Climate Change Protests

[Dawgfather]

I find it ironic that it is science which has delivered the majority of lifestyle improvements which are allowing us to live longer lives, but when scientists say there is a very real problem here, you seem to be dismissing it as pie in the sky nonsense.
Sure medicine, food sciences and nutritional expertise have improved, but I do not see the correlation between these improvements and challenges relating to shifts in global temperatures and extreme weather conditions. You act as if the climate change issue is just a left wing scare campaign....some left wing groups may have upped the hyperbole and been a bit alarmist in their approach, but scientific consensus is there is a very real problem here and if action isn't taken, it will threaten many people's lives. If you don't take my word for it, listen to Hacky, who is more politically neutral than either of us.

It's nice to know you have genuine concerns about the environment, but I don't get how you can dismiss the opinions of genuine experts as pie in the sky nonsense.

I think the best way I can answer this is by saying that fundamentally I think the climate change issue has been mismanaged so badly (by both sides) that it is now impossible (as an individual) to sort who is being political from who is being authentic). This is why I feel a lot of the arguments are pie in the sky.

The entire issue has been politicised and anything which becomes political automatically makes me skeptical.

As much as I see arguments (including those from scientists) that climate change is going to be catastrophic, I then see arguments (including from scientists) saying that it's no where near as much of an issue as some people are saying, or that climate change is due to natural variability in sun cycles (For example).

I honestly have no idea (and I'm speaking to you really sincerely here) how anyone could possibly wade through the complexity of this issue and end up being absolutely certain that they understand the issue perfectly.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I think the best way I can answer this is by saying that fundamentally I think the climate change issue has been mismanaged so badly (by both sides) that it is now impossible (as an individual) to sort who is being political from who is being authentic). This is why I feel a lot of the arguments are pie in the sky.

The entire issue has been politicised and anything which becomes political automatically makes me skeptical.

As much as I see arguments (including those from scientists) that climate change is going to be catastrophic, I then see arguments (including from scientists) saying that it's no where near as much of an issue as some people are saying, or that climate change is due to natural variability in sun cycles (For example).

I honestly have no idea (and I'm speaking to you really sincerely here) how anyone could possibly wade through the complexity of this issue and end up being absolutely certain that they understand the issue perfectly.

Yep. Disinformation is the primary issue. This is why they had 13 studies on establishing a scientific consensus around climate change. There's just too much disinformation around.

I find it best to look at sources. There's scientific journals that are well respected like Science Journal and Nature Magazine. These are compilations of research articles that have been carried out by different research groups with different funding sources. These sort of sources say that there is no debate on whether it's a problem or not. Just how much of a problem it's going to be.

Then you look at the sources that are saying it's not a problem. Or saying that it's natural. These are generally politically driven think tanks that are sponsored by coal and oil companies like the Cato Institute.

Unfortunately there's a lot of money in it so there's always going to be manipulation of information.

 

[Dawgfather]

The problem is that those issues you described will mostly get worse due to climate change. Raising sea levels, more intense storms, mass immigration, more disease, higher temperatures.

That's the problem with climate change. It's an overarching problem that makes everything else worse. That means more humanitarian aid is required to deal with the issues.

I agree life expectancy could get worse if climate change predictions are true. But to date, life expectancy has gone the opposite way to the climate predictions i.e. life expectancy has improved.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I agree life expectancy could get worse if climate change predictions are true. But to date, life expectancy has gone the opposite way to the climate predictions i.e. life expectancy has improved.

Yep. Modern medicine. But not everyone can afford modern medicine. It's fine for at least 1/3rd of the world's population.

 

[Flanagun]

I agree life expectancy could get worse if climate change predictions are true. But to date, life expectancy has gone the opposite way to the climate predictions i.e. life expectancy has improved.

If you had shares in a company and were advised to sell them by an insider due to a predicted crash in the market, would you ignore expert advice because of the money you'd already made?

 

[Dawgfather]

If you had shares in a company and were advised to sell them by an insider due to a predicted crash in the market, would you ignore expert advice because of the money you'd already made?

No, I would ignore the advice because it's insider trading and I would be thrown in prison if I was found out lol.

 

[Dawgfather]

If you had shares in a company and were advised to sell them by an insider due to a predicted crash in the market, would you ignore expert advice because of the money you'd already made?

IN all seriousness I take your point but the way I look at it is that they are only predictions, and to date I haven't seen anyone's climate predictions coming true to the point of any serious implications for the world.

 

[Flanagun]

No, I would ignore the advice because it's insider trading and I would be thrown in prison if I was found out lol.

If you were a successful stockbroker you'd probably be put up in a cell that resembles the four seasons for six months, then you'd be free to resume your lavish lifestyle....lol

 

[Flanagun]

IN all seriousness I take your point but the way I look at it is that they are only predictions, and to date I haven't seen anyone's climate predictions coming true to the point of any serious implications for the world.

