Climate Change

Pat494

Legendary member
13,491 1,332
At last people are waking up ( too late ) to plastic pollution. Another human made disaster.
About time someone tested the fish sold from your local supermarket to see how polluted it is.
 

Atilla

Legendary member
18,773 2,617
I would be interested in your source asserting that global warming is in fact accelerating because the following article just reported that the greatest two year cooling period just took place.

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.html
Don't recall where as I read a lot. I think it was in one of those scientific journals.

I'm not fussed whether you believe it or not. You carry on as you were. :)


fwiw I also recall watching a Horizon program few years back now which predicted UK would enter global warming with freezing temperatures. Seeing it written in words one must think that's barmy and an oxymoron of terms if ever. However the science of it is believable and reasonable imo. I could be wrong of course :)

They talked about the conveyor belt. Basically, the gulf stream which the UK depends on needs temperature difference between warm weather off the gulf of Mexico and cold weather off the isles of UK and North Sea. As global warming hots up and that temperature differential narrows, the gulf stream may well stall.

When that happens no more warm currents or gulf stream air coming our way and so cold North temperatures come down South. Hey presto UK freezes over.

That may be theory but considering that Horizon program was years ago and UK is displaying heavy floods, cold blasts of all kinds of beasts from here and there and some warm temperatures once in a while, could be interpreted as consequences of warming.


Google it for your selves. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gulf-stream-current-climate-change-ocean-temperature-ice-age-global-weather-a8300896.html


So for the logical reasonable humanoids out there it is a tough sell telling the Brits and trump fans, UK freezing over is global warming in action. ;)
 

cantagril

Senior member
2,132 476
Well done cantagril.

I seem to remember reading that the global warming denial campaign at least in the US is being driven by Christian fundamentalists. Interestingly, so is the flat earth campaign. Both are taking (parts of) the bible literally.
Somewhat off-topic but I think that when one considers the evil that has been done in the name of God, it's worth reminding oneself that, unless I'm much mistaken, God has not seen fit to directly intervene in the affairs of man to any great extent. He also seems to have left the Dinosaurs completely to their own devices for hundreds of millions of years, excepting the odd Extinction Level Meteorite - presuming of course, that you see the Hand of God shunting space rocks about.

Since Man has been, well, Man, we have looked for and quite often created all sorts of deities, some benign and peace loving and others remarkably bad-tempered and vindictive. The one constant in all organised religions is that they have been organised by Man for the ends of men - God has seen fit to allow all sorts of sub-standard management and interpretation whilst he's been occupied with other business.

As long as some men continue to jealously guard the word of God for themselves then that particular brand of evil will continue happily on its way....
 

Splitlink

Legendary member
10,850 1,231
The one constant in all organised religions is that they have been organised by Man for the ends of men - God has seen fit to allow all sorts of sub-standard management and interpretation whilst he's been occupied with other business.

...
That fits in 100% with my way of thinking. I just do the best that I can and hope that it is the right thing. He has never told me what He wants and, when evacuated, during WWII, I was made to go to church and Sunday School three times on Sundays. The vicar and teacher told me what was right but most of it went into one ear and out the other while I studied the design of the stained glass windows. Morning service, lasting an hour, for a seven year old was lke a lifetime.

I think that going to sea, keeping the middle watch and watching the night sky convinced me, more than any preacher could,, that all this did not happen by itself. We are so small and insignificant, down here, while believing that we are so important.
 

Brumby

Established member
593 137
If the idea that Man is changing the rate or extent of climate change turns out to be right then maybe we'll be helping our descendants survive. OTOH if it all turns out to be just hot air then we will still have addressed pollution in a more strategic fashion.
Is your whole premise on climate change based on the idea of "if"? Would you trade a strategy based on the idea of a "if"?

You are attempting to conflate the moral appeal of addressing pollution and the leftist worldview of global warming which became climate change. The debate is simply about the premise underlying three issues :
1)Is there global warming?
2)Is it principally man made?
3)Is it reversible?

Discuss the facts and not hypotheticals. Do you trade based on "feeling lucky"?
 
Last edited:

Brumby

Established member
593 137
Well done cantagril.

