Climate change

[Eamonnca1]

And there you go Eamon, proving my point.

In three quotes you've claimed that scientists understand the origins of the universe,

They do. Just because you don't doesn't mean nobody does.

reconfirmed that you will blindly follow scientific opinion,

"Blindly?" Scientific knowledge is evidence-based.

and attacker me for not doing the same.

I'm attacking you for not knowing what you're talking about and projecting your ignorance onto everyone else.

Look up zealotry.

Done. What do I do now?

[Eamonnca1]

The right is a problem. The right (people who don't believe in evolution) have evolved on the climate as follows:

1 - Climate change is a hoax
2 - Okay, it's not a hoax, but man isn't responsible
3 - Okay, man is responsible, but what about China?
4 - Greta has pigtails. You know who else had pigtails? The Hitler Youth! Ergo climate change alarmists are Nazis!

Some people on the right are at stage 4, others are still at stage 1.

Nice reductionism there.

I'll bite.
8 looming environmental apocalypses in the past 60 years:
1 Silent Spring
2 The Population Bomb
3 Resource Depletion
4 Global Cooling
5 Acid Rain
6 The Ozone Hole
7 Peak Oil
8 Global Warming aka Climate change

1-7 turned out to be either false or highly exaggerated.
And the left expect us to collapse the world economy for no. 8.

Okay, I'm going to pick out one of your little fallacies and focus on that. The ozone hole.

The thinning of the ozone layer was a big problem in the 1980s. It was vanishing at the polar regions and thinning over Europe.

Governments got together and signed the Montreal Protocol, a ground-breaking international agreement to phase out the use of ozone-depleting chemicals in products like aerosols and fridges.

It worked.

The ozone layer has begun to recover.

The Montreal Protocol is hailed as one of the most successful international environmental agreements ever.

If you're trying to argue that governments should not come together to solve big environmental problems, the Montreal Protocol is a really bad example to pick. Without the Montreal Protocol you'd be getting a sunburn with 5 minutes of exposure to the sun.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/09/montreal-protocol-ozone-treaty-30-climate-change-hcfs-hfcs/

[Eamonnca1]

The 1990s Ozone Hole depletion theory was that the use of chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) was destroying the ozone layer surrounding the earth. The ozone would disappear and along with it the protection it offered from the sun. Again the passage of time revealed that this too was grossly exaggerated.  https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/

Thanks for posting the rebuttal to your own argument. From the very link that you posted:

"Scientists estimate that if the Montreal Protocol had never been implemented, the hole would have grown by 40 percent by 2013. Instead, the hole is expected to completely heal by 2050."

You can educate yourself on the rest as well as I can. Look up Google if you're stuck.

The University of Google doesn't seem to be working very well for you, does it?

[five points]

Okay, I'm going to pick out one of your little fallacies and focus on that. The ozone hole.

Discussed that and the acid rain one ad nauseam earlier today when you weren't around. You're free to read back on it if you wish but I'm not going to tread old ground twice in the one day.

Happy to discuss any of the other 6. But do please drop the patronising tone. It only aggravates.

[easytiger95]

If there were 5 natural mass extinctions before, then another natural one is surely inevitable.

I wouldn't possibly suggest that human excess isn't contributing to the event. It might even be speeding it up at a rate of knots. This seems likely.

But proclaiming every environmental change as the result of global warming /climate change is basically two fingers up to a planet that has seen off all its species at least 5 times, and continued to do its own thing throughout. People should take a step back and think about what they're saying, before latching these words onto everything.  That's the point I'm trying to make here.

Re. the bit in bold - so if it was 95+% the result of human activity?  [and its likely 99%+ human activity - as there have been no external events such as notable increase/decrease in solar activity or volcanic ash or from a meteor impact which could be associated to many (if not all!) previous extinction events]

He's right to an extent tho.... everything gets blamed on Global Warming when there are other factors. As an example the increase in intensity of wildfires in the Western US is widely blamed on Global Warming but  research shows that extinguishing every wild fire disrupts the natural cycle of burning and actually creates denser forests (unsurprisingly) with more  fuel and so more explosive fires when they do get going.

But is that not textbook, observable, human activity-caused climate change at work? If we accept your premise (and I'm sure forestry management has a large part to play in wildfire spread) then human activity has contributed to the prevalence of wildfires, those wildfires release huge amounts of carbon into the air, contributing to global warming, which then feedbacks into providing drier, hotter, more combustible conditions for future fires, again in explosively full forests?

It's a bit chicken and egg, but to say that everything gets blamed on global warming, misses the fact that we are to blame for global warming.

[Eamonnca1]

Okay, a question.

The Mayor of Courmayeur is blaming global warming for a part of a local glacier being in danger of breaking away.

