It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
You're absolutely right in assuming that a number of politicians abuse GW for the sake of their own political motives. That, however, doesn't mean we can pretend it's all a hoax. What I'm sceptical about is whether we're seeing the signs of climate change as obviously as people say. Not every little meteorological fluke is a direct result of the Greenhouse effect. I mean, say you've been an obsessed smoker for 40 years and you suddenly develop a nasty cough. There's a chance one has to do with the other, there's a chance you're close to lung cancer, but all the same it might just be a case of a nasty cough - period. So unexpectedly high Winter temperatures aren't necessarily a sign of the climatic apocalypse.
But overtime we will see a rise in disturbed weather patterns. We will partially compensate by trying to adjust ourselves but problems are inevitable. Our models predicted that certain plants like the potato and cacao plant will be among the first to suffer from the climate change. Indeed, both have been less productive these last few years. In time, less cacao means more expensive chocolate. Same for coffee and other things.
Another observable fact is grapes. Italian wines are made of specific grapes. The ones they used to grow prolifically in the very southern regions of the country, have in the last decade been moving up north, bit by bit. It gets warmer in the North and too warm in the South.
How about exotic animals? Certain species of spiders, snakes and insects that only survive in certain climates have been moving away over the years, expanding or rather moving their natural habitat to places in which they couldn't survive before.
Even if only 50 % of all the indications of a dangerous climate change were true, it'd still be more than enough to be concerned about the future, about our future, about our immediate future.
Excuse me while I laugh! Yes, that makes perfect sense for people to even think it's okay to arrest someone for having differing opinions. If these clowns are even remotely serious, then that's pretty scary!
Count me in as one of those "climate change" deniers. I am one, and I am proud to admit this. There is NO WAY one can make a definitive conclusion regarding climate change based on such a limited set of data points, i.e. the last 50 years or so. Plus climate change has been going on continuously since the Big Bang, so I don't think this is what is being discussed. I think most people know that the issue is how much man has affected climate change, and I personally think it's minimal at the very best.
That so many so-called scientists claim that the climate change argument has been settled is disingenuous at best, and borderline treasonous at worst. First of all, I don't believe that nearly 100% of climate scientists believe that the climate change debate has been "settled". That's statistically impossible. Second, if these people even know what the definition of the word science means, they would know that a theory (which is all that is) is not set in stone and that a theory can be constantly tested and changed. That's what the word science means. That something believed is constantly challenged. This is something that is taught in third grade, and something that everyone who is educated should know! So yes. Pardon me why I remain skeptical.
Wow, good thing scientists don't only use data from the last 50 years! Because it would be very silly if they did.
treasonous to whom? The USA？ Science? Are you implying they're not actually scientists by calling them "so-called"?
Why is it statistically impossible. Nearly 100% of doctors believe in the germ theory of disease. Nearly 100% of biologists believe in the theory of evolution.
I doubt you'll be able to find any prominent scientists saying that climate science is set and stone and doesn't need to be tested and changed, but you're welcome to try. The one aspect of climate science that most of them agree is 'settled' is that mankind is having a significant impact on the earth's climate.
I'm sure they do study beyond 50 years. Maybe to clarify, I should have said as far back as actual temperature records have been kept, which for most places on this planet run from 50 to 200 years back. But still a tiny fraction of a second compared to this planet's entire history.
Treasonous because under no circumstances do you arrest someone for difference of opinion. But if you want to go back to the Nazi era or the time of the Soviet Union, start arresting people just because they dare disagree with someone. That's how these two bleak times of our planet's history started. And I have news for you. It won't end well!
And no, I'm not saying they aren't actually scientists. But they are not applying the principles of science very well if they think that everything has been settled.
