Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: GenoDRPh

What other science tips you have for us? Gonna go after handwashing now?

Follow the money and do not blindly believe. The same people who say they are atheists because they do not want to believe in an "imaginary friend" believe whatever the infobabe on their news channel spews without question.

They say you have to give up your money and freedom or the world will burn up and you say "sure, take it all!"

Quote: rxwine

Duffman advises that you’re not thinking if you listen to trained scientists. Way better, is apply that advice to what he says about climate change.

You ignore trained scientists and believe life just popped up out on nothing when science proves that is not possible. You ignore trained scientists and believe there are more than two genders. You ignore science and do not believe life begins at conception.

Your belief in science is selective.

Quote: AZDuffman

You ignore trained scientists and believe life just popped up out on nothing when science proves that is not possible. You ignore trained scientists and believe there are more than two genders. You ignore science and do not believe life begins at conception.

Your belief in science is selective.

Wrong.

Wrong on everything in fact.

How many times do you need something explained to you?

Just for example when Friar Gamble was here I used the acorn to oak tree example. That if you step on and crush an acorn in your neighbor’s yard, do you need to pay him the cost of the full grown oak tree? I didn’t argue that an acorn wasn’t life (at its conception) I argued that’s not how anyone values anything else.

You steal $10 out of someone’s bank account when they are 12, you don’t owe them the compounded interest when they’re 30.

If you want to value the first few cells at embryonic state, like it’s the most valuable thing, I don’t object at all. That’s your right. Not your right to impose it on others. And no reason I have to value your opinion on it over mine.

Quote: AZDuffman

NONE!

The whole thing is a scam and shakedown. You want to believe people who say how we need to cut down on CO2 while they fly private jets and live in mansions feel free to be a sucker. Just quit demanding laws to make the rest of us do so.

Not even a 0.5% change in CO2 is supposedly causing all this? Does not pass the smell test.

I suggest that you get your climate information from scientists, not from politicians, or celebrities.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased about 50% since the Industrial Revolution. It’s higher than it has been in millions of years.

Emerging from the ice age about 12,000 years ago the global temperature increased 5deg in 5000 years, a rate of change that would not be discernible over many generations. Global temperature has increased 1deg over the last 150 years. More than 6 times faster.

Quote: JimRockford

I suggest that you get your climate information from scientists, not from politicians, or celebrities.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased about 50% since the Industrial Revolution. It’s higher than it has been in millions of years.

Emerging from the ice age about 12,000 years ago the global temperature increased 5deg in 5000 years, a rate of change that would not be discernible over many generations. Global temperature has increased 1deg over the last 150 years. More than 6 times faster.

I do get my information from scientists. I just use it to think for myself instead of just believing it all. See, we do not have accurate records from 150 years ago much less 12,000. And on a 4.5 billion year old planet 12,000 years is nothing. Like saying how the DJIA is doing over its 120 years based on 1 day of trading results.

It is all a scam.

Quote: rxwine

How many times do you need something explained to you?

Just for example when Friar Gamble was here I used the acorn to oak tree example. That if you step on and crush an acorn in your neighbor’s yard, do you need to pay him the cost of the full grown oak tree? I didn’t argue that an acorn wasn’t life (at its conception) I argued that’s not how anyone values anything else.

You steal $10 out of someone’s bank account when they are 12, you don’t owe them the compounded interest when they’re 30.

If you want to value the first few cells at embryonic state, like it’s the most valuable thing, I don’t object at all. That’s your right. Not your right to impose it on others. And no reason I have to value your opinion on it over mine.

How many times do you need science explained to you? At conception unique DNA is assigned to the new being, meaning the start of life. The thing is, pro-abortion people deny this because they then have to deny what abortion is doing. This seems to be how they live with themselves.

Quote: JimRockford

I suggest that you get your climate information from scientists, not from politicians, or celebrities.

We all need to ponder just where we are getting our information from. I've complained many times that we think we are getting such from 'the science' while actually what we get is filtered ... generally, we turn to the filters that suit our biases

I'm OK with the science. But I'm going to add to the list of filters that irk me [journalists and politicians] those scientists who are Activists.

