Climate change real or hoax?

[TopHatProductions115]

Climate Change is theory, based upon given data sets - just like any that came before it. While it has always been true that the weather was/is changing, Climate Change (as a theory) attempts to explain why such is the case. It is not confirmed as fact, because theory is not the same as fact. Theory is based upon fact.

 

https://lifehacker.com/the-difference-between-a-fact-hypothesis-theory-and-1732904200
 

Furthermore, science was never meant to be "believed in" for that is a dogmatic principle found in the very basis of religious practice - that of which science should not try to emulate. We've seen what happens when the two mix, and it is indeed an unholy union. Science is to be strictly based upon evidence, observation, and other empirical/objective factors. Its use in politics was a mistake, and has led us down  path where things like this happen:

• https://theconversation.com/why-we-should-stop-labelling-people-climate-change-deniers-105555

Where people attempt to treat the issue like evangelism  Stop trying to "evangelise" Climate Change, and improve the data behind it instead if you want to bring more people to your side of the conversation. There's a reason why there is not real consensus on the matter of this echo chamber:

• https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-con-consensus-not-only-there-no-97-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many

Also, notice the language in this recent statement:

Quote

Over 95% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that the earth is warming

Think that can't be affected by who allows what to be published? Especially in a time where the sciences are now both publicly funded and used in mainstream politics? Take a look here:

• https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/sep/24/what-other-term-is-there-for-climate-science-deniers-other-than-denier
• https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/reddit-censoring-climate-change-deniers/

Now, try reading this:

• http://blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/culr/2016/11/07/why-free-speech-does-not-include-denying-climate-change-a-legal-explanation/

See the issue? Science needs to step out of the political arena, and start acting simply as a guiding force again. Otherwise, it will end up becoming a practice of dogmatism, bound by twisted fact and misinformation. It will become like the Catholic Church and other entities who were notourious for censoring the words of those who dared to disagree:

• https://www.wired.com/2012/06/famous-persecuted-scientists/

 

 

Do keep in mind, though - not all scientists were attacked for their views alone:

• http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/historical-apologetics/79-history/596-scientists-executed-by-the-catholic-church.html

 

With that, I end my tirade.

[Unhelpful]

Science is science and idiots are idiots. Anti-science is idiotic. Anti-vax, climate science deniers, evolution deniers / creationists, and flat earthers are all in the same stupid boat.

[straight_stewie]

1 hour ago, JoeyDM said:

evolution deniers / creationists

Prove to me that a higher being didn't set evolution in motion.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

4 hours ago, TheBelgianBuilder said:

Sure thing mate, I'm willing to change a lot to fix the climate. But why does it ALWAYS have to cost money. Buying an electric car is way more expensive than buying a diesel or petrol. Laying down solar panels is mad expensive and only pays itself back in like 15 years, if your solar panels even last that long. Not to mention solar panels aren't really environment friendly either. Thing is, people surely want to change and live greener. But for some reason the gov thinks living greener should cost more.

 

Also : In Belgium the taxes on petrol and diesel are massive. It's a majority of the income of our gov. What if we decide to go full electric. Those taxes are gone, where do you think they will come and get them? That's the thing, everything has to be more expensive and saving the climate should cost money. Why? I don't understand why I have to pay more to live greener, while that is what supposedly everyone in the world wants in order to save the climate. 

 

Something isn't quite right here, and that's why I'm fishy about all this. Not to mention the people who move for climate (all of our younger generation) mostly go on vacation by using a plane or a car. Which is in my opinion just a plain joke.

do you also decide the validity of anything based on how much it costs? buying anything that isn't mass produced is always expensive, compmared to electric cars in the begining the prices have gone down a lot

 

what does pricing of petrol has to do anything with climate change? what does politics have to do with climate change? do you think climate cares if things are expensive or not? you are not the centre of the universe, step out of it, stop being selfish. whether you like it or not facts are facts. 
 

Quote

Something isn't quite right here, and that's why I'm fishy about all this. Not to mention the people who move for climate (all of our younger generation) mostly go on vacation by using a plane or a car. Which is in my opinion just a plain joke.

 

what does that have anything to do with climate change? why are you virtue signaling ? did people question the validity of science when the ozone layer was damaged due to the refrigerators people were using back in the days? the entire world came together and banned the substance that was damaging the ozone, why is now all of a sudden its fishy when there's 100 scientist saying there's a problem but you choose to cherry pick the one scientist that says its not? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

here's when politics is ruining the progress
 

 

 

[Unhelpful]

14 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

Prove to me that a higher being didn't set evolution in motion.

The party making a claim has the burden of proof. Your claim is that a higher being set evolution into motion, so the burden of proof is on you to prove that, not on me to disprove it.

[Glenwing]

47 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

Prove to me that a higher being didn't set evolution in motion.

 

37 minutes ago, JoeyDM said:

The party making a claim has the burden of proof. Your claim is that a higher being set evolution into motion, so the burden of proof is on you to prove that, not on me to disprove it.

