Greta Thunbergs speech

[Ibn Sina]

It’s not hard to believe that she descends from the race of Vikings. I can’t fathom how a 16 year old girl can have so much courage to stand up to the whole world and demand the need for climate change , going toe to toe against world leaders and the likes of Trump, who are only concerned about their own greed and power instead of welfare of the people. God doesn’t want the end of humanity too soon that is why sometimes sends people like her to prevent our extinction brought about by our own vices. No matter where we are , be it Sweden or US we need to hear her message and do what we can to fight climate change. Her speech made me feel this urgency like never before, we have only 1 planet, our beloved earth, and if we cannot do whatever we can to protect our mother earth then we don’t deserve to live in this beautiful planet

Edited September 26, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[outlandish]

18 hours ago, Zizzero said:

"WhAt ClImAtE dEbAtE?"

That mixed case jab there makes it sound like you're really not interested in discussion, that you're just looking for a reaction. But I'm going to assume that a part of you actually does want to discuss this, or else why would you be here?

You raise a lot of points here, and for the most part these have been addressed over and over in this endless conversation and heel-dragging that's been going on for years now. This is what I mean by there not really being a  "climate debate". When the opposition continues to raise the same objections over and over, and those objections are addressed irrefutably and with consensus amongst the experts in the field, and then the opposition continues to ignore these facts and simply restate the same objections, it's not really a debate any more. It's just "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" in the schoolyard.

I'm going to try to take the time to address some of your objections. I hope this is an actual discussion, and that you will take the time to contemplate these refutations. There are so many great resources on the web where you can learn about these things and get answers to your questions, but I'll put down some quick notes here.

• How fast and by how much is the climate changing?

Check out the graph and map here. Global Mean Temperature is a good proxy or meta-measurement on climate change, and it's risen by 1C so far since preindustrial times.

• How fast and by how much will the climate change in the future

That depends on how quickly we can transition off of fossil fuels and reduce GHG emissions in general. Projections vary depending on the scenario that humanity follows. In the absence of policy change, we can expect 4-5C warming by the end of the century. If we plateau our emissions at current rates we can expect about 3C. If we aggressively reduce emissions to below today's rate, it could be constrained to about 1.5C of warming. Check out NASA's report on 21st Century Temperature Scenarios or the global Climate Action Tracker If you are feeling very scholarly, this paper is detailed

• How much of an impact do humans have on climate change? / How different would the climate be if humans didn't exist

We have raised the temperature approximately 1C above preindustrial levels due to human-caused GHG emissions.

The last time CO2 concentrations were this high, around 3 million years ago, the sea was 10-30m higher than it is today, and the global mean temperature was 2-3.5C above our preindustrial temps. A common objection here is that "well why isn't it that high now then?" Well, the planet is a very large object, and there is a lot of momentum in the system. We have only recently kicked the CO2 concentrations up high into the current levels, and there is a lag period as the ice melts and the seas rise, and the Global Mean Temperature rises. Even if we vanished, global temperatures would continue rising for a some time because of all the momentum in the system. It takes a while for the planet to heat up from this big change in CO2 concentration, and we're only seeing the beginnings of this change right now.

• How much of an impact does CO2 in particular have on climate change?

"CO2 has caused most of the global warming, and it's influence is expected to continue" There are other potent GHGs that also need to be addressed however, including refrigerants and methane.

• How much are we as a species in control of the climate and how can we control or influence it

I think this is already answered above. We've already caused 1C of warming, and we're looking at another 1.5C to 5C depending what we do about it.

*******

This is taking me longer than I expected to go through these details. I'll try to keep going later when I have the time. Anyways, better than my words would probably be to digest the well-vetted, and graphically rich content at NASA's site: https://climate.nasa.gov/ 

NASA is pretty good at science, I think we can all agree.

[Bodigger]

1 hour ago, outlandish said:

 

• How fast and by how much is the climate changing?

Check out the graph and map here. Global Mean Temperature is a good proxy or meta-measurement on climate change, and it's risen by 1C so far since preindustrial times.

I have also read many articles which talk about the manipulation of climate data.  I'm not saying I agree or disagree with them but I have found in my experience that for every article in favor of something there is an article on the contrary.  In this case I depend on my own data in the area I reside.  It is interesting that the data you are advocating show's my area cooling which is what I have found.