True, but doctors have been able to test that theory with evolutions in treatment of disease over the years. Biologists also have had time to prove the theory of evolution. But scientists have not proven whether climate change is caused by human activity. They claim that an increase of CO2 increases global temperature, but they have not been able to prove that all that CO2 comes from humans. Most CO2 may very well come from the natural global and planetary occurrences that have taken place over the life of this planet and the life of the solar system. Also, none of the calamities that they have predicted have occurred either. And there is proof from the interior of glaciers that there have been far warmer periods on this planet during times when there were no people around and therefore no industry. In short, there are far too many variables that have not been examined yet where every scientist can proclaim that climate change science has been settled.
And that's the part that I don't believe is "settled", on contrary to what anyone from the scientific and political community will have you believe. But even if they thought it was, you just defeated your own argument by saying that climate science needs to be tested and changed. That is completely contradictory to what people are saying when they say climate science has been settled. And you can go on YouTube and find hundreds of examples of people saying just that. I for one though don't believe anything has been "settled". I'm not a scientist per se, but as a professional Civil Engineer I have plenty of scientific background and based on my education, I just find it hard to believe that there aren't bigger forces out there that control most of the climate change mechanisms. Forces that have the potential to cause much more change than people do.
Thanks for admitting that you're completely unqualified to critique the work of climate scientists. If i want to build a bridge I'll call you. If I want to have brain surgery I'll consult a neurosurgeon, and if I want to know why the climate changes, I'll consult a climatologist.
You have me wrong here. I think I am very qualified when it comes to climate science. Like I said, the basic fundamentals of science everyone learns in grammar school through high school, and through introductory college courses as well. I think I'm very well-qualified to know what constitutes science, and how to evaluate climate. I can probably read charts and infrared satellite data and come to a completely different conclusion than a lot of scientists in regards to where our climate temperature is heading. I am also very skeptical that we really do have the warmest year on record.
Seriously though, I posted my educational background not to pat myself on the back, but to show that I am qualified enough to learn on my own what I don't know about climate science even if I don't have a degree in it. And I think from a common sense standpoint, I don't think it's smart to rush to a conclusion saying that calamity is about to strike the globe based on a few years of warming or cooling. As far as I can remember, it still gets cold in the winter, and hot in the summer. And while there are some variances here and there, I don't see any major changes in global temperature. If anything it's gotten cooler the last few years with the exception of this year which is being steered by a strong El Niño. But what do I know. I'm just an in qualified person to have an opinion on the subject.
=D>
Thanks. I appreciate any support I can get regarding this issue. :)
Well, I appreciate that you find my opinions entertaining, but I don't think I'm far from the only person who feels this way.
=))
Rather like a pre-med undergrad butting into a doctor-patient meeting and saying "hey, I understand basic science, why don't you let me diagnose you instead?"
I'm sure your conclusions will be very different. Because unlike you, some people have made climate science their life's work and have published respected peer-reviewed articles on the subject. Of said peer-reviewed articles, 97% accept the current consensus that man is significantly changing the climate.
Your screen name seems familiar for some reason.
I do post on another Bond message board and I do use the same screen name. So perhaps you have posted there as well.
97% is an awefull lot of scientists agreeing about the climate change but you as a layman know more than people who studied the actual matter. But you focus on the wrong matters.
But then again denying is easy if you do not know what you are actually denying. If you deny that the ever growing and consuming humanity does not leave a rather large footprint with it consequences that you are one engineer I would not like crossing a bridge build by your knowledge. As you fail to recognise that even if you disagree there is a shitload of data about weather and our current problems with nature itself to worry about change which is undeniable.
But I guess you believe in Jesus and his family as well.
So by the time everyone's on board, it could possibly be quite difficult to do anything about it.
Let me just clarify one thing before I go on here. St. Mark, if you have a problem with people like me who do believe in Jesus, that's certainly your prerogative, but please leave that discussion for another day. I don't know what a person's belief in religion has to do with the climate change debate.