No religious discussions here please. Feel free to start a PM conversation if you both want to continue.

[straight_stewie]

8 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

No religious discussions here please. Feel free to start a PM conversation if you both want to continue.

My point wasn't going to be religion. My point was going to be that even the greatest minds on Earth, who have spent their entire lives thinking of such things admit that they can't prove whether or not a higher power put things here. Trivially, we can't understand what put the big bang in motion. How did the super dense particle get there, and what upset it's state?

Or in other words: Calling someone an idiot because they subscribe to a different, but still just as valid theory, of how things work than you do is also being an idiot. The point "a theory from a scientist says so, so it must be true" is a falsity known as the "authority argument".

I sincerely apologize if that wasn't clear or if I stepped too close to the line of law on that one. Another route I could have taken is the "simulation theory" disproof, which would have probably been more in line with the CoC.

None of this is to say whether I believe in a religion or not.

[Bajantechnician]

On 2/24/2019 at 4:14 AM, Gix7Fifty said:

Here in Southern California we are having record breaking cold temperatures, so....

Hell yeah, cold as shit in the morn dude.

[wasab]

I know Earth had survive through periods more extreme than that is now. E.g. snowball Earth, gamma ray burst, Siberian trap, giant meteor hitting the Earth, thermal maximum

(if you think Earth is warm now, oh boy, you should take a bath in the equatorial sea of Paleocene–Eocene).

 

Chances are even if we denote a few thousand  nukes, the Earth biosphere will quickly recover within a few thousands years. 

 

Thus the problem we worry now is not whether Earth will survive but whether, self-servingly, mankind will survive its own mistreatment of the planet. 

 

I say we don't need to worry about that because we are extremely resourceful. Pretty sure we can survive a few raising sea levels perfectly well.

 

Our greatest enemy to our survival is ourselves. To ensure humanity can move forward into type I civilization, we must end wars, eliminate poverty, disease, wide wealth gap, discrimination, human rights abuses, totalitarian regimes , and promote justice, and equal opportunity for everyone in the world. 

 

 

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, wasab said:

To ensure humanity can move forward into type I civilization, we must end wars, eliminate poverty, disease, wide wealth gap, discrimination, human rights abuses, totalitarian regimes

None of these things will happen.

War is inherently human.

There is no system without poverty.

Disease will always persist if life does.

Some people will always work more to earn more.

[aezakmi]

18 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

None of these things will happen.

War is inherently human.

There is no system without poverty.

Disease will always persist if life does.

Some people will always work more to earn more.

Plus it's not like we know what a "Type 1 civilization" is since we never met one, there's a theory that says all of those are already dead since the light and signals we get here at Earth were created 3 billion years ago

[TechyBen]

On 2/24/2019 at 9:46 AM, LoGiCalDrm said:

 

And Jayz2Cents doesn't think there should be restrictions in gun laws in USA. And Linus has very fanboy-ish attitude towards anything Star Wars. Why do you drag them into this?

 

This isn't political nor religious, though. It's view of the world based on personal opinions, scientific facts and so on. If someone would start to blame political people on that one country, then it's different matter.

Sadly, anything that requires us to change our worldview, or change what we are doing, will have influences in other areas of life. Thus the problem.

 

It's really hard to seperate a protective response, or encourage someone to change, or teach someone they could possibly be wrong. OR in the case both parties are right (such as Elvis being real, but Elvis not being an alien) understanding we may actually agree, but be talking about different things.

[Unhelpful]

2 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

My point wasn't going to be religion. My point was going to be that even the greatest minds on Earth, who have spent their entire lives thinking of such things admit that they can't prove whether or not a higher power put things here. Trivially, we can't understand what put the big bang in motion. How did the super dense particle get there, and what upset it's state?

Or in other words: Calling someone an idiot because they subscribe to a different, but still just as valid theory, of how things work than you do is also being an idiot. The point "a theory from a scientist says so, so it must be true" is a falsity known as the "authority argument".

I sincerely apologize if that wasn't clear or if I stepped too close to the line of law on that one. Another route I could have taken is the "simulation theory" disproof, which would have probably been more in line with the CoC.

None of this is to say whether I believe in a religion or not.

I agree, this isn't mean to bash religion, I'm just talking about the idea of evolution and the Burden of Proof.

 

That's my exact issue with the creationist idea, if you accept that a higher being did something that humans can't comprehend, the learning and investigation stops there. You say that we can't understand what put the big bang into motion? No, we just don't yet, but if we as a race don't meet a premature end we will understand eventually.

 

How can the greatest minds of earth prove or disprove something that likely exists only in the human imagination? Something immaterial can't be proven or disproven. 

 

How do you think it is just as valid of a theory? The other theories have hard proof and evidence, the creationist idea (you can't call it a scientific theory since it's literally magic) is just mashing an obsolete view of the world with new information because you've been told something your entire life and need to adapt.

