Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

Oil-Sands.jpg

 

Stefan, I have some questions about your climate change skepticism.

 

But firstly I have to say that I agree with you that bigger government isn't going to solve the problem, if there is one. 

 

I'm wondering if you deny desertification, carcinogenic smog, hypoxic dead zones in the ocean, ocean acidification, record breaking droughts and wild fires, etc. 

 

From my understanding of biology I recognize that humans, and most organisms on earth (except for the little bastards living off the chemicals spewing from sea floor vents) require the functioning of various environmental conditions which are very specific. Take for example phyto plankton, these little guys require a specific ph for their habitat. These humble creatures are the source of about 50% of our atmospheric oxygen. Our activities of heavily polluting the atmosphere and by leaving so much shit to run off into the oceans, we've begun to fiddle too much with the oceans conditions. 

 

Or lets take carcinogenic smog. It's likely that you've seen 'made in china' hundreds of times in your life. Chinas air pollution is horrific, I'm sure you've seen the photos. 

 

I say we don't need government to solve these problems, in fact, they make these problems considerably worse. What we need is personal responsibility for our economic demand, awareness of the effects of our purchases. Since I was born, something like 40% of species have gone extinct. I recognize that humanity is creating a new geological epoch on this small planet, we have megalopolises outstretched across our continents, and 40% of the earths land mass is now farmland. I know that in an ecosystem, all organisms are connected to each other. The earth is mostly a closed system and we're disrupting the fragile conditions our species relies on for survival. And I don't mean the people who can have their food grown and synthesized in labs. 

 

Regardless of your position on global warming/climate change, do you understand the effects of environmental pollution and degradation on other people and sentient organisms?

 

Thanks for reading, I'm interested in your thoughts on this. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJUA4cm0Rck

 

 

 

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reasons that people usually "deny" catastrophic global warming are specific to that topic. There are real concerns about the science. Many climate sceptics are former environmentalists who actually looked at the science and were shocked at what they saw, Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat.com being one example. Many supporters of climate change alarm are science groupies who don't actually look at the science themselves. Personally, the argument I find most compelling is: if the evidence for catastrophic CO2-induced climate change is overwhelming, why don't they just present a concise summary of that evidence? Instead over the years we've had a string of weak papers to try to convince the public that recent warming is something unusual, such as MBH 1998 (inappropriate statistical technique that creates hockey sticks, selective use of time series that happen to be hockey-stick-shaped) and Gergis et al (withdrawn just hours before they would have been independently found out for not having detrended their data as they claimed to have).

Regarding other forms of pollution, one of the problems with climate change campaigning is that it diverts vast resources away from addressing real pollution problems. The climate change movement doesn't actually care very much about the environment (they don't mind if their policies such as biofuel mandates damage the environment), just as socialists don't care very much about the poor (they don't mind if their policies keep the poor that way).

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Many climate sceptics are former environmentalists who actually looked at the science and were shocked at what they saw, Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat.com being one example.

How many of the climate sceptics are climate scientists? When it comes to this kind of issue (atomic bombs don't exist, there is no evolution, earth is flat) there are three kind of options: A) The scientists involved are a bunch of idiots and an amateur, or a group of amateurs know better. B) There is a vast conspiracy that includes all scientists to make them continuoulsy come up with false studies and what not. C) The scientists studied the issue at hand for a long time and know more than you about it.

Choose wisely.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A+B.  This is very well established BY LEGITIMATE SCIENTISTS.

And any fool can just look.  Search climate fraud and spend your next hundred hours reading about illegal math, illegal physics, falsified data, money trail, etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of you forum posters have a doctors degree in English? When it comes to this kind of issue (making straw men, non arguments, earth is a waffle) there are three kind of options: A) The doctors in English posting anything on internet are a bunch of idiots and amateurs, or a group of forum posters know better how to post things in English. B) There is a vast conspiracy that includes all doctors in English to make them continuously come up with misspelled text and what not. C) The doctors in English studied posting on internet for a long time and know more than you about it.

Choose wisely.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is just one of many sites with facts: Lord Mockton Foundation

The temperatures do not match with the models. Temperatures are lower.

Redistributing wealth from the West to third world countries, as it happens now in the course of climate summits, does not change the climate.

The personal adviser of Angela Merkel, Joachim Schellnhuber, chief of the PIK and master mind behind the climate politics, openly advertises for a global CO2 bank that should issue CO2  certificates for every country on earth. Production is only allowed within this certificates. Food should be produced near the equator, while some industry would be allowed in colder regions. According to Schellnhuber global power should be held by 100 to 200 climate experts, watching the situation, and if danger is imminent, they "Quickly must invent a new world society".

Not even Karl Marx dreamed of such possibilities.  Maybe the climate will be warmer in 100 years. However if the ideas of these maniacs would ever be implemented, there will be no mankind any more that could care.

