Climate change is real

Author: Vegasgiants

Posts

Total: 263
#31
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,625
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
People usually like risking their lives. I guess its passed down from our ancestors. 7 million people a year die as a result of pollution. Inhaling Co2 is bad and causes global warming, everyone knows that. We are supposed to breathe in clean air. But I guess thats too expensive. Inhaling non-air substances was always harmful. We are cutting down trees which produce air and remove Co2, and we are building more factories which produce Co2. I guess we are testing our luck to earn money. Money is the root of all evil.
#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Co2 isn't a pollutant. We would all die if we lowered co2 below sustainable levels.
#33
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Co2 isn't a pollutant.
Put a plastic bag over your head and see how CO2 affects you.

Water is great for life too unless you have too much of it

Topic's author
#34
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Why not?   It's the lizard people!!!!!!!
#35
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,625
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
We are increasing it. The only question is how much can we keep increasing it before we all literally die. I wouldnt call that sustainable.
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Purportedly we are trying to decrease Co2. If we reduce it too low, most life on Earth will die.

Earth has had Co2 as high as 2000 ppm, with abundant plant life. Pretty sure Humans won't be able to replicate those conditions.
#37
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
the scientific community
You mean the uncensored and paid scientists?

Sure, they really do care about you.
Oh yeah, the guys who understand science better than the scientists are the politicians that really do care about you.
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Especially the politicians that censor science because they care about you.
#39
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,625
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
We are not reducing it. We increased it by over 60% in the last 40 years. I wouldnt call that good for us. Yes, there is minimum co2 needed, but we are not at minimum. We have too much of it, way past minimum. If we are trying to see what happens when we increase something that we know is bad to inhale and causes global warming, it might not end well for us. Are we trying to start another ice age? Playing with humanity's future by seeing how much damage can we get away with doing is not really smart now when humans are at their most advanced point.
#40
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
We are not reducing it.
I said purportedly, we are trying to decrease it.

We have too much of it, 
Life on earth when it was 2000 ppm (now extinct because of the "too low" ppm) would disagree with you. Those giant megaflora would have been wonderous to walk among.


I would have also liked to see a hell pig (at a distance)
Topic's author
#41
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a conspiracy!!!!!!
#42
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,625
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I am talking in terms of human life. Do you want to breathe in less air, more Co2 and other stuff? Bad for brain. We are trying to create a smart civilization. For that, we need clean air. We are not going to help ourselves by increasing Co2.
#43
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
More plants also mean more oxygen. 2000 ppm is a rather relative tiny amount. CO2 isn't poisonous at such low levels. You would need it to be around 20000 ppm to see any effect. There was much more oxygen when the planet had 2000 ppm CO2, which created all sorts of gigantic animal life forms dependent on high oxygen concentrations.

Oxygen good for brain. Great for mammals.
#44
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,625
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
More plants also mean more oxygen. 2000 ppm is a rather relative tiny amount.
That would be terrible. Countries with high Co2 have high number of respiratory diseases. We are not dinosaurs. Its bad for us. Most of oxygen is produced by ocean. If we keep increasing Co2, we risk temperatures rising even higher. The goal is to have clean air. Its not to have high oxygen plus high Co2. We breathe out Co2. Should we risk disaster so that we can keep using coal? Disaster is strongly correlated with Co2. When the disaster is heading our way, we change. We cant keep doing same and expect different result. Nuclear energy is better.
#45
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
 high number of respiratory diseases. 
you are probably confusing CO with CO2

Countries with high Co2
There's no country with anywhere near 20,000 ppm co2.