 

Saying "X is impossible, therefore God" is the same as "My book fell off the shelf at night with nobody in the house, therefore ghosts" because you can't comprehend what happened, it's just silly. My main issue with it is that it completely halts investigation! When you accept that it's God, ghosts, or magic, you no longer investigate the root cause, you just chalk it up to being incomprehensible and divine. Meanwhile it may have been night-construction at an adjacent/connected building causing vibrations! (Actual scenario I encountered, a CD at a bookstore fell of a wall and the owner chalked it up to ghosts... It was likely due to construction happening at night to the connected building, given the timeframe).

 

The fact remains: the burden of proof lies on those making claims. You made a claim that a higher power may have set evolution into motion, now you have to prove it. If you can't prove it, then it can be discarded and ignored until you are able to provide proof. It is not my job to try to disprove everything you say, it is your job to PROVE things that you say.

[wasab]

44 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

None of these things will happen.

War is inherently human.

There is no system without poverty.

Disease will always persist if life does.

Some people will always work more to earn more.

So a futuristic post scarcity society like that in star trek is impossible? What happens when we invent matter replicator and invent biological immortality?

[Drak3]

Just now, wasab said:

So a futuristic post scarcity society like that in star trek is impossible?

Yes.

 

Just now, wasab said:

What happens when we invent matter replicator and invent biological immortality?

As per our understanding of physics, both of those things are impossible.

[straight_stewie]

28 minutes ago, aezakmi said:

Plus it's not like we know what a "Type 1 civilization" is since we never met one, there's a theory that says all of those are already dead since the light and signals we get here at Earth were created 3 billion years ago 

We know exactly what a Kardashev Type 1 Civilization is.

It's definition is, rather simply, "A civilization that can use and store all of the energy available on it's planet."

Knowing what such a civilization can do and what one is are two different things.

[aezakmi]

3 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

We know exactly what a Kardashev Type 1 Civilization is.

It's definition is, rather simply, "A civilization that can use and store all of the energy available on it's planet."

Knowing what such a civilization can do and what one is are two different things.

Yeah but none of us has seen a real alien

 

I want to believe.

[GoldenLag]

Just now, aezakmi said:

Yeah but none of us has seen a real alien

 

I want to believe.

rule of looking at stars and space stuff. 

 

"its not aliens, untill its aliens"

[wasab]

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes.

 

As per our understanding of physics, both of those things are impossible.

 

Biological immortality is possible

https://www.rd.com/culture/animals-that-live-forever/

 

 

Matter replicatior or more accurate, matter converter, is entirely possible.

The device just recombines elements, make heavier elements, split atoms to make lighter elements. How does physics make this impossible? We can already turn lead into gold. 

 

[aezakmi]

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

turn lead into gold

how to turn lead into gold yahoo answers rwanda

[SpaceGhostC2C]

7 hours ago, TheBelgianBuilder said:

Sure thing mate, I'm willing to change a lot to fix the climate. But why does it ALWAYS have to cost money.

Because if it was cheaper then you would be already doing it on your own, hence there would be no need for further action. We already do everything that is individually beneficial for each of us and also environmentally friendly on our own, just by following self-interest. Any additional action towards preservation will naturally come at an individual cost - not necessarily at a net cost (the whole point is that sustainability is a net benefit), but an "internalized" cost (in the sense that not all the benefits of sustainability, nor all the costs of pollution and contributing to climate change, are internalized by individual decision-makers). 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, wasab said:

 

Biological immortality is possible

https://www.rd.com/culture/animals-that-live-forever/

It is not possible for Humans. 

[wasab]

10 minutes ago, floofer said:

It is not possible for Humans. 

With clever gene editing it will. 

[Guest]

Just now, wasab said:

With clever gene editing it will. 

It's only a small part of the picture. Many people know that the Hayflick limit of the cell is what primarily guides ageing cells into senescence and will not further divide, this is due to our telomere strands on the ends of our DNA. If we re-activate the gene(s) that assist in the generation of telomerase to increase our telomeres, and therefore solve the Hayflick limit will we live longer? Not by any measurable amount at all. This activity already occurs in malignancies and stem cells - cells with very unique architecture. Gene editing can only go so far. 

 

The most prominent aspect of cell survival is the environment which it is in. 

[wasab]

10 minutes ago, floofer said:

It's only a small part of the picture. Many people know that the Hayflick limit of the cell is what primarily guides ageing cells into senescence and will not further divide, this is due to our telomere strands on the ends of our DNA. If we re-activate the gene(s) that assist in the generation of telomerase to increase our telomeres, and therefore solve the Hayflick limit will we live longer? Not by any measurable amount at all. This activity already occurs in malignancies and stem cells - cells with very unique architecture. Gene editing can only go so far. 

 

The most prominent aspect of cell survival is the environment which it is in. 

Huh? I thought we age because our gene aged? How does environment come into this? If we dump old and young into the same environment, the young is still likely to outlive the old.