A little truth for a change.

[Daniel2]

So, the planet's climate has remained stable and unchanged since the
Big Bang, then ?
It has only started changing since our industrialisation during the last
couple of centuries ?
That is, if I'm following the reasoning being applied here...

 

[Fitzroy]

Largely my sentiments also.
Is it about doing the best for the planet, or the best for ourselves ?
We certainly have an inflated view of our importance and place in
the natural world.

The planet will be just fine irrespective of our actions.

The problem with the 10% survival is it’s unlikely to be you and yours, and it’ll be darn unpleasant for all involved.

 

[Daniel2]

The planet will be just fine irrespective of our actions.

The problem with the 10% survival is it’s unlikely to be you and yours, and it’ll be darn unpleasant for all involved.

Absolutely. Of both those assertions there is no doubt.
We think we're important. Mother Nature probably has
a slightly different opinion.

 

[Fitzroy]

So, the planet's climate has remained stable and unchanged since the
Big Bang, then ?
It has only started changing since our industrialisation during the last
couple of centuries ?
That is, if I'm following the reasoning being applied here...

The climate of the earth has swung between very different points over the earth’s 4 billion years of existence. Evidence suggest 100million years ago temperatures were much warmer than now, the fossil record shows cold blooded amphibious creatures much farther north than they exist today.

The observation at the moment is the rate of change is much greater than seen previously and shows a sudden change to warming vs the recent (5-10k yr) trend of fairly stable temperatures.

 

[Daniel2]

The climate of the earth has swung between very different points over the earth’s 4 billion years of existence. Evidence suggest 100million years ago temperatures were much warmer than now, the fossil record shows cold blooded amphibious creatures much farther north than they exist today.

The observation at the moment is the rate of change is much greater than seen previously and shows a sudden change to warming vs the recent (5-10k yr) trend of fairly stable temperatures.

Therein sort of lies my point.
10,000 years in a 4 billion year existence is a fraction of a blink of an eye.
As a species we construct the notion of time into something that we're
able to comprehend, The planet's concept of time, and life's cycle, is
something inconcievable to most of us.
Even our entire existence (Homo Sapiens) here (3-400,000 yrs ?), is mostly
negligable when seen against 4 billion years.
At the moment, the world's climate has been able to support human life.
But, we know for a fact, ,that that wasn't always the case. Who's to say
that as the climate continues it's evolution, that the time will come where
human life can no longer be supported, and will eventually be replaced by
other forms of life, which could not exist in the present climate.

 

[dickm]

Which is why papers are peer reviewed and statistical results published such that bias can be tested for and avoided. The truth does indeed lie in the middle, in the middle of what the statistics say, not in the middle between the statistics and some whacko cherry picking imbicile.

We are all posting on electronic devices developed based on experiment and observation , powered by an electrical system, developed based on experiment and observation, kept healthy by drugs based on experiment and observation. The scientific method is not opinion based, it is evidence based. Yes it is not incorruptible and it is swayed by what is funded, but to say that thousand of scientists whom have researched the subject are all part of some mass lie is utter nonsense, and that one bloke can see the truth is even more ridiculous.

My favourite thing about climate change is that people bang on about how it’s a hoax, the climate has always changed. This is true and with that change has come mass species extinction. The planet will be absolutely fine with the change, ffs it survived a massive bloody meteorite strike. The problem is our survival, and to sit around twiddling our thumbs whilst the evidence says our climate is rapidly changing is idiotic at best. Even if the evidence eventually shows another unknown cause, then saying ‘I told you so’ won’t be possible if we’ve done nothing as a species to adapt our society to the change.

Honestly I think people just don’t want to change what they do and how they live so spread this garbage as an excuse not to change. I’d much rather people say you know what I don’t care and I’m going on living how I want to. I can honestly say I’d respect that position so much more.

Sorry rant over, but the scientific method is responsible for the amazing standard of life we all enjoy, and I get annoyed when it is held hostage by people who don’t understand it, or can’t be bothered to understand it.

Fitz.

Excellent summary. And given that you put your location as Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe, you'd better watch your bacl!

 

[John Brown]

Interested to see the source of your claim that just stop oil are funded by the oil companies?

Don’t confuse biological sex and gender, gender is a sociological construct, biological sex a scientific fact. There are more than two sexes, a very small percentage are born intersex, however I understand that is not related to you point. The gender question is a whole separate debate with a very different data set as it is difficult to objectively measure someone’s gender.

It's not remotely related to climate change either, apart from the fact that the same people who disbelieve CC also rant about diversity generally. There's a strong correlation, but it could just be coincidence.
I know (old)people who scoff at CC on the grounds that they have no children or grandchildren, and so it's of no consequence to them. Weirdly, they tend to be the same people who get incandescent talking about gender diversity, which is also of little or no consequence to them.

 

[Adam W.]

And the ULEZ, lets not forget to rage at the ULEZ.

