Welcome to the Naruto Forums.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
But what you think doesn't really matter, because you're not a climate scientist.
I believe everyone should be given an equal opportunity to speak their opinion. If you only want to hear expert opinions on the subject, why even come here? None of us are experts, but we're all here to talk about what we think of certain things. If you don't want to listen to someone who isn't an expert, don't reply to him, don't pay attention to him. That's your choice and there's nothing wrong with that.
For instance, I stand by what I said earlier and believe it's foolish for a single person or a small group of individuals to think they have power over changing the earth's climate for the better. We can only ever influence our direct surroundings, so it is better to focus on that and urge others to do them same for their own benefit.
As for global warming, such a thing has been happening since long before the industrial revolution, which is when people were first beginning to develop methods to measure climate changes and fluctuations such that they could be recorded for future reference. How profound is the effect of climate change in the short period we've been able to observe and record? Ice caps have melted on occasion, yes, which says something about the matter, but it hasn't happened several times in succession in recent years as far as I know. If I'm wrong, do feel free to correct me. Seasons have been going into more noticeable extremes lately but how profound has that been on us? There haven't been such major events due to climate changes that show there could be far worse incidents in the near future (say 50 to 100 years).
My point is that there's no way to tell how great the effects of climate changes will be in the future given the amount of information we've been able to record so far, which is what I think bacon is also trying to say. No one's denying that climate changes are happening and that there will be consequences. It's just a question of how serious the consequences will be, regardless of whether they will be positive or negative.
As a personal friend of a department head at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, I've had the chance to pick the brains of top scientists doing serious work, and the consensus in that particular group is that climate change is happening and is anthropogenic in nature. This group included climatologists, physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, etc. An interesting fact was brought up by a geologist - we are supposed to be at the tail end of an interglacial warming period based upon previous cycles. Things sure as fuck weren't supposed to be getting hotter. Lo and behold, this warming trend coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution, when we really started to pump carbon into the atmosphere. Hell, the reality is that we were ignorantly terraforming the planet when we first started building cities a millenia ago. At this point, without any major alterations to our behavior, the changes we are going to see will be drastic. Unfortunately, societal inertia pretty much guarantees that this is going to happen, so you guys should just sit back and enjoy the show. Worrying about your non-existent grandchildren is futile since nothing was ever certain anyway. If you're located in the Northern Hemisphere, you might even be able to enjoy the show as the rest of humanity devours itself.
It's more telling when millions can be persuaded by opinions from people with no relevant credentials or strawman attacks against Hollywood/doomsday novel climate change. What's more likely is a slow intimate strangulation than an instant beheading; though for those in the worse affected areas, there won't be much difference.
It's importan to note that before the 1960's, there wasn't mathematics developed enough to truly analyze meteorology. Developments in computer science have led to an exponential understanding of chaotic systems, and abstract mathematicians write proofs delving into the relationships between measurement and existence.
Ultimately climate change is undeniably obvious, but it's far less obvious how to quantitize certain meteorological concepts in a way that we can produce data for without sticking a balloon out there for centuries. It's unclear how to approach the infant science of meteorology, so I would be hesitant to condemn somebody for genuine scepticism in the name of scientific philosophy.
It is also a heavily politicized study, which is interrelated with the scientific credibility; but also influenced by political modes of thought, moreso than conclusions developed in a laboratory. As an OP, I think BaconBits is an all rigt dude, so any conflict I can identify between our views seems mostly errors of judgement or understanding.
__________________ I think Apoo was a pretty cool guy, eh pwned Uchitards and didn't afraid of anything.
There is a clear and indisputable consensus among the scientific community that climate change is real, happening, and we are responsible.
However how fast it is happening is debated, it might be a deadly problem now or it might be a deadly problem a month / year / generation / whatever from now - but that does not mean we should sit on our collective asses and not do something about it now.
good way to wake up in the morning. Carry on.