Should we risk disaster...
Like I said, most Earth life went extinct when the planet got colder and there was less co2. That's the real risk backed by history. There was more life when it was warmer with more co2. Both plant and animal. There's no risk if we know the conditions for life.
#46
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,625
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Should we risk disaster? The disaster is heading our way. The entire scientific community agrees. The temperatures are rising. Even if you reject that Co2 causes respiratory problems it is correlated with, do you also reject that it causes a rise in temperature it is correlated with? Scientists predicted a rise in temperatures. However, they were wrong about the degree. Temperatures rose more than scientists predicted, making bad problem worse and giving us less time to react. I dont even need to say that there will be rising sea levels, floods, natural disasters that will harm agriculture. Our system, human system, is delicate. It is not as stable as many think. We rely upon farming, which relies upon good harvests, which rely upon good weather. Are all the scientists lying to us? Ice melting in itself is a problem. Do we ignore the problem?
#47
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Should we risk disaster? The disaster is heading our way. The entire scientific community agrees. The temperatures are rising.
1) All progress involves some risk. 
2) The "disaster" has been "heading our way" ever since the first prophet was able to predict doom thousands of years ago.
3) The "scientific community" first off is irrelevant as science is proven by experimentation, not esoteric consensus. The greatest scientific advancements happened outside of popular opinions, so it's more accurate to say popular consensus is more anti-science than science. Especially as it applies to the advancement of science. The loudest voices don't matter to the process of the scientific method.
Secondly, in the last 20 years, the "scientific community" has made wildly divergent climate doom claims of which more than half are already disproven. There is no reason to believe the remaining "disaster" claims outside of experimentation. And popular consensus errors are not just limited to climate prediction errors as popular consensus was also wildly wrong about Covid predictions and the predictions for the vaccine.

What this means is that the greatest risk for society is to continue to listen and give blind credence to consensus instead of science, which is always right or wrong no matter how many people choose to agree.

  1. All progress comes with some level of risk, right?
  2. People have been talking about these disasters forever, even back in the day when the first predictors were doing their thing. It's kind of crazy how long this idea has been around.
  3. So, like, the "scientific community" might not be the main deal here. Science is more about experimenting and proving stuff, not just a bunch of people agreeing. Some of the most awesome scientific discoveries happened when everyone was against the idea. So, saying that what everyone thinks is more anti-science than science might be true. And you know what? In the last couple of decades, scientists have been all over the place with their predictions about climate disasters. Half of those have already been proven wrong. So, it's totally fair to be skeptical about the remaining disaster claims and just look at the facts. Plus, it's not only about climate stuff; they were way off with Covid predictions and vaccine stuff too.
Basically, what I'm saying is that the biggest risk we've got is sticking blindly to what everyone agrees on instead of looking at the actual science, which can be right or wrong, no matter how many people buy into it.

#48
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
I don't have to say anything in this thread because greyparrot said it all.
#49
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Vegasgiants
Name the scientific organization that says that

I have almost 200

 200 of what?

#50
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Appeals to authority.
#51
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Basically, what I'm saying is that the biggest risk we've got is sticking blindly to what everyone agrees on instead of looking at the actual science, which can be right or wrong, no matter how many people buy into it.
That said, many Americans, most Americans, are not capable of doing their own research on climate science or evaluating the validity of the conclusions of climate scientists. Let scientists evaluate the conclusions of other scientists, especially scientists who are experts in the field, and ordinary citizens should focus on the credentials of the scientists reporting scientific research and conclusions. That’s really the best ordinary citizens can do, exercising their critical thinking skills.

#52
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,625
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
This is not about blindly trusting the scientific community. We are doing something which is obviously causing us harm. We have much more Co2 in the atmosphere than we need. We are increasing it. You say that we should keep doing it. Yes, the scientists were wrong about temperatures. It was worse than they expected. The weather is already starting to get worse. The sea levels indeed have risen. You are not denying all that. You merely say that it wont be so bad. You refuse to trust the scientific community, yet they are the ones with most experience on the issue. What they are telling us is slowly coming true. I am not talking about some end of the world. Its not worth all this for coal, when we have alternatives.
Topic's author
#53
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Stephen
Scientific organizations that agree with AGW theory 
Topic's author
#54
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Who should we appeal to for climate science?
#55
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Especially the politicians that censor science because they care about you.
I suppose the only person we can really trust is Jimmy Dore.
#56
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Vegasgiants
Who should we appeal to for climate science?
Not who. What.

The best argument.

Not just for climate science, not just for science, for all questions.
#57
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Sidewalker
Especially the politicians that censor science because they care about you.
I suppose the only person we can really trust is Jimmy Dore.
... or Freeman Dyson or John Clauser (people who said what Greyparrot said long before Greyparrot said them)
#58
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,625
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Its all about coal, really. There are plenty of reasons to replace coal. Global warming is just one of many reasons. Of course, people think that if they deny global warming, they will save coal. They really wont. People never learn until it hits them in the head many times.
#59
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea
Its all about coal, really. There are plenty of reasons to replace coal. Global warming is just one of many reasons. Of course, people think that if they deny global warming, they will save coal. They really wont. People never learn until it hits them in the head many times.
Well stated.
Topic's author
#60
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The best argument from who?   You do your own climate science?