 

[Jacob]

I personally like the graph showing the rate of increase in the consumption of frozen peas and that of divorce rate. The correlation is beyond debate statistically. Divorce rates are driven by the consumption of frozen peas!
Just because two lines on a graph correlate, a statistical way of proving there is a relationship does not mean one actually exists. Just like CO2 and climate change.

Not like climate change at all. The CO2 greenhouse effect has been known since 1856 and it is demonstrable in the lab. If there was not a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and climate change you would have to explain why the greenhouse effect was not operating and what other factors could be causing climate change.

 

[Fitzroy]

Excellent summary. And given that you put your location as Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe, you'd better watch your bacl!

Indeed I am in the pay of the devil, and have been for 25 years. It’s been really interesting, and at times difficult, to experience the journey we are going through as a world from inside an oil company.

 

[Jacob]

@John Brown Not really, it’s just an insulator, but, what gets forgotten all gases in the atmosphere are also insulators. CO2 is at a level of circa 0.04% so no much, and we have increased that level throughout the last century by (round numbers) 0.01% since 1960. Lets put it into context, the wired has been up at over 3% are flurushedm was far greener with a greater diversity of life. Increase in CO2 are not catastrophic. Dropping CO2 levels dish to c0.02% which is where we were heading is catastrophic.

Not catastrophic to "the planet" but catastrophic to human life as we know it. Not sure what the difference is. We could even become extinct

 

[SammyQ]

Just because two lines on a graph correlate, a statistical way of proving there is a relationship does not mean one actually exists. Just like CO2 and climate change.

Deema, that is just wilful nonsense. Statistics, proper statistics, not the dossy, careless, averages and percentages garbage pumped out by snake oil salesmen (sorry, politicians) are a robust and proven way of estalishing relationships. Try ANOVA and regression for example.

 

[Jacob]

....... Who's to say
that as the climate continues it's evolution, that the time will come where
human life can no longer be supported, and will eventually be replaced by
other forms of life, which could not exist in the present climate.

Thats exactly what is being said by the science. Except it's not so much about replacement with "other forms of life".

 

[Cobbs]

@John Brown Not really, it’s just an insulator, but, what gets forgotten all gases in the atmosphere are also insulators. CO2 is at a level of circa 0.04% so no much, and we have increased that level throughout the last century by (round numbers) 0.01% since 1960. Lets put it into context, the wired has been up at over 3% are flurushedm was far greener with a greater diversity of life. Increase in CO2 are not catastrophic. Dropping CO2 levels dish to c0.02% which is where we were heading is catastrophic.

So an increase of 20%. The rest of your post was pretty much unintelligible.

 

[Jacob]

@John Brown Not really, it’s just an insulator, but, what gets forgotten all gases in the atmosphere are also insulators. ......

Not forgotten at all e.g. Methane is an even worse "Insulator" but tends to be less stable and fades away with time.
Read all about it: https://royalsociety.org/news-resou...nge-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

 

[Stan]

I personally like the graph showing the rate of increase in the consumption of frozen peas and that of divorce rate. The correlation is beyond debate statistically. Divorce rates are driven by the consumption of frozen peas!
Just because two lines on a graph correlate, a statistical way of proving there is a relationship does not mean one actually exists. Just like CO2 and climate change.

Exactly.

Another way of expressing this was a comment I read somewhere else. To paraphrase it ( because I cannot exactly recall the original):

"All red-haired left-handed men born in [state your chosen location] are going to die!" [ cue dramatic shocking music jingle].

This of course is a meaningless statement when looked at carefully. Death is one of life's two certainties.

Let us not confuse correlation with causation.

Throughout its life earth has always changed. We are driving some of this change, partly through sheer increase of numbers.

The question in my mind is can/will we evolve fast enough, ( mentally, physically and/or behaviourally), to survive this change? I suspect the answer is "probably not".

Sometimes I am ashamed to be a member of my own species.

 

[DrPhill]

Indeed I am in the pay of the devil, and have been for 25 years. It’s been really interesting, and at times difficult, to experience the journey we are going through as a world from inside an oil company.

It is very strong minded of you to be able to see outside the bubble that any industry creates.

 

[Jacob]

..... We are driving some of this change, partly through sheer increase of numbers.

The current issue is about the change due entirely to high levels of fossil fuel use. Population numbers don't count as most of the excess usage is by the top 1%

 

[Jake]

Deema, that is just wilful nonsense. Statistics, proper statistics, not the dossy, careless, averages and percentages garbage pumped out by snake oil salesmen (sorry, politicians) are a robust and proven way of estalishing relationships. Try ANOVA and regression for example.

And it is not just statistics, the mechanism is well understood scientifically (very unlike the peas causing divorce).

 

[deema]

Deema, that is just wilful nonsense. Statistics, proper statistics, not the dossy, careless, averages and percentages garbage pumped out by snake oil salesmen (sorry, politicians) are a robust and proven way of estalishing relationships. Try ANOVA and regression for example.

I’m well versed in Fisher and full factorial but generally used arrays as a full Taguchi practitioner. I also used to work with the FDA for the statistical analysis of life supporting medical equipment, which was an interesting experience.