I seem to remember reading that the global warming denial campaign at least in the US is being driven by Christian fundamentalists. Interestingly, so is the flat earth campaign. Both are taking (parts of) the bible literally.
I suggest that if you wish to discuss the subject of religion to start a thread on it. If your whole defense of climate change is to attack Christians then I suggest we stick to trading. Any intellectual discourse requires good faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wackypete2

Brumby

Established member
593 137
Don't recall where as I read a lot. I think it was in one of those scientific journals.

I'm not fussed whether you believe it or not. You carry on as you were. :)
I am frankly agnostic on the issue primarily I have seen expert arguments on both sides. The subject itself is highly complex and requires far too much time to properly understand the issues. Unfortunately public discussions are far too often highly politicised driven primarily by individual values and opinion rather than scientific facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atilla

FXX

Experienced member
1,140 195
1)Is there global warming?

Yes

2)Is it principally man made?

No

3)Is it reversible?

No


There's my point of view. There is sufficient evidence of long cycles over millions of years. Whatever evidence the hardline global warming crowd shows, it is a pointless task because we are headed there already.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: wackypete2

tomorton

Legendary member
7,231 963
I suggest that if you wish to discuss the subject of religion to start a thread on it. If your whole defense of climate change is to attack Christians then I suggest we stick to trading. Any intellectual discourse requires good faith.

The argument in favour of human-influenced global warming is based on scientific observations and modelling. Its hardly my fault if some of the argument against it is based on religious beliefs, and it is relevant that this be pointed out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atilla

tomorton

Legendary member
7,231 963
Is your whole premise on climate change based on the idea of "if"? Would you trade a strategy based on the idea of a "if"?

You are attempting to conflate the moral appeal of addressing pollution and the leftist worldview of global warming which became climate change. The debate is simply about the premise underlying three issues :
1)Is there global warming?
2)Is it principally man made?
3)Is it reversible?

Discuss the facts and not hypotheticals. Do you trade based on "feeling lucky"?

There is global scientific agreement that global warming is occurring, that human activity has been a prime factor in its acceleration. As for whether it can be reversed, I've not seen even the most optimistic scientific evidence that we can do better than slow it down.
 

Splitlink

Legendary member
10,850 1,231
Is your whole premise on climate change based on the idea of "if"? Would you trade a strategy based on the idea of a "if"?

You are attempting to conflate the moral appeal of addressing pollution and the leftist worldview of global warming which became climate change. The debate is simply about the premise underlying three issues :
1)Is there global warming?
2)Is it principally man made?
3)Is it reversible?

Discuss the facts and not hypotheticals. Do you trade based on "feeling lucky"?
If you have a broken window and it is freezing outside, do you put it down to climate change and leave the window? Or do you repair it?

Humans have done a lot of damage to the planet. Time to do our best to repair it.
Climate change is a "blame" issue, not an excuse to do nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atilla and Pat494

cantagril

Senior member
2,132 476
Is your whole premise on climate change based on the idea of "if"? Would you trade a strategy based on the idea of a "if"?

You are attempting to conflate the moral appeal of addressing pollution and the leftist worldview of global warming which became climate change. The debate is simply about the premise underlying three issues :
1)Is there global warming?
2)Is it principally man made?
3)Is it reversible?

Discuss the facts and not hypotheticals. Do you trade based on "feeling lucky"?
1) Moral appeal of addressing pollution???? Either we don't live on the same planet or there are some lacunae in your reading. ...and I certainly wasn't trying to conflate, confuse or blend any kind of left-wing tree-buggering eco excrement smoothie......As an aside, I can assure you that this forum is no place to air my political beliefs, which make Stalin, Hitler and Atilla (the other one) look like woolly liberal wimps.

2) Why should "principally man-made" be the arbiter? The weight of evidence does more than just suggest we have a hand in the matter and if there is anything we can do to undo our wrongs then it would be irresponsible not to do it, considering the stakes.

3) Maybe not reversible but perhaps if things happen more slowly then we will adapt if not given the time to evolve. Adapting would include changing policies and bad habits....which is kind of what the whole thing is about anyway.

My point was that there is NO downside to acting; so yes, if trading on an "if" and "feeling lucky" meant that on being right I would make a large sum of money (or in this case, that my grand-children would live long and healthy lives) and on being wrong wouldn't change anything in either my bank account or life expectancy of my heirs, then that - as one hears so often these days - is a no-brainer. I would have to be the greatest idiot to walk the earth to not act in these conditions.

