Science doesn’t prove anything, science tests hypothesis and develops theory’s to explain the natural world. As long as the theory holds true we act of the information. Science can disprove things but never prove things. Scientific proof does not exist
So while we can never prove man made climate change all the evidence supports the theory that the earth is warming unnaturally and humans are the cause, we therefore need to act on it.
And before you yell at me and say science does prove things know that I’m a biology grad student, I know what I’m talking about.
@BearDaniels, with all of that being said, the main point of conjecture is that the main solution the activist are outing forward is socialism and neo-pagan cults. Using an example other then the bloated horse carcass that is the new green deal. You have alarmist going back to the 70's and 60's that keep saying twelve more or six more years.
It's not the science people don't trust it's the people that are using this as a cudgel that we fear.
@That one lurker, exactly! We can all do our part to help but throwing billions of dollars at it (especially being one of the lesser polluting countries [USA]) isn't gonna help anything except for making billionaires richer.
@BearDaniels, I mean yes, but that literally (and yes I do mean literally) applies to every other relationship between two or more objects/entities in our universe. Nothing is truly a ‘fact’ just a well documented phenomenon that just so happens to occur when certain elements/variables/conditions are applied
@That one lurker, think of it as being like an illness similar to a staph infection. There longer you take before treating it, the more aggressive the treatment becomes to stop it, and the worse it gets.
@Tylerdurdin, I don’t know where you got the info that we’re one of the lesser polluting countries, but using data I got from Gapminder I found that the US and China are the 2 highest CO2 emissions per capita by FAR. We talk a big game, but I’m not sure how much we actually do
Here we see a very strong geographical clustering of mismanaged plastic waste, a high share of the world’s ocean plastics pollution has its origin in Asia. China contributes the highest share of mismanaged plastic waste with around 28 percent of the global total, followed by 10 percent in Indonesia, 6 percent for both the Philippines and Vietnam. Other leading countries include Thailand (3.2 percent); Egypt (3 percent); Nigeria (2.7 percent) and South Africa (2 percent). We discuss why such countries have high mismanaged plastic waste rates later in this entry.
Whilst many countries across Europe and North America had high rates of per capita plastic generation, once corrected for waste management, their contribution to mismanaged waste at risk of ocean pollution is significantly lower.
@Tylerdurdin, one volcano eruption puts out more co2 then the cars and vehicles in the country do (or at least pretty close). In my county in my state we have emission checks when we get our cars inspected. If the car doesn't pass for emissions then you can't drive the car on the road (legally). It's not like every car is rolling coal and blowing a ton of smoke into the air.
@Tylerdurdin, yes we have decent emissions standards but they aren’t as strong as those in Europe. The shear number of cars makes petroleum fuels the biggest contributor to CO2 in the US. Not far behind cars is natural gas and coal. The easiest thing to do would be to swap coal power plants with solar farms and wind turbines. Coal power generation is real common in developing nations but for some reason the US never stopped using it. Coal power plants are also very bad for your health if you are forced to live anywhere near one.
If I am correct (not saying I support this position) but I believe the argument is not whether climate change actually exists, but whether or how much humans contribute to it or if its a more natural terrestrial phenomena. Unless you get to like rural Alabama where all they drive are jacked up diesel trucks and tractors, they might argue that
@The nOly One, even with that argument, if you look at a plot of global climate over the millennia, the climate has never, with the exception of cataclysmic events like supervolcano eruptions and meteor strikes, changed so radically in as short a span of time as it has since the industrial revolution. the earth does have climate cycles, but it takes a second graders graph interpretation skills to see this is far FAR too radical to be part of a natural cycle.
not saying you dont know this or dont believe this, just commenting to the argument
@Hoban Washburne, I’m not arguing the semantics of either side of the argument, but I do think it is important when having an argument to represent the other sides argument accurately so you can provide evidence and studies to go against their argument (I also think the whole calling someone stupid or claiming they don’t have a brain for not believing your side of the argument gets us nowhere, its no way to change someone’s mind and it hurts your own position by making you (not specifically you just anyone in general) seem like an entitled prick). Be civil and if the other person doesn’t give the same respect its not worth the argument
@Hoban Washburne, ok but how long ago in history are we talking about in terms of recorded climate? Cause how accurate is that information? Like I’m it trying to be rude I’m just wondering how accurate measuring climate was hundreds/thousands of years ago.
Jesus Christ, when the comment section is spammed with long comments,
thats when you know to gtfo
@VibratingButtChomper, to be fair, none of them are downvoted to hell (yet), so its at least civil so far
@The nOly One, shut the fvck up rētård
@VibratingButtChomper, bruh are you serious?
Literally just wrapping up a class on this issue in college (liberal arts if you want to know the slant in ideology). The main points I’m getting from it. There are more important issues to focus on. Yes it is happening but to what degree of it is caused by humans is anyone’s guess from 50%-100%. The whole idea of the cataclysmic tipping point is not without some based arguments but is largely well stupid. There’s not a lot of evidence as what we should do, yes green energy but installing those systems (which are fairly inefficient to begin with) are massively expensive and not available to everyone. The most widely available solar doesn’t work half the time, hydro only works if you have a flowing water source(take out 70-80% of places) and is not enough, windmills kill endangered bird species don’t get fined for it and receive government money to build more and kill more birds. People are too afraid to go nuclear despite it being the best option. And one small detail that sticks with
@dwnzsnwlion, me is that we still don’t know just how much clouds effect climate change and the range on it was pretty large I’ll have to find the chart. Honestly the biggest problem to climate change rn is poverty.
@dwnzsnwlion, I feel like windmills can be improved. One idea I have is to paint the windmills so they are very bright on the ultraviolet spectrum, since many birds see in that spectrum. That would hopefully make the windmills more visible to birds and reduce collisions.
Though they may be attracted to it, so maybe just start with a small number and see how it goes, try different paints etc.
Also obviously don’t put them in migration corridors, that’s just dumb.
To be honest though it’s not actually much of an issue. Lots of birds die flying into plate glass windows every year without serious impacts on the overall population. Same goes for windmills, but it is an arguement against windmills, just not a particularly strong one.
@BearDaniels, yea I agree those steps to improve windmills make sense. A big issue though is that the mills kill a large amount of insects which attracts birds of prey. The issue with them is partly the color and location but also that issue of dead bug smell.
@dwnzsnwlion, I’ll let in you in a well known secret, 90% of the naval forces on earth run on nuclear power. The US navy has run entirely on nuclear power for nearly 75 years and has never had an incident, because there are two main ways to produce nuclear power, with a pressurized water reactor, and with an unpressurized reactor. One of these way is self moderating, so it would take an act of sabotage for anything bad to happen, and even then there are a million natural failsafes due to the thermal expansion and thermal conductivity of the used materials. Tl;dr is we have the tech to make 100% safe nuclear plants, but the goal of the green new deal isn’t energy independence, it’s to turn us into a socialist state
@Joeyc1, lol sounds about right tbh most although nuclear power plants are extremely safe just by themselves
Why are you booing him, he’s right!
If global warming was real we would be pushing nuclear with the green new deal not using it as a justification to turn us to communism
I love when smart people argue...I get to lear a thing or two on both sides of the fence.
I'm in this post and dont like it.