On the issue of global warming:

On the issue of global warming:
The least favorable consensus-polls estimate a scientific consensus of 91% among experts in their field which agree on that global warming is real and happening thanks to human pollution. The most extreme preach about absolute doom of the human race within centuries. As a student pursuing a master in electrical and enviromental engineering I, along with the experts in these fields, can vouch for the math and physics adding up, for those of you who hasn't studied this field. When there is such a consensus among leading scientists, why does conservatives insist on claiming that global warming is "natural" or not happening at all, when 91% of people who dedicate their lives to this, says otherwise?

Going of the assumption that you believe these 91% of experts are wrong: If we make a conservative estimate of a 10% chance these studies actually speaks the truth, is it worth the risk of not stopping what we are doing and look into this further before we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere? A very generous 10% chance of eradicating the human race, are we willing to take that risk?

I hope you are familiar with he precautionary principle, and urge you to use it in this case.

Other urls found in this thread:

weathermodification.org
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Global warming is real, but the "human pollution" is all the population booming in africa, india and china, not most nations that people seem to be blaming for it, though russia could seriously stop dumping their waste to the ocean here its really idiotic. Also the it would be getting warmer even if we didn't exist, just slower, we're still technically living in the ass end of the latest ice age.

Okay, firstly I don't care.

Secondly:
>the math and physics adding up
Is entirely irrelevant and you should understand why.
MATH DOES NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM ABOUT REALITY.
PHYSICS IS ABOUT PERFECT ACCURACY, NOT ROUGH PREDICTIONS, A PHYSICIST CAN NOT PREDICT THE WEATHER.

It is about THE MODEL, NOT ABOUT THE MATH OR THE PHYSICS.

> why does conservatives insist on claiming that global warming is "natural" or not happening at all
Because they are dead before it affects them, if it were real.

>Going of the assumption that you believe these 91% of experts are wrong:
100% of the Experts at one point where wrong on classical mechanics...

> As a student pursuing a master in electrical and enviromental engineering
So you have zero expertise in the relevant fields...

I'm for investing money into CO2 scrubbers
There are solutions to be had where we keep burning the same stuff but keep the CO2 from reaching and staying in the atmosphere

I'd rather not tear down modern society and return to the 1800s way of life
You're free to live off the grid if you want

>Okay, firstly I don't care.
Nothing I can do to convince you otherwise i assume.

>MATH DOES NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM ABOUT REALITY.
Mathmaticians will disagree. Everything we know about physics and the laws of our reality has its roots in maths.

>100% of the Experts at one point where wrong on classical mechanics...
Being wrong in the past doesnt mean they are wrong now. As being right in the past doesnt mean they are right now.

Will you not acknowledge there is even a slim chance that they are right?

If global warming is real then what do you suggest to curtail it beyond abandoning all use of electricity?

I agree. Returning to the stone age is not plausible. Searching for solutions and applying existing ones is the primary goal as of now.

Abandoning the excessive use of electricity. And making sure the necassary use of electricity is being made from sources which promotes less global warming. Also putting money into RnD to help our understanding of nuclear power and how to be rid of waste material.

95% percent of the "scientific community" also denies Newtonian Physics in regard the WTC1, 2 and 7.
With 9/11 however, the reality is more that most scientists just shut up about it, are scared to speak out or pretend not to look into it.
It might be the same with Climate science

what isn't appreciated nearly enough is that global warming, big of a problem as it may be, is itself only a fragment of a much bigger and far-reaching phenomenon that was first formally identified by Paul Crutzen at the turn of the millennium. In the scientific literature, it is called "the Great Acceleration", "Phase 2" or "the Anthropocene".

Scientists are now arguing that human interference not only into ecosystems but into the whole of planetary biogeochemical cycles is so profound that it changed the functioning of the Earth system - justifying the establishment of a new geologic epoch that began at the end of WWII. The implications of this are impossible to overstate: if the trajectories that constitute the Anthropocene are allowed to continue, they would bring about the biggest erosion of biodiversity since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 milion years ago and would soon call into question the viability of human civilization.

I can cite numerous scientific sources if anyone is interested or wants to challenge me.

>Mathmaticians will disagree
no, they really don't. you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

what about this?

>Mathmaticians will disagree.
No they won't.
Every single mathematician knows that math has no relation to reality.
Math is fundamentally unable to make any claim about reality.

Just think about it, "2+2" has no objective meaning in mathematics, it can be 4 just the same as it can be 2, why is one of these answers preferred?

The same about distance, mathematics has an infinite (uncountable) amount of ways to measure distance, why is one of them, the euclidean metric, valid above the rest?

>Being wrong in the past doesnt mean they are wrong now. As being right in the past doesnt mean they are right now.
Of course. But that also means that "consensus" doesn't mean everything.

>Will you not acknowledge there is even a slim chance that they are right?
I would give it a >50% chance that they are right.

I'm not sure what these means but I have them saved anyways

Before plate tectonics was discovered, 99% of scientists believed the continents didn't move. What's your point?

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACY
P
P
E
A
L

What's considered excessive use if transport, factories, offices, retail, farming and household appliances and heating are all considered essential? And how will that make a dent in the so called problem?

>appeal to authority
read the feck'n' sticky, bitch

You could tell me the oceans would rise a full foot in my lifetime and I wouldn't give a shit. I live inland and I hate both coasts, I'm consistently angry that every global warming prediction about them being underwater by X year has been false.

