Science Denial

[lesliedellow]

It's a denial is the conclusion of science. Data that supports a preconceived idea is accepted and data that does not is rejected. That's what scientists do today with this topic. Scientists that receive money from government find in favor of AGW and scientists that get money from private companies find against it.

Now is that a fact?

Last time I checked, Royal Dutch Shell was a publicly quoted company, not a department of the American Government.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I said, everyone and every generation has their own problem. Dealing with climate change is just one of them. It is no more serious than other problems like drougt, or war. There is no need to predict war. It will happen. We handle it when it happened. Human can always react much faster than climate change.

Oh no, changes to our actual environment are far more serious than any war or occasional normal drought. A drought would reduce the crop yield of a region for, what, perhaps 5 years at most? Environmental disruptions could make that entire region become a desert for centuries. As long as chemical and nuclear weapons are not used, war is also quite temporary in its negative effects compared to climate change.

Our species is adapted for specific environments, and we are capable of compensating for some of our biological limits with technology, but not everyone has the resources to do it, and resources would become more scarce overall as the climate change progressed. Will our species survive this? Probably, but that doesn't mean we'll make it out unscathed.

Furthermore, as the climate has been changing far more rapidly than it should, we might not be able to compensate for it in time.

 

[juvenissun]

Oh no, changes to our actual environment are far more serious than any war or occasional normal drought. A drought would reduce the crop yield of a region for, what, perhaps 5 years at most? Environmental disruptions could make that entire region become a desert for centuries.

Climate change happened all the time. But human beings are smarter to respond to the change successfully. We can absolutely not present the change. But we can certainly deal with and survive the change.

We should not waste money to worry about future global climate change, but try to deal with the current local climate (mostly, weather) challenge.

 

[pitabread]

Climate change happened all the time.

The problem is that it appears to be happening much faster than it would normally otherwise (barring major natural disasters).

 

[JackRT]

Ya ... a couple.

First of all, qv the video starting at 02:04.

Her nameplate says her name is Tom Blumenthal!

Second of all, unless I missed it, she doesn't say one word about why she's leaving the History Channel.

Thirdly, has anyone addressed the fact that if you fill a glass of ice cubes up with water ... right to the rim, and let it set until all the ice melts, not a drop of water will run over the edge? In fact, the level of water will drop. That's because water expands as it freezes.

Let the ice caps melt, the ocean level will drop ... not rise.

If all the ice in the world was floating ice then you would be almost correct. Sea ice floats with about 90% of its volume submerged. That 90% will contribute nothing to a rise in sea level should it melt but the 10% that floats above sea level will. That is only a small contribution to the problem. The real problem is in the land based ice caps mostly Antarctica and Greenland. In addition there are glaciers in mountain ranges all over the world plus small ice fields mostly in the Canadian and Alaskan Arctic. If all that ice should melt completely the rise in sea level would be very dramatic --- as much as 200 feet.

 

[AV1611VET]

If all the ice in the world was floating ice then you would be almost correct. Sea ice floats with about 90% of its volume submerged. That 90% will contribute nothing to a rise in sea level should it melt but the 10% that floats above sea level will. That is only a small contribution to the problem. The real problem is in the land based ice caps mostly Antarctica and Greenland. In addition there are glaciers in mountain ranges all over the world plus small ice fields mostly in the Canadian and Alaskan Arctic. If all that ice should melt completely the rise in sea level would be very dramatic --- as much as 200 feet.

Okay, thank you.

 

[just a believing guy]

Oh no, changes to our actual environment are far more serious than any war or occasional normal drought. A drought would reduce the crop yield of a region for, what, perhaps 5 years at most? Environmental disruptions could make that entire region become a desert for centuries. As long as chemical and nuclear weapons are not used, war is also quite temporary in its negative effects compared to climate change.

Our species is adapted for specific environments, and we are capable of compensating for some of our biological limits with technology, but not everyone has the resources to do it, and resources would become more scarce overall as the climate change progressed. Will our species survive this? Probably, but that doesn't mean we'll make it out unscathed.

