate names with a comma.