 

Air pollution is a different topic. Many interesting facts can be found here: The moral case for fossil fuels

Energy consumption and wealth are correlated since mankind found out how to use fire. The wealthier a society, the cleaner is air and water, because only wealth allows the investments into technology for keeping the environment clean. 

 

Thanks to President Trump, the climate train is a bit off the rails now :thumbsup:

 

regards

Andi

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British Colombia and Washington State are experiencing record wildfires right now. Living in one of the wettest regions of the world, I can't see the nearby mountain lines due to smoke.

When are we going to demand more action against mother nature because of climate change?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the skeptics is that they fail at the first part of the Ideological Turing Test, reproducing correctly what the other side says. I invite you to investigate one of their talking points ("In the 70s they predicted a global ice age in the near future!1!") to see if you can pass that first step.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ofd said:

The problem with the skeptics is that they fail at the first part of the Ideological Turing Test, reproducing correctly what the other side says. I invite you to investigate one of their talking points ("In the 70s they predicted a global ice age in the near future!1!") to see if you can pass that first step.

Do you have a degree in philosophy, or specifically philosophical skepticism? If not, why should we take anything you say about these skeptics seriously?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If not, why should we take anything you say about these skeptics

My point is that you shouldn't. Check it out yourself.

I welcome criticism. You can see for yourself if the claims these skeptics make are based on valid science or not. One of their easiest talking points to refute are the 70s ice age thing. The 3% human influence thesis is a bit harder to refute, but also doable if you know a bit about isotopes and basic physics.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ofd said:

My point is that you shouldn't.

Ok. Here is you slightly out of context:

Quote

I follow the principles laid down in the last 200 podcasts.

Why do you follow the principles of a non academic person, who is without any official position, and who is 'sceptical' of a lot of things in society?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30.7.2017 at 4:34 PM, ofd said:

How many of the climate sceptics are climate scientists? When it comes to this kind of issue (atomic bombs don't exist, there is no evolution, earth is flat) there are three kind of options: A) The scientists involved are a bunch of idiots and an amateur, or a group of amateurs know better. B) There is a vast conspiracy that includes all scientists to make them continuoulsy come up with false studies and what not. C) The scientists studied the issue at hand for a long time and know more than you about it.

Choose wisely.

Actually, the group of scientists who spread the climate catastrophe is very small. But as usual, they get their money from the state and are backed up by the media.

The rest keep their mouths shut - if you do not sing with the chorus, you are a climate-denier, you are evil and do not care about the future, if you still argue you are a nazi. Most facts against the so called CO2 catastrophe come from retired scientists.

Same with the so called "Energiewende" in Germany, those ridiculous windmills: I know many engineers in Germany, but not a single one who is convinced this "technology" could work. I mean its easy - everbody with just basic physical knowledge knows that it won´t work, wind energy (or solar panels) is not sufficient to deliver power for an industrialized country. 

But meanwhile there is whole industry depending on state money, e.g. many people make money letting a parcel of land for rent for windmills. They will never vote for any party who would want to stop this madness.

 

regards

Andi

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why do you follow the principles of a non academic person, who is without any official position, and who is 'sceptical' of a lot of things in society?

Moving the goalpost. Also, why shouldn't I? The ability to put together meaningful sentences that constitute a philosophical position doesn't depend on you having studies the subject at a university. The ability to put togehter meaningful formulas that constitute a hypothesis requires you having studied the subject at detail.

Sokal has shown that editors of a philosophical magazine can be fooled easily by putting together more or less random words. Putting togehter random formulas doesn't fool a first year physics student.

 

Quote

Actually, the group of scientists who spread the climate catastrophe is very small.

Can you elaborate on that? What do you mean by climate catastrophe? The standard model, so far, or the implications of AGW in media?


 

Quote

you are a climate-denier, you are evil and do not care about the future, if you still argue you are a nazi. Most facts against the so called CO2 catastrophe come from retired scientists.

I don't think that I read a journal where a theory was called evil. The dichotomy is likely / unlikely not good vs evil.

 

Quote

I mean its easy - everbody with just basic physical knowledge knows that it won´t work, wind energy (or solar panels) is not sufficient to deliver power for an industrialized country. 

Totally agree. The problem however is not the lack of energy, but the costs of storing energy and the centralized energy grid. Once the costs for batteries go down or new cheaper technologies for saving energy show up, the current system will be replaced.

 

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ofd said:

Can you elaborate on that? What do you mean by climate catastrophe? The standard model, so far, or the implications of AGW in media?

Well, years ago one could read about different opinions concerning global warming. I remember an article in the "SPIEGEL" (big german magazin) where a biologist gave lecture on the benefits of a warmer climate.  There were discussions e.g. about the Sahara and wether this desert would become more green or more dry.