Furthermore, as the climate has been changing far more rapidly than it should, we might not be able to compensate for it in time.

Environment is adapted to human species, not the other way around.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Environment is adapted to human species, not the other way around.

Wrong.

 

[just a believing guy]

Wrong.

How so?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How so?

Because it is wrong. If the environment was adapted to the human species, there would always be water in the deserts, there would be no poisonous plants or insects, crops would grow in abundance everywhere, and that's just a few examples.
Do you even know what the term 'adapted' means?

 

[just a believing guy]

Because it is wrong. If the environment was adapted to the human species, there would always be water in the deserts, there would be no poisonous plants or insects, crops would grow in abundance everywhere, and that's just a few examples.
Do you even know what the term 'adapted' means?

Human species adapt the environment ever since the missing link between the early Homo and the Homo sapiens.

Crops don't grow in abundance there where there are no people. Let's settle a couple of million of Chinese people in the desert and you will have abundance of water in the Sahara for example.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Human species adapt the environment ever since the missing link between the early Homo and the Homo sapiens.

No, we don't 'adapt' the environment. We change the environment.

Crops don't grow in abundance there where there are no people. Let's settle a couple of millions of Chinese people in the desert and you will have abundance of water in the Sahara for example.

And this comment shows that you really don't understand what you are talking about. Environments can't adapt. They are static in they are. They can erode, collapse, become arid, etc, but they cannot adapt because they are just that large and are not biological organisms. Animals adapt to their environment because they have to or they die.

 

[just a believing guy]

No, we don't 'adapt' the environment. We change the environment.



And this comment shows that you really don't understand what you are talking about. Environments can't adapt. They are static in they are. They can erode, collapse, become arid, etc, but they cannot adapt because they are just that large and are not biological organisms. Animals adapt to their environment because they have to or they die.

Well, some parts of the environment act as if they were (that would apply 'they are') biological organisms. I just can't give an example, but I've heard about it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, some parts of the environment act as if they were (that would apply 'they are') biological organisms. I just can't give an example, but I've heard about it.

Well, until you give me an example of said environment, I'll have no choice but to not believe you.

 

[just a believing guy]

Well, until you give me an example of said environment, I'll have no choice but to not believe you.

OK, it doesn't matter anymore if environment is alive or not. What matter is that we are able to manipulate the environment to humans' benefit, i.e. we could evade draughts etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So essentially, the OP is fake. It's not about science denial, but about whether or not people buy into the politicized opinions of climate change shakedown artists.

What "opinions"?

Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Fact: we pump massive amounts of said gas into the atmosphere
Fact: in the past 100 years, we have doubled the amount of said gas in the atmosphere
Fact: the nasty effects of this practice, has been known for more then 50 years now

Facts aren't opinions.

Does anyone else get tired of people calling their opinions science and calling those who don't agree with them "deniers?"

I get tired of people who confuse facts with opinions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We should not waste money to worry about future global climate change, but try to deal with the current local climate (mostly, weather) challenge.

Completely irresponsible.

 

[just a believing guy]

What "opinions"?

Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Fact: we pump massive amounts of said gas into the atmosphere
Fact: in the past 100 years, we have doubled the amount of said gas in the atmosphere
Fact: the nasty effects of this practice, has been known for more then 50 years now

Facts aren't opinions.




I get tired of people who confuse facts with opinions.

A scientist's belief is called fact, and these beliefs change over time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

OK, it doesn't matter anymore if environment is alive or not. What matter is that we are able to manipulate the environment to humans' benefit, i.e. we could evade draughts etc.

Manipulating the environment to our ends is not the environment adapting to us.

 

[just a believing guy]

Manipulating the environment to our ends is not the environment adapting to us.

On second thought, environment really adapts to us. It is of course packed with life forms which are influenced by humans. The life forms affect the environment in order to ''evolve'', thus causing the adaptation of the environment. The adaptation of the environment is thusly indirectly caused by humans for the humans.