Besides that, your shitty rationalizing and emotional appeal isn't going to change my mind and it shouldn't change anyone's mind. You could take the lead by getting rid of your car and going vegan but you won't, you expect everybody else to fix the made up problem you're shrieking about.

>No they won't.
>Every single mathematician knows that math has no relation to reality.
>Math is fundamentally unable to make any claim about reality.
>Just think about it, "2+2" has no objective meaning in mathematics, it can be 4 just the same as it can be 2, why is one of these answers preferred?
>The same about distance, mathematics has an infinite (uncountable) amount of ways to measure distance, why is one of them, the euclidean metric, valid above the rest?
Maths is our way of putting reality into perspective. In our world, we, the human race has defined 2+2 to be 4. Is this the universally correct answer across all of reality? No of course not. But when I say the math adds up, what I am saying is that all that we know about heat rays, electron around an atom absorbing the heat rays and the photon that again is bounced outward from the atom with a new direction, adds up. And this, is maths and physics.

>I would give it a >50% chance that they are right.
So >50% chance of global disaster and you don't care. Well I can't force you

>consensus
>science

PICK ONE FAGLORD

My point is we should try to be better than those scientists. Instead of swiping it under the rug and blindly dismissing a theory, why not be certain before we recklessly act?

>Maths is our way of putting reality into perspective.
Math is an abstraction of reality, we generalize what we "feel" is right.

>In our world, we, the human race has defined 2+2 to be 4.
Yes we did, but nothing in mathematics concludes that, it is a claim entirely removed from mathematics.

> But when I say the math adds up, what I am saying is that all that we know about heat rays, electron around an atom absorbing the heat rays and the photon that again is bounced outward from the atom with a new direction, adds up.
There is no mathematical claim in there.
But "math" is always adding up, for gods sake, if it weren't ZFC would be inconsistent.

>And this, is maths and physics.
It is a model of reality, which makes no claim of 100% accuracy, therefore it isn't physics, it is climate science (I hope).
It also arguably isn't math, since mathematics is by definition abstract.

>So >50% chance of global disaster and you don't care.
There is absolutely nothing I could possibly do, even if I accepted it were 100% real.
Hell, there isn't anything in the entire west that can be done, except starting to exterminate the third world.

>What's considered excessive use if transport, factories, offices, retail, farming and household appliances and heating are all considered essential? And how will that make a dent in the so called problem?

Spending 20minutes in the shower with heated water seems excessive to me, for example. When the average shower uses 2.5gallons per minute of heated water you spend alot of electricity heating it up.

So in your opinion not having long hot showers will be enough to solve a proclaimed global crisis when it represents only a minuscule proportion of the total worldwide carbon emissions?

>Hell, there isn't anything in the entire west that can be done, except starting to exterminate the third world.

Well lets pray for an ethnic cleansing in the near future

No, that was an example, as stated in the post

You're going to need to name loads more examples of excessive energy use if you want to solve this crisis and preferably ones which would make a significant reduction in worldwide carbon emissions

Increased CO2 levels and global temperature -> Increased amount of vegetation -> decrease of CO2 levels and global temperature -> Death of excess vegetation -> New equilibrium is established

Pretty much all feedback loops in nature are negative because of thermodynamics and so is this one. If it wasn't the case the earth would be a scorched desert.

Which one of these slices would you consider excessive? Let's sort this problem out together

weathermodification.org

If I had all the answers I would have won the nobel prize by now.
/spoiler: i dont have the answers

that's just completely false, the effect of positive feedbacks exceeds that of negative feedbacks, otherwise the blackbody response to 3.7 W/m2 of CO2 forcing would be less than 1°C, yet the available independent lines of evidence (paleoclimate archives, climate models, modern observations and physical reasoning) point to a response of 3°C or higher

No you don't have the answers but you're very certain that other people have to change their entire way of life to solve a problem you're incapable of proving exists without falsifying data

I don’t care. In 100 years, this planet will be overrun with niggers and it will be a hell hole to live in. After 50 years of shitskins invading Europe, what do you think your country will look like? I’d rather humans go extinct than live in that future.

it means we saved the Earth from the Little Ice Age by using man-made global warming, High five!

>mfw we are doomed regardless of what we do

>No you don't have the answers but you're very certain that other people have to change their entire way of life to solve a problem you're incapable of proving exists without falsifying data

Im not certain about anything. Yes I think global warming is real, but not certain. Feel free to provide proof otherwise. My main point is, unless you are 100% certain global warming isnt real, the price for ignoring the threat is too high

>mathematics are inconsequential!
the purest form of american education

(((97%))) of these scientists agree to apply lower demands for evidence than usual, therefore so should you.

Hvor studerer du?

For decades, the consensus was that the Earth was flat. For decades, the consensus was that the sun was carried across the sky by invisible men in chariots. For decades, the consensus was that peak oil would be a MAJOR crisis by the year 2000.

You must realize that all paradigm shifts don't occur from the consensus; they are driven by the fringe. So if you want to cite ACTUAL science stating why anthropogenic global warming is a major crisis to all mankind, then I'll be happy to listen. However, if you think you're going to change minds and hearts by citing "muh everyone else thinks this is true" - a claim that is actually false to begin with - well then you're wasting your time.

NTNU

Youre missing my point. My point is, regardless of wether you believe the scientists, there is no doubt there is a CHANCE they are correct. And the price we must pay IF they are right outweights the potential of changes we must make in order to solve the "problem"

>unless you are 100% certain global warming isnt real, the price for ignoring the threat is too high