Gradually the tone changed from a discussion to alarmism. We all had to change behaviour, drive less, heat less, eat less, but pay more to save the world. The west supposedly is responsible for drought in other countries, causing people to starve and to flee, for rising sea levels and so on. Peak of hysteria was a professor (for music:D) in the Austrian city Graz who demanded death penalty for everbody who denied a global warming. Todesstrafe für Leugner des Klimawandels (german).

Most opposite views vanished from the mainstream media and moved to blogs, many of them pretty scientific and backed up by data.  Sahara is becoming greener, the number of polar bears is greater than some years ago, and the global climate does not match in any way the predictions made by the state scientists, it´s cooler. The rise of the sea level(s) is slowly but steadily the same til the end of the last ice age. The only source who comes to a different conclusion is NASA with satelitet data. NASA claims a higher rise, but its one source against many monitoring stations around the globe. And as we know, EU want the rising sea level to grant asylum for refugees.

 

The PIK, the "Potsdamer Institut für Klimaforschung" (institute for climate research) is completely state ownend. Everbyody can read their work in the net, they provide two variations: The first is pretty scientific, they admit that reality does not match predictions. The second is a much shorter dossier distributed among politics and media. And in this dossier one can read that every measure has to be taken to prevent the climate becoming hell.

Furthermore, the AGW fabrication is utilized e.g. by Angel Merkel to increase state power. 500 billions Euro are the costs of the so called "Energiewende" so far. Meanwhile even some mainstream media question this waste of money, however a small number of journalists (the best, of course) left the state media and make their own blogs. Politicians talk about banning the gas driven cars within the next 13 years or so. I personally hope they make it earlier. Still too many people are not aware how fascism sneaks in, and what of manness is left in Europe might fortuntately end in an uprise when they come and take away your car:D

 

regards

Andi

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ofd said:

The ability to put together meaningful sentences that constitute a philosophical position doesn't depend on you having studies the subject at a university. The ability to put togehter meaningful formulas that constitute a hypothesis requires you having studied the subject at detail.

Ok, so what was your first post in this thread about? It was so triggering and nauseating I don't even want to quote it. You were appealing to authority 'scientists'. But now you have taken a kind of 180. I recognize the need to study or practice something to know about it, but some superficial graduation, or government/EU/UN paycheck scientist/official position does not automatically make you a real rational expert. Though there are plenty of good examples. And like already mentioned, social fear among them.

I would feel pretty bad about myself if I made an appeal to superficial authority like you did. But you had no problem posting that?

 

Is it your contention that man made global warming is a big and real problem?

What do you think about lord Monckton?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Gradually the tone changed from a discussion to alarmism. We all had to change behaviour, drive less, heat less, eat less, but pay more to save the world. The west supposedly is responsible for drought in other countries, causing people to starve and to flee, for rising sea levels and so on. Peak of hysteria was a professor (for music) in the Austrian city Graz who demanded death penalty for everbody who denied a global warming. Todesstrafe für Leugner des Klimawandels (german).

Yeah, I am German too. But how is that related to the topic at hand? It's not like the media is able to communicate information about any topic in a neutral way.

 

Quote

The first is pretty scientific, they admit that reality does not match predictions. The second is a much shorter dossier distributed among politics and media. And in this dossier one can read that every measure has to be taken to prevent the climate becoming hell.

I will look into those.

 

Quote

but some superficial graduation, or government/EU/UN paycheck scientist/official position does not automatically make you a real rational expert.

Of course it doesn't. A rational expert has his or her work reviewed.

Quote

What do you think about lord Monckton?

It doesn't matter what I think about him. He has a bunch of two hour long lectures. I noticed that he failed the first task of critisizing a theory, namely summarizing the positions correctly. Furthermore, you learn next to nothing about meteorology or climate science when you follow it through. I am sure he is a good classical philologist though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RamynKing said:

 

Normal climate change or man made climate change?

I found the "draft" of the report. But dont have motivation to look for cliffnotes. Anyone have some?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.popsci.com/here-are-some-key-takeaways-leaked-climate-change-document

"Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are primarily responsible for the observed climate changes over the last 15 decades. There are no alternative explanations. There are no apparent natural cycles in the observational record that can explain the recent changes in climate (e.g., PAGES 2K 2013; Marcott et al. 2013). In addition, natural cycles within the Earth’s climate system can only redistribute heat; they cannot be responsible for the observed increase in the overall heat content of the climate system (Church et al. 2011). Internal variability, alternative explanations, or even unknown forcing factors cannot explain the majority of the observed changes in climate (Anderson et al. 2012)."

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RamynKing said:

especially emissions of greenhouse gases

We should all stop showering, so that we stop adding more water vapour into the atmosphere. All involved climate scientists and climate politicians should stop showering, and recommend everyone else to do the same, to show how serious they are about this.

All fountains, water parks, and perhaps even all fire departments should be closed as well, to prove how dedicated they are to this.

Water rationing is a given, as excess water consumed can be converted into vapour and added to the atmosphere through breathing and sweating.

The planet is at stake here!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now