Now, the 97% "consensus" of scientists supposedly agreeing that there is a global warming and climate change is a myth. The 97% number came from a graduate student at the University of Illinois in 2009 who interviewed less than 150 climate scientists. That doesn't sound like a huge consensus to me. Also, an Australian scientist John Cook wrote a book in 2011 about climate change skepticism and stated that he examined scientific papers written about climate change, but only 34% of those papers even stated an opinion about climate change. And out of that 34%, 97% of them did say there was climate change, but that's where that number came from. 97% out of 34%! Again not a very big consensus. So pardon me while I question some of these numbers.
And again with someone telling me that I'm not qualified to make an opinion! As I stated above, I don't trust all doctors either. There are many corrupt doctors out there who will prescribe anything to anyone when it's not needed in order to line their pockets and the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry. There are also plenty of doctors who misdiagnose diseases and conditions, even if some of them weren't intentional. But it does happen a lot. If people just accepted any diagnosis out right, there would be a lot more malpractice suits going on because a lot more people might be dead due to a misdiagnosis! That's why it is imperative for people to question doctors just as I feel it is imperative to question the climate change theory. And yes, this is just a theory but the fact that we've had pretty much steady global temperatures over the past 19 years says quite a lot to me that we may not fully know yet what's really going on with global climate.
:))
That said, one needs but a spark to set off a fire. Our industrialization undoubtedly served as a catalyst for climate change. The correlations are clear, even if the causality is not. Yet.
Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Fact: CO2 emission keep drastically increasing.
Fact: [img][/img]this.
I recently heard the a number that really surprised namely the percentage of Americans that believe that they will in their lifetime will experience the end of times. This group has some vested intrest that some apocalypse will happen so deny any warnings and let it happen because their God will rescue them.
O:-)
Amazing how the faithful believe in somebody whose existence cannot be proven but when they see actually evidence the deny it, look the other way or do their best to make up stories of why scientific evidence is incorrect.
Unfortunately, @A_Kristatos, it does have something to do with it. Religious people often cling to dogma and superstition, and it happens a lot that they reserve the intellectual right to refute scientific evidence in favor of what complies with the Bible, a book written by peasants and sheep herders two thousand years ago who thought the Earth to be flat. I'll forbear from saying that you are one of those people who can't think for themselves since that would constitute an obvious untruth given your degree, but religious stubbornness is one thing I'd like to erase from this planet sooner rather than later.
:P
The problem I have with climate change is the economics against it. In order to make any real impact you need to get all of the major players on the world stage to jump in on the bandwagon...which is not something that seems likely, at least in my lifetime. Human nature is always to take the path of least resistance. There's always going to be external forces (as in economic pressure) pushing against climate change incentives.
Say for example, the US goes through with implementing some regulations. Now say China, which for this example, stays status quo. It inevitably makes doing business in the US more cumbersome and more expensive, giving China the upper hand, economically. So what incentive does the US have other than "for the good of mankind" to purposefully put itself at that disadvantage? Only until public at large in both countries feels the pressures/effects of climate change or until eco-friendly alternative methods become economically superior (not just feasible), will any real action take place. I just don't think we're anywhere near there yet.
Speaking of which, if anyone is willing to donate $50,000 for a green cause, I would gladly take that money to buy a used Tesla. Just sayin'...
I'm assuming that's supposed to be real funny. Again though, don't get mad at people when they call you out when all they are trying to do is have an intelligent discussion on a serious subject.
Darth, I appreciate the intelligent response from you along with your willingness to contribute to a civil discussion, unlike some people who will resort to name calling when they don't agree with people.
Regarding your response, I am glad you are willing to understand that there are multiple forces at work when it comes to CO2 levels on this planet. That being said, even if I were to agree that man is contributing to the increasing levels of CO2, the fact that you acknowledge other forces at work here show me that it is not so cut and dry to conclude that man is drastically raising the CO2 levels on earth. It's possible, but other sources need to be researched since we don't fully understand all the mechanisms which drive this planet. There are so many contributors to the fluctuating levels of CO2 in addition to those you listed above. Perhaps even sun spot activity influences global temperature more than CO2.