1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Human made climate change - hoax or truth?

Discussion in 'Nature' started by Ruryse, Jan 21, 2017.

  1. Ruryse

    Ruryse Active Member

    So this just in, the climate change references that were up on the US White House website have been completely removed. My reaction was: good. One less brainwashing "fact" to deal with. Now am I a troll, a completely ignorant person, a lunatic, or something else? You be the judge. Here's the thing though.
    That previous bunch of people, let's call them interest group, claimed that the climate change was in a completely linear connection with human activity. I've even seen an over-simplified article with graphs being shared by a NASA astronaut a couple months ago. If one gives some thought to it, what the above means is that people can control the climate, the Earth's weather, in a fully predictable way. On the other hand, the atmosphere is known to be what they call a nonlinear dynamical system. It's not predictable, one cannot even predict the weather past a time range of about a single week (~ its Lyapunov time). The climate is highly chaotic, and scientists (f.ex. Edward Lorenz) put serious work and research into this area, commonly called chaos theory (interestingly, none of them received a Nobel prize so far, yet these discoveries are being used by space- and military research, which we can see in the improved maneuverability of aircraft, among other, even more exotic and computing power-hungry areas, including search engine algorithms). Anyway, to simply claim the the climate change is caused mainly by human activity, and blame it on people that they single-handedly did this in a so perfectly linear fashion is an obvious lie, so much so that one cannot help but suspect political and monetary reasons lying in the background.

    This article explains non-linear dynamic systems in a basic way, and points out how the Earth's climate is such system. To this day, I haven't seen anyone proving that we as humans can control the climate in a linear way that it's completely, fully predictable. When someone claims that people polluted the climate and so it degraded linearly and predictably as a result mainly because of that human action alone, I call it a misinformation. Simply because it would mean that if we, humans, could do the negative thing and got those negative results accordingly, we could just as well do the opposite, and the whole climate system would produce a positive change just as linearly and predictably. If that were the case, it meant we had perfect control over the atmosphere. That's not what real life events suggest, including everyday scenarios like weather forecasts (even military ones). What I believe is, we do have an effect on the climate, but we are very far from being able to control it in any major way. Now if one uses that above misinformation in connection with a political group, which a government clearly is, and de facto blames it on people, it starts to look like collective guilt, something that has often been used historically, to gain control over masses with a pre-occupation of sin. Interestingly, even people like Greenpeace founder Dr. Patrick Moore share the same opinion.

    Now let's go back to this article I referred to above, on non-linear dynamical systems! Check out the last sentence: "It is possible that the climate of the Earth behaves this way." That last sentence is something I see as a great example of the more realistic scientific approach of nature in general, which is a fairly firm "don't know". It also happens to be more humble than the "here's the truth: you did this, human". The safety measures regarding human-caused environmental changes can be done without political enforcement and/or business interest. If the current political group in the US (or elsewhere) will keep promoting the exact opposite, i.e. something along the lines of "keep polluting your environment, it's got no effect whatsoever", that will be just as bad. But as long as they only remove the previously claimed deductively exclusive connection between human cause and environmental effect, it's for the better, in my opinion.

    Check out the late George Carlin's classic take on the whole Global Warming craze:

    ListenNighGlint likes this.
  2. MermaidFairy

    MermaidFairy Member

    Well stated Ruryse.
    Ruryse likes this.
  3. It's such a hip thing to stand behind everything that makes one seem more tolerant, humane and overall good. Did you guys notice how it's an ego thing? When someone has the need to demonstrate how good they are with repeating what the supposedly "good guys" say, these people basically say they have very little to no ego. At the same time, they disregard the fact that they are actually bragging about that. Bragging about "no ego" requires a lot of ego. Saying harshly how I do not tolerate intolerance is a form of intolerance as well. Why are most people blind to these obvious fallacies?
    Ruryse likes this.
  4. Ruryse

    Ruryse Active Member

    Check this out: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/14/study-women-more-likely-than-men-to-accept-global-warming/ Here's the actual study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11111-010-0113-1

    Hillarious circular reasoning built on false premise. He says that women on average must be smarter, cause they believe in climate change more, which he claims to be the accepted scientific truth. So to him (or at least to his study) that means "women convey greater assessed scientific knowledge". Classic example of whoever agrees with us is our friend. This coming from Aaron M. McCright Professor of Sociology.
  5. crypticletter

    crypticletter Member

    I hope you all realized by now that the current climate change hype has got very little to do with science. It might be coming at you in the name of science, but it's pure politics. Can you seriously imagine that any of those politicians give a damn about the nuts & bolts of the whole thing? They are carrying out the orders of their masters, whichever oil & gas companies they are.
    softboober likes this.

Share This Page