[outlandish]

@Bodigger  That's because there's a great deal of money at stake here, and there is a huge incentive for many of the most powerful and monied institutions to spread misinformation about the climate situation. However if you talk to the experts in the field, climate scientists, there is 97% consensus on the facts of climate change. These are the people whose job it is to study and understand the climate to the best of our ability.

If there is something wrong with your car, do you listen to the mechanic, or the talk show radio host?

If a doctor told you that you had a 97% chance of dying if you didn't quit smoking, would you look at the 3% and say I think I'll play it safe and keep smoking?

[Bodigger]

@outlandish The 97% work for a government entity of some sort, don't they?  I understand there is a lot of money involved on the 3% side but to omit the money on the 97% is......well, it just is.  Are you saying that there has never been any manipulation on the 97%?

[outlandish]

@Bodigger the researchers generally work for universities, but some work for governmental orgs like NASA or publicly funded research institutions, and other non-governmental organizations. But let's do a thought experiment and suppose they did all work for the government. Does it look to you like "the government" wants to do anything about fixing climate change right now? 

Keep in mind that "the government", like any very large system, is not a monolithic organization with a single devious mind in control of the whole body. It's composed of thousands and thousands of individuals with individual motives, influences, lives, perspectives. 

Now let's apply Occam's Razor here: what's the more likely scenario, that 97% of climate scientists have been successfully manipulated by some nebulous environmentalist entity, or that they are looking at the evidence and zeroing in on the same conclusions?

edit: more regarding the consensus on this topic. Here is a list of 200 worldwide scientific organizations that climate change is caused by human action: http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html If you're American, you might appreciate this list of institutions: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Edited September 26, 2019 by outlandish
consensus links

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, outlandish said:

NASA is pretty good at science, I think we can all agree.

You mean the NASA who faked the moon landing and started the round Earth conspiracy?

[Bodigger]

@outlandish I look at science as black and white.  It is either this or that.  Shouldn't science be 100%?  When I was in school there were many things that were a certain way and now, when I am helping my children on school work, many things are different than what I was taught.  Now, I ponder and question many things in science.  20 years from now you may feel the same or you may not, but I am quite sure the environment will be fine.  Every generation creates enormous fears which are unnecessary and I'm not going for it.......as I've done in the past.

[remember]

it`s so interesting as in some areas on the world it is quite observable that it`s drastically changing. for example someone living in the bavarian alp region would have noticed that economically tourism is not really profitable anymore as in some winters, a lot of winters recently we have to use snow canons to recive skiing tourists. and bavaria is on eof the most conservative parts of germany. why do they not deny the climat change you might ask.

germany is one of the countries which is very stable in a lot of climate aspects, we don`t have hurricanes or earthquakes or floods (well we had some not too long ago) and we had always strong winters and meh summers - the summers got better by the way that`s a plus for us. also there is not too much sea but still the planing on dikes for the future is a topic.

Edited September 26, 2019 by remember

[Forestluv]

53 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

I look at science as black and white.  It is either this or that.  Shouldn't science be 100%?  When I was in school there were many things that were a certain way and now, when I am helping my children on school work, many things are different than what I was taught.  Now, I ponder and question many things in science.  20 years from now you may feel the same or you may not, but I am quite sure the environment will be fine.  Every generation creates enormous fears which are unnecessary and I'm not going for it.......as I've done in the past.

I think you open up a good point about openmindedness, skepticism and authority. It can be hard to balance. For example, how do I know if I have healthy skepticism or if I am being closed-minded?

Scientific theories evolve over time. Scientists have a limited amount of information at any given time and do their best with the current state of knowledge. 

There are cases in which scientific models are incorrect, cases in which they are partially correct and many cases in which it gets updated. Yet over time, a stronger and stronger case is built due to validation through reproducible experiments and more sophisticated techniques.

