Support NeoGAF

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

Bu.. bu ... But Trump say thats a lie...is a invent for China!!!!



I imagine that an ignorant nobody like Donald Trump is more intelligent than a group of qualified scientists with a PhD.

ppffff with the ignorance of Donald Trump make me laugh...

 

[Papa]

PhDs are overrated

 

[ruvikx]

I don't have an issue with the theory men are impacting the climate, I just have a serious issue with faux environmentalist nuggetheads who use the science as a pretext to spread literal anti-western propaganda, promote wealth redistribution to the third world & encourage massive immigration into Europe from continents & peoples who're themselves given a total free pass when it comes to their pollution & insane demographic explosion.

It's demented & very obviously criminal.

 

[Pallas]

They really need to plant more trees but the problem is space to do so. Couldn’t they construct manmade islands or would that just add to the problem more?

There will be another ice age though right? At some point?

Soon, it’s pretty much the reset the planet needs.

 

[iconmaster]

99+% is suspiciously high. When do scientists agree that universally on anything? I bet if you asked whether there were really a material universe that could be scientifically observed, you’d get a greater diversity of opinion than on this issue. There’s uncertainty as to whether gravity is even a force, which seems like it should have been settled sometime in the 400 years since Newton discovered it.

But human climate change, no; that’s a question whose answer is as sure as the sun rising tomorrow.

There’s something going on there besides simple scientific conclusion, I say.

 

[MetalAlien]

gets my vote!

 

[flashfire926]

Fuck paper straws. They disintegrate in whatever liquid in like 10 minutes, feeling all gross.

 

[Dontero]

Absolute irony is that thanks to same people harping today about climate change most of nations stopped creating nuclear reactors which would provide mostly clean energy.

CO2 induced warming can only go as far as 2-3C due to ^2 scaling and 2-3 avarage difference is absolutely nothing for most of people living. Secondly by the time we will get to 1,5C we already would be switching to fusion power and problem will solve itself. And that is assuming mother nature will not sort out this problem first for us via expansion of vegetation as almost 70% of current species still are C5 not C6 meaning that they evolved to much higher CO2 content in atmosphere than we have today and their growth is slowed down due to this.

Either way i don't care. I always wanted shorter winters. Not like you will notice much difference between 1 or 2C.

 

[JordanN]

I was feeling curious today and had a thought: how many cellphones exist in the world?

I took a look, and WOW, practically everyone on earth now owns one.

What does this have to do with climate change? Well, think about where do the resources to make cellphones come from?

Now think that billions of phones are going to be made and produced throughout the next decade. That's a lot of plastic and oil being ripped from the earth to put these things on shelves.
And that's not all. Think about the power needed to run all these services associated with smartphones? Social media, the cloud, streaming services. All possibly powered by renderfarms.

Once again, I don't think it's possible to take climate change seriously without having to completely reevaluate how society operates in general.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

not only that, all the media created in order to drive cell phone use. clickbait exists literally so that you use your phone, which consumes battery. the media itself is a vampire sucking away so many resources it doesn't even realize. all these Hollywood films are actually more environmentally damaging than farming, industrial, manufacturing, etc.

perhaps this is why they push Identity Politics and Being the Good Guys so hard. they have to pretend, even if it objectively is the opposite, they are the worst, and promoting consumption and a hyper consumerism that is sold as "political action". they are Always Online, they are the biggest Energy Vampires of all. ironically these are the people loudest about saving the planet lol.

have climate scientists taken into account the military? we explode many bombs in the atmosphere. the US alone detonated over 1,000 nuclear bombs in testing during the Cold War. what are the effects of these actions on the atmosphere/climate? or are scientists just ignoring these things?

 

[FoundressofNothing]

99+% is suspiciously high. When do scientists agree that universally on anything? I bet if you asked whether there were really a material universe that could be scientifically observed, you’d get a greater diversity of opinion than on this issue. There’s uncertainty as to whether gravity is even a force, which seems like it should have been settled sometime in the 400 years since Newton discovered it.

But human climate change, no; that’s a question whose answer is as sure as the sun rising tomorrow.

There’s something going on there besides simple scientific conclusion, I say.

What do you think is going on?

I think of climate change consensus as being like the theory of plate tectonics -- it took 40 years of debate and scientific exploration for the theory of plate tectonics to be accepted by all scientists and now only a real crank would deny that plate tectonics is real.

Here's a 2016 article from the journal Environmental Research Letters showing how the authors came to the conclusion that there is a 90% to 100% consensus that man-made climate change is real.

I just came across this article in the same journal called "Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977-2014)". I haven't read it all yet, but some readers of this thread might be interested in it:

...we find that as documents become more publicly accessible, they increasingly communicate doubt. This discrepancy is most pronounced between advertorials and all other documents. For example, accounting for expressions of reasonable doubt, 83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt. We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science—by way of its scientists' academic publications—but promoted doubt about it in advertorials. Given this discrepancy, we conclude that ExxonMobil misled the public.

 

[iconmaster]

What do you think is going on?

It’s such a politicized issue (unlike plate tectonics) that I think there is some degree of fear of being on the wrong side skewing the numbers.

Now, even if you could completely remove that element the percentage might still be very high.

In and of itself, I just don’t consider the rate of agreement itself compelling evidence for anything.

 

[FoundressofNothing]

It’s such a politicized issue (unlike plate tectonics) that I think there is some degree of fear of being on the wrong side skewing the numbers.

Now, even if you could completely remove that element the percentage might still be very high.

In and of itself, I just don’t consider the rate of agreement itself compelling evidence for anything.

Ah, I see. Yeah, there might be some fear of being on the "wrong" side of history or something like that influencing some scientists. There are definitely politics and big stakes involved. But there was politics involved with something like plate tectonics too, just more within the scientific community (there were different factions for and against the theory being true).

Also, being the scientist that debunks a huge theory like global warming would make that person very famous.