Incidentally, since we're chatting: as you so rightly pointed out, this is a trading forum and yet here we are on a Climate Change thread.By your tone, you give the impression that you'd prefer that there were no other threads apart from trading related. If that is so then your case would be better made directly to the great and good of T2W rather than here on, um, the Climate Change thread.

And since we're discussing said Climate Change, (no matter whose fault) then should we not be including anything and everything that pertains to it? IMHO That would include fallacious and dangerous fictions harmful to the human race. Of course, fallacies and fictions that provide fodder for more anodyne and less harmful outcomes probably do belong on another thread. The Brexit one maybe:p
 

Brumby

Established member
593 137
The argument in favour of human-influenced global warming is based on scientific observations and modelling.
The so called modelling and the famous hockey stick graph to push the warming narrative.


... except that through the climate gate scandal, they were caught fudging data to fit their narrative by omitting inconvenient data.



or the so called model that its prediction does not match reality which raises the question of its utility and the premise of its case



Its hardly my fault if some of the argument against it is based on religious beliefs, and it is relevant that this be pointed out.
No matter how misguided or moronic is with the notion of flat earth, how is it even relevant to our conversation about climate change? Please point out the nexus.

There is global scientific agreement that global warming is occurring, that human activity has been a prime factor in its acceleration.
Seriously. Point out to me the scientific data and I will point out to you the correlation between sun spot activities and the weather.

As for whether it can be reversed, I've not seen even the most optimistic scientific evidence that we can do better than slow it down.
Is that simply an assertion?

If you have a broken window and it is freezing outside, do you put it down to climate change and leave the window? Or do you repair it?

Humans have done a lot of damage to the planet. Time to do our best to repair it.
Climate change is a "blame" issue, not an excuse to do nothing.
your premise is based on the presupposition that it is broken. Is it?

1) Moral appeal of addressing pollution???? Either we don't live on the same planet or there are some lacunae in your reading. ...and I certainly wasn't trying to conflate, confuse or blend any kind of left-wing tree-buggering eco excrement smoothie......As an aside, I can assure you that this forum is no place to air my political beliefs, which make Stalin, Hitler and Atilla (the other one) look like woolly liberal wimps.
In any intellectual debate, the most basic structure is that you make a case by stating your underlying premise and whatever associated facts or data there are in support of your argument. If I disagree with the warrant of your case, it is my job to offer undercutters or defeaters to undermine your argument. So what is the case that you are making or is it just some incoherent rants?

2) Why should "principally man-made" be the arbiter?
Seriously. You guys are insisting that climate change is man made and you are questioning whether it should be the arbiter. Maybe as you suggest, I am truly in an alternate universe because words no longer have meaning.

The weight of evidence does more than just suggest we have a hand in the matter and if there is anything we can do to undo our wrongs then it would be irresponsible not to do it, considering the stakes.
Show me the evidence and not assertions.

My point was that there is NO downside to acting; so yes, if trading on an "if" and "feeling lucky" meant that on being right I would make a large sum of money (or in this case, that my grand-children would live long and healthy lives) and on being wrong wouldn't change anything in either my bank account or life expectancy of my heirs, then that - as one hears so often these days - is a no-brainer. I would have to be the greatest idiot to walk the earth to not act in these conditions.
No downside to acting - seriously? There are no free lunches. It is estimated the cost to implement the Paris Accord is up to €46 trillion. What do get you in return? A 0.05 degree improvement.



If you are going to spend €46 trillion, make sure you get your facts right and not rely on some modelling that is highly questionable based on fudge data.

Incidentally, since we're chatting: as you so rightly pointed out, this is a trading forum and yet here we are on a Climate Change thread.By your tone, you give the impression that you'd prefer that there were no other threads apart from trading related. If that is so then your case would be better made directly to the great and good of T2W rather than here on, um, the Climate Change thread.

And since we're discussing said Climate Change, (no matter whose fault) then should we not be including anything and everything that pertains to it? IMHO That would include fallacious and dangerous fictions harmful to the human race. Of course, fallacies and fictions that provide fodder for more anodyne and less harmful outcomes probably do belong on another thread. The Brexit one maybe:p
You are entitled to your opinion and so am I.