Global Cooling Is Imminent, Thinks Australian PM Advisor

[Baresark]

Let's just agree to not pay attention to what Business Advisors have to say about climate. I think that seems like an idea.

Listen, you don't have to be on board for man made climate change. I get that. I'm not entirely on board myself, to be completely honest (skeptical is what everyone should be). But this is the most asinine thing I have ever heard.

Absolute certainty isn't necessary for action. Ya, skepticism is healthy when there's a clear lack of evidence, but continuing to question an assumption long after the evidence has become overwhelming is just denialism.

Honestly, what I or you think about it is completely inconsequential. Neither of us have any say what so ever in the direction any laws or regulations take in regards to it. And no matter what anyone says today, I or you cannot change the course it's going in, so it really doesn't matter if agree or not with you. For a lot of people it's just a matter of ego.

You were the first one to state your personal opinion on the matter. Why did you even bother if you think it's so unimportant?

As for us 2 being inconsequential? Well, here's a movie quote that I like.

Large movements are made of many individuals, and if all those individuals chose to do nothing because of their own relative inconsequentialness, the entire movement wouldn't have happened. People might as well not vote either I guess, because our votes only make up an inconsequential fraction of the entire election results right?

That said: I love the idea of alternate and clean energy sources, steadying any kind of climate change that is or is not man made

If the climate change isn't man made, then why would clean energy sources 'steady' it?

and just the world being an overall nicer place. I fully believe in pursuing the cleanest and best course possible and I fully believe that if we all have to make some sacrifices, it's OK and I'm all in.

Well, it's nice to see that being a global warming 'skeptic' doesn't inherently mean you're against clean energy for some reason. Ultimately it doesn't matter what your reason for wanting to stop carbon emissions is as long as we do it one way or another.

The only thing you have wrong is that we all need to pissing our pants in fear to make anything happen. I, for one, am not for fear mongering. I don't believe in scaring the shit out of children by telling them the world is going to end, that isn't going to fix it.

I'm not saying anyone should "piss their pants" I just believe we should act responsibly to face a very real threat. If making people afraid inspires them to action then perhaps it's a good thing, but causing fear is not the goal. Calling someone 'fear mongering' because they accept what scientific evidence clearly shows, and feel that it demonstrates a need for change, is just slander.

If people can be convinced to switch to clean energy without raising their blood pressure or stress levels, I'm all for that. I'll admit, Al Gore's somewhat scary presentation of the facts, however justified, may have done more harm than good if it made some people see the global warming debate as "fear mongering" that overemphasized the problem. However, it's hard to say since being too passive about the problem can be bad too.

I actually stated my opinion about what one jackass said. You chose to ignore that and identify one little tiny bit of a statement, then chose to see me as some sort of "bad guy" because you think the only reasonable thing is what you think. You failed to see that the idea of climate change and seeking clean energy sources as being separate and not one and the same. They are not dependent on each other. It's easy to see how they are connected, but there is no relationship of interdependence. My opinion on climate change does not matter because our outcomes are the same, just how we approach it is different. I also said, as a matter of opinion, that I always remain skeptical. As a species, we cannot advance our knowledge unless we are skeptical of what we are taught, unless we are willing to pursue the knowledge. Skeptical does not mean against an idea. Science is always skeptical in one form or another.

All of that said: It's easy to see how anyone can get caught up in their feelings on this particular subject. I have an extreme passion for clean energy and new technologies that will increase the efficiency of how complete daily tasks. Like I said, we don't quite see eye to eye on this and maybe a great many other things, but that does not mean our goals are not the same. I have never met anyone who would rather just keep using oil and gas if something better was developed. It's only natural and human to see people who don't see things the exact same way as being somehow opposites, it comforts people to vilify other people without ever trying to understand them. I get it, I say I'm skeptical about something you are not about, so for you it only stands to reason that I am not like you in many ways, including the idea that I might want to maintain some sort of status quo rather than see meaningful change. I'm sure there are people out there who say they are skeptical (though they mean they think it's all a like) and then love their gas guzzling Humvee. I'm just not either of those things.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Chief business advisor... what more is there to say, this man was employed to get money in government pockets however he can. And environment protection was never good money.

Though he is partially right on the propaganda part, most people are not properly informed while others see a great opportunity to exploit their gullibility. The actual scientific facts are that yes atmospheric temperatures are rising, but what the exact cause for this is has not been determined. But much like this Australian chief donkey many scientists will claim they have all the answers because that is money in their pocket, bullshitting you all the same just from the other side.
More over companies are picking up on this trend big time, selling you a slightly more efficient car each year with no one to point out just how many resources go to waste when making one... fact is the efficiency of a new car will never offset their creation, but that shit doesn't get mentioned because hey it's not good for cash flow.

 

[mistwolf]

All things aside, all science aside, it comes down to this in my head:

If we do all we can to reduce our impact and move from fossil fuels to renewables and such, the worst that happens is we live in a better world. The worst that happens if we don't is we don't live.

I don't get why there is even a debate, beyond sheer societal laziness. Debate the science (Which IMHO is overwhelming), debate the path, whatever, but the end result is still better if we improve the world than if we just keep burning it.