Would it be wrong to ask him to consider that if he was somehow able to be be transported fleetingly to this place 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago, that he would likely not recognise the topology of the area in each epoch, and might even think them each as different places?

Again I'm not saying he's wrong in his proclamations. But for anyone to be convinced that the world they grew up in, was exactly as how nature intended it to be forever, well it's a narrow mindset..

There's no need to build strong buildings or carry out seismic retrofitting on older buildings because earthquakes are naturally occurring events.

[omaghjoe]

And there you go Eamon, proving my point.

In three quotes you've claimed that scientists understand the origins of the universe,

They do. Just because you don't doesn't mean nobody does.

Feck! when did they find out?
Been researching and reading up on this for most of my life so I'm all ears on this one!

[omaghjoe]

If there were 5 natural mass extinctions before, then another natural one is surely inevitable.

I wouldn't possibly suggest that human excess isn't contributing to the event. It might even be speeding it up at a rate of knots. This seems likely.

But proclaiming every environmental change as the result of global warming /climate change is basically two fingers up to a planet that has seen off all its species at least 5 times, and continued to do its own thing throughout. People should take a step back and think about what they're saying, before latching these words onto everything.  That's the point I'm trying to make here.

Re. the bit in bold - so if it was 95+% the result of human activity?  [and its likely 99%+ human activity - as there have been no external events such as notable increase/decrease in solar activity or volcanic ash or from a meteor impact which could be associated to many (if not all!) previous extinction events]

He's right to an extent tho.... everything gets blamed on Global Warming when there are other factors. As an example the increase in intensity of wildfires in the Western US is widely blamed on Global Warming but  research shows that extinguishing every wild fire disrupts the natural cycle of burning and actually creates denser forests (unsurprisingly) with more  fuel and so more explosive fires when they do get going.

But is that not textbook, observable, human activity-caused climate change at work? If we accept your premise (and I'm sure forestry management has a large part to play in wildfire spread) then human activity has contributed to the prevalence of wildfires, those wildfires release huge amounts of carbon into the air, contributing to global warming, which then feedbacks into providing drier, hotter, more combustible conditions for future fires, again in explosively full forests?

It's a bit chicken and egg, but to say that everything gets blamed on global warming, misses the fact that we are to blame for global warming.

Not so much as forest are carbon sink so they are part of the natural cycle, once they burn they grow again and so take the the CO2 as they grow and store it until they burn again.
An increase in temps would increase the energy required to burn the fires so sure it would be a factor but negligible (in the Western US at Least) in comparison to the increase in fuel, which yes was caused by human activity.

[Eamonnca1]

I was hoping that if I started this thread we could actually discuss ways to deal with climate change. Instead it's been diverted into the usual crap of trying to convince the flat earthers that scientists understand science better than someone who did a few seconds of "research" on Google and watches Fox News all day. This is one of the reasons why it's so hard to get anything done on this issue. It's like history teachers having to spend 90% of every lesson trying to talk some sense into a small rump of holocaust deniers.

[Eamonnca1]

And there you go Eamon, proving my point.

In three quotes you've claimed that scientists understand the origins of the universe,

They do. Just because you don't doesn't mean nobody does.

Feck! when did they find out?
Been researching and reading up on this for most of my life so I'm all ears on this one!

The Cosmic Background Radiation was discovered in 1964.

[omaghjoe]

I was hoping that if I started this thread we could actually discuss ways to deal with climate change. Instead it's been diverted into the usual crap of trying to convince the flat earthers that scientists understand science better than someone who did a few seconds of "research" on Google and watches Fox News all day. This is one of the reasons why it's so hard to get anything done on this issue. It's like history teachers having to spend 90% of every lesson trying to talk some sense into a small rump of holocaust deniers.

You reap what you sow, you have contributed to the disintegration of this thread probably more than anyone else with your holier than thou BS and ad hominen attacks.
I suggest you close it and try again. Maybe head the new one with Solutions for CC but to be honest do you really think you are going to get many solutions on gaaboard?

[omaghjoe]

And there you go Eamon, proving my point.

In three quotes you've claimed that scientists understand the origins of the universe,

They do. Just because you don't doesn't mean nobody does.

Feck! when did they find out?
Been researching and reading up on this for most of my life so I'm all ears on this one!

The Cosmic Background Radiation was discovered in 1964.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that CMB tells us the origin of the universe? 

[J70]

Ah lads, don't derail the thread! Start another for that stuff.

[magpie seanie]

Lock it Eamonn.

[Eamonnca1]

And there you go Eamon, proving my point.

In three quotes you've claimed that scientists understand the origins of the universe,

They do. Just because you don't doesn't mean nobody does.

Feck! when did they find out?
Been researching and reading up on this for most of my life so I'm all ears on this one!

The Cosmic Background Radiation was discovered in 1964.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that CMB tells us the origin of the universe? 

There it is. The reason why this discussion is pointless.