The predictions don't claim the worst of things are happening right now though. We're only beginning to see the impacts. If your doctor told you your blood pressure was dangerously high, would you wait until you had a stroke or some other serious health event to take his or her word for it.....I guess there are many who would..... but following expert advice as a preventative measure would be the most logical course of action.

 

[Dawgfather]

The predictions don't claim the worst of things are happening right now though. We're only beginning to see the impacts. If your doctor told you your blood pressure was dangerously high, would you wait until you had a stroke or some other serious health event to take his or her word for it.....I guess there are many who would..... but following expert advice as a preventative measure would be the most logical course of action.

I honestly question myself, why I don't seem to really believe in this climate change thing. Especially when it seems the majority of the population seem to.

The best answer I've given myself is that the debate has become almost entirely political and I don't have anything objective to make my mind up with.

Even some of the data and research from scientists (IMO) is more than likely biased because I feel a the debate has gotten to the point where anyone who disagrees with climate change is automatically a 'leper' and somehow 'dirty'. Once any debate gets to that point it makes it incredibly tough for anyone to present an opposing argument. And on the flip side it makes it much easier for people to just continue agreeing with the consensus instead of challenging it.

 

[The DoggFather]

This must be due to climate change (Bossley Park).

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=518171962341040

What am I watching bro?

 

[Wahesh]

What am I watching bro?

Sinkhole opening up in Bossley Park. Apparently it's happening in a street called 'Pleasant street' - the irony.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I honestly question myself, why I don't seem to really believe in this climate change thing. Especially when it seems the majority of the population seem to.

The best answer I've given myself is that the debate has become almost entirely political and I don't have anything objective to make my mind up with.

Even some of the data and research from scientists (IMO) is more than likely biased because I feel a the debate has gotten to the point where anyone who disagrees with climate change is automatically a 'leper' and somehow 'dirty'. Once any debate gets to that point it makes it incredibly tough for anyone to present an opposing argument. And on the flip side it makes it much easier for people to just continue agreeing with the consensus instead of challenging it.

I have a simple way of thinking about it. If 98 experts tell me that something is a duck and 2 experts tell me it's a goose. It's probably a duck.

If the media tells me it's a Swan, I'm probably going to find out what the experts say.

 

[Dawgfather]

I have a simple way of thinking about it. If 98 experts tell me that something is a duck and 2 experts tell me it's a goose. It's probably a duck.

If the media tells me it's a Swan, I'm probably going to find out what the experts say.

I hate to have an answer for everything but this probably goes to the heart of my confusion.

From what I understand, the whole "97 percent of climate scientists believe in climate change" argument is flawed in itself because it excluded scientists who refused to answer the question.

Having said that, I have no doubt that a majority (of some description) whether it is 55% or 65% etc, of climate scientists do believe in climate change. I would just say that I think that it's become so political that many of the scientists have probably reached their conclusions through confirmation bias or by refusing to consider other alternatives.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I hate to have an answer for everything but this probably goes to the heart of my confusion.

From what I understand, the whole "97 percent of climate scientists believe in climate change" argument is flawed in itself because it excluded scientists who refused to answer the question.

Having said that, I have no doubt that a majority (of some description) whether it is 55% or 65% etc, of climate scientists do believe in climate change. I would just say that I think that it's become so political that many of the scientists have probably reached their conclusions through confirmation bias or by refusing to consider other alternatives.

Nah. The "97% consensus is flawed" argument is part of the disinformation.

There's two main arguments raised by climate skeptics in regard to the 97% consensus:

- it didn't include scientists who refused to provide their stance

- it made assumptions about the stances of the scientists based on their research

You can quickly see how this is counter-intuitive. Both debate points can't be correct because they directly oppose each other. But both are raised by the same people.

Here's a few facts that show the flaws in it

- the 97% consensus included research that didn't state "climate change is real" as long as that research worked off the basis that climate change is real and man-influenced. There are many critiques about this by climate skeptics but it's like saying that physicists don't believe in gravity because they didn't say "gravity is real" in their research

- the most famous 97% consensus study (Australian research carried out by Cook et Al) compared the research carried out based on the researcher's base point (if they researched based on man-influenced climate change being real) and they went one step further when they passed surveys on to all researchers to see if they believed man-influenced climate change is real. Anyone who refused to answer was listed as nuanced (neutral). The results are the 97% agreement with the 3% being neutral or denial

- the above research paper was one of 13 independent research papers that all found the same/similar results

- the ones who denied man-influenced climate change have been criticised for flawed research and being corrupt. Every single climate change denial researcher received funding from coal and oil companies. That's not an exaggeration. Every single researcher that doesn't support it are being paid by fossil fuel companies. That's like saying that coca-cola is definitely healthy because employees of Coca-cola say its healthy

 

[EXPLORER]

 

[The DoggFather]

Shits real y'all! LOL

It begins.....

 

[086]

FUCK YEAH
Western Sydney waterfronts and the snobby ***** live the waterworld 'dream' :P