 

[RJ Dalton]

*facepalm*
It is far far easier to predict long term changes to the global temperature than it is to predict short-term local weather.

And on what scientific proof do you base this statement? All of the long term models made back in the seventies that made predictions for the 2000s have proved badly wrong, because we don't really understand all of the variables that effect climate. We need to do a lot more studying of the subject - not studies where we're looking for proof of global warming, just studying how the climate works. And yet, we are using the same basic models today to try and predict hundreds of years in the future. If our models cannot accurately predict even ten years in the future, on what basis can we claim they will be accurate in hundreds of years?
I do not deny global climate change, because the global climate has been changing constantly from millennium one. I don't even deny that the current trends of global climate appear to be a general increase in temperature (with various exceptions, because boy is that a complicated matter). What I deny is that we know enough to be making claims that our predictions for the future of the global climate are accurate enough to be basing policy on.
In short, what I deny is not global climate change, what I deny is the global warming bugbear. "Global Warming" is a fear-mongering political movement created to scare people into blindly following the politicians who claim to have a solution, which they do not. And I rail against this bullshit because when you are trying to manipulate the data of experiments for a political end, it creates a situation where areas of legitimate scientific research become politicized, so that much needed research does not get done, or if it is done, it is selectively presented to the public for the purpose of a political cause. And another side effect of this is that legitimate evidence gets carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey into what evidence supports what side of the political debate, causing us to lose sight of what the whole tells us.
And, as I said, by politicizing the discussion of what we know about the global climate, we have reached a point where development of technology is staggered because the argument of global warming swallows up the more immediate and identifiable issues of pollution and public health. Tech companies say, "Oh, you're worried about global warming are you? Well, here's all these studies that show global warming isn't happening, so there's really nothing we need to do." And they are legitimate studies showing notable gaps in our current understanding of how climate works. And because you have such a highly politicized discussion, the side supporting the global warming theory tries to suppress, refute, and slander the studies and the people who did them, thus ensuring that these gaps in our knowledge continue to exist. There could be any number of legitimate climate issues that need addressing that we don't know about because instead of doing research, we're just trying to find more stuff to support what we want to believe. And furthermore, we don't know if any of the policies we are trying to do will be helpful; they may, in fact, be harmful, as any in depth study of our attempts to control and preserve the environment throughout history show one disaster after another. An overwhelming number of our attempts to fix things made the problems worse and that suggests that it would be far more wise to take a step back and do more studying before we attempt to rush out more plans based on our current, limited understanding.
But if you take the focus down a notch and look at it from the public health perspective, it is easily demonstrable that pollution is harmful for human beings and if it's possible to improve on existing technologies to reduce pollutants produced, it's a valuable area of research to be going into. But do the politicians fund that research? No, as a matter of fact, they do not. They funnel their money into studies they expect will find the data that will support their cause, or funnel it into lawsuits, or into expensive media propaganda to scare you into giving them more money to waste. This is bad in every conceivable way.

 

[Maze1125]

*facepalm*
It is far far easier to predict long term changes to the global temperature than it is to predict short-term local weather.

And on what scientific proof do you base this statement?

A whole damn lot.

Science has looked at climate change <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/scienceandtech/columns/forscience/11565-Scorched-or-Frozen-What-is-the-Earth-s-Ultimate-Fate>from just about every possible angle, and the overwhelming consensus is that it's getting pretty warm around here.

I guess that is why 31k scientists disagree? http://www.petitionproject.org/

Of which 151 are scientists who study anything that's closely related to climate change.
Yes, a whole lot of people think they know what they're talking about when they in fact have absolutely no justification in thinking so much about themselves. Just because you have a degree in SOMETHING is NOT justification for thinking you can comment on any topic you want.

A minute fraction of scientists that actually study the topic disagree with it. The vast majority of people who disagree don't know anything about it and vast majority of people who know what they're talking about agree. Sure, it could be that the people who don't know what they're talking about are right after all, but simple probability says that's unlikely.

But not that it matters, you're not going to change your mind. People who don't understand a topic, and have never officially studied it, will always perform the mental gymnastics they need to in order to carry on believing whatever they prefer; regardless of what the people who actually have studied it say. Just look at RJ Dalton...

 

[Something Amyss]

I guess that is why 31k scientists disagree? http://www.petitionproject.org/

Being a scientist doesn't automatically make you qualified in a given field. Especially on a list that includes medical doctors.

That list kills me, though. 31k scientists, 9K PhDs, almost none with any relevant area of expertise.

You might as well link us to a list of plumbers who believe in the Flat Earth or plastic surgeons who don't accept the dinosaurs existed.

 

[kommando367]

Hell yeah, bring on the next ice age!

I wanna ride a woolly mammoth.

 

[Godhead]

Guys, have you considered that the sun is actually Hitler, and before WW2 the sky was actually only lit by moonlight that shines because moon is powered by space-glow-rocks? When Hitler launched himself on a nuclear missle into space to evade the encroaching allies and the nuke caused the sun to appear, we all just forgot, right?

Of course Global Warming is caused by the sun; first he started with Europe, next... Europa.

Global fucking cooling.

What are you stupid? The moon is obviously made out of radioactive space cheese.