You say that you learned a certain set of science and now it is different than what you were taught. I'm curious about what these differences are. I teach biology and I can think of only a few examples that have been overturned over the last 30 years - the vast majority of the progress has been digging deeper and adding details to existing models. This may appear as "different", yet it is more detailed. For example, 30 years ago scientists thought genes code for proteins. This was accepted by all scientists. We now know that genes code for proteins, yet also for various forms of RNA. This doesn't mean the original model was wrong. It means we have added more nuances and details. Foundational scientific models like climate change, gravity and the genetic basis of inheritance are very unlikely to be overturned as bogus. Yet, the models will become more sophisticated over time. 

Do you really think this is a bogus conspiracy? Scientific models have been accurately predicting this. 

 

[outlandish]

42 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You mean the NASA who faked the moon landing and started the round Earth conspiracy?

Heh 

[Baldmunt]

It saddens me that she gets so much negativity. You can clearly see the stage orange and stage green friction in this discussion. Green wants to change things now, yellow counteracts.  Currently i'm working as a consultant for agricultural companies here in the netherlands. Small farmers already made so many investments to reduce emissions and help the environment. The people i work with have a strong resistance against people like Greta Thunberg. As a green-yellowish thinker its really hard to work in this environment even if i understand their frustation. 

This problem is not only a matter of climate change. I think it's more of a mental change. The whole current mental state is only based on external growth. People think with gaining more they will be happier. In nortern european countries as well as some american states we have reached the end of the orange spectrum. I'm pretty curious how this would go further the next couple of years.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Baldmunt

[remember]

@Baldmunt but the discussion about sea level rising should be a huge thing especially in the netherlands - i mean come on you are the best dike builders. how can this not affect the people in the country? you even are the country of windmills. undersealevel

Edited September 26, 2019 by remember

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Baldmunt said:

I think it's more of a mental change. 

To me, it seems like a change from an individual perspective to a collective perspective. I can totally see a farmer who has invested into reducing emissions and taking a loss thinking "Is this climate change stuff even real? I'm losing money on this". 

What do you think is the resistance to Greta? That she is overly emotional and dramatic? That she is demanding people make big sacrifices?

[Baldmunt]

1 minute ago, remember said:

@Baldmunt but the discussion about sea level rising should be a huge thing especially in the netherlands - i mean come on you are the best dike builders. how can this not affect the people in the country? you even are the country of windmills.

Well not all parts of the netherlands are below sea-level. Most of the (intensive) livestock farming is located on the higher parts (east).  The problem is more complex than our human minds can't handle these complex problems.  For example, the farm industry has a very high quality here. But because our gouvernment is asking so many (expensive) compensations a lot of small farmers need to stop. What happens if it they quit? We import meat from other countries where the quality, rules and society isn't that well developed. As leo told in one of his video's, we should support more small businesses. A lot of the money and wealth are in the big companies. With those measures you will strenghten it.

I think the core can be found in our mental state. That's actually where al the polution and greed begins. 

[remember]

@Baldmunt it`s also a question about being a country that already sacrifices a lot for environment, but what can a small country change if the giants don`t change. i can understand that dynamic aswell. how can david do all the work for goliath?

Edited September 26, 2019 by remember

[Scholar]

This thread is a perfect example of why we need epistemology taught in schools.

Free speech without people being able to think for themselves is a recipe for disaster. Maybe China is right after all.

[Baldmunt]

11 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

To me, it seems like a change from an individual perspective to a collective perspective. I can totally see a farmer who has invested into reducing emissions and taking a loss thinking "Is this climate change stuff even real? I'm losing money on this". 

What do you think is the resistance to Greta? That she is overly emotional and dramatic? That she is demanding people make big sacrifices?

That is exactly how they react on Greta. Most farmers i'm talking about are hard-working and don't make a lot of profits. 

Don't get me wrong. I'm planning to quit this job because it is not aligned with my green and yellow values.  So i'm not trying to defend the way that they live and think about money. But people from green perspective should understand that things aren't so easily solved as they think it can be.

Making radical change requires a lot more consciousnes of the way we are living right now.

[remember]

8 minutes ago, Scholar said:

 Maybe China is right after all.

in what? free speach? or maybe about the data on air pollution?

Edited September 26, 2019 by remember

[Scholar]

28 minutes ago, remember said:

in what? free speach? or maybe about the data on air pollution?

About censorship and controlled narrative.