Let's take the recent bit about the tsunami in the fjord. The scientific work that went into determining where the seismic phenomenon occurred is impressive; I have a hunch they might not have been able to track down where it happened not so many years ago. Scientists are in fact really incredibly good with measurements and gathering data. How about conclusions? The rank and file I think are cautious, it’s in their nature. The Activists?

What RXwine posted on the fjord shows up in a lot of sites, but the below linked one seems to have the most info. It shows the research originally appeared in the very respected peer-reviewed ‘Nature’ publication, and what the sites are posting is the ‘abstract’. This is written by Brent Grocholski , a name that pops right up when you search for it. He is “a physical science senior editor at Science, handling manuscript in Earth science and materials science” with a doctorate in Earth and Planetary Science per Science.org. So he is a scientist and journalist both. Let’s see what he wrote in the abstract.

Quote:

Climate change is increasingly predisposing polar regions to large landslides.

So he starts right off in an unscientific manner, stating as factual something that would be a theory. It’s the journalist in him, I guess.

Quote:

Tsunamigenic landslides have occurred recently in Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaat), but none have been reported from the eastern fjords. In September 2023, we detected the start of a 9-day-long, global 10.88-millihertz (92-second) monochromatic very-long-period (VLP) seismic signal, originating from East Greenland. In this study, we demonstrate how this event started with a glacial thinning–induced rock-ice avalanche of 25 × 106 cubic meters plunging into Dickson Fjord, triggering a 200-meter-high tsunami. Simulations show that the tsunami stabilized into a 7-meter-high long-duration seiche with a frequency (11.45 millihertz) and slow amplitude decay that were nearly identical to the seismic signal. An oscillating, fjord-transverse single force with a maximum amplitude of 5 × 1011 newtons reproduced the seismic amplitudes and their radiation pattern relative to the fjord, demonstrating how a seiche directly caused the 9-day-long seismic signal.

I’m including that in full to reinforce that the scientific work is impressive. What it probably can’t tell us is whether this type of landslide is really abnormal, or increasing in frequency from the past. How new is the ability to observe this? OK, maybe they know because he continues,

Quote:

Our findings highlight how climate change is causing cascading, hazardous feedbacks between the cryosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere.

so not only is he able to determine that a [evidently concluding it's new] feedback is at work, but climate change is to blame, stated as a fact again.

Quote:

A large rockslide occurred in Greenland on 16 September 2023 that generated a local tsunami. The event was energetic enough to generate a global signal that resonated for 9 days. Svennevig et al. used a range of geophysical tools to detail the sequence of events that occurred and then determined the origin of the global signal. The authors found that the signal was generated by standing waves in the Dickson fjord due to the rockslide.

For some reason he’s repeating himself, then giving credit.

How unusual is all this? Aren’t big rockslides into enclosed areas going to create tsunamis? And it’s one contained in a fjord, naturally it’s going to rock back and forth.

Quote:

Climate change drives feedback among the cryosphere, hydrosphere, and mass wasting events, and signals such as the one the authors observed may provide a different way of understanding these interactions

I have to wonder what the scientists who did the study think. Of course they want attention to their study, but when they see the dramatic conclusion that it’s being driven by Climate Change, do they look at each other and think 'how does he know that? and is coming to such conclusions really science?’

If your bias is that we should panic over climate change, then, without any further help from Grocholski, you’re going to conclude that this is evidence the glaciers are rapidly melting away and now we are in danger of tsunamis wiping us out too.

I should repeat that I don’t discount that an anthropogenic influence on climate change is likely. I don’t think though that just saying so over and over makes it true, Goebbels style.

https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/a-rockslide-generated-tsunami-in-a-greenland-fjord-rang-earth-for .

OG.

Just as you, (most likely) don’t start out every argument with a nod to flat earthers belief because you moved beyond their skepticism about the shape of Earth, perhaps many scientists see no point in giving a further nod to doubt of climate skeptics every time they add data in this area. Researchers of glacier effects would likely already concluded that effects of glaciers is connected to climate warming without nodding to climate skeptics every time.

Edited until just right. Three bears.