Climate Change

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

On a population discussion, in a perfect world how would that be achieved without a collapse of society?

---

Slowly, very slowly, like TFR 2.0-2.05 slowly. We'll also have to create a fundamentally different economic system that doesn't require constant growth to not collapse on itself like a dying star, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

Agree. As we approach philosophy and the meaning of life. If nothing else, cleaner air is more pleasant to breath.

Remember cars with carburetors? Holy hell they stink. Fuel injection alone was a huge step forward.

---

https://davidbent.wordpress.com/wp-c...attachment.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcski

FIFY.

Logan’s Run had Farrah Fawcett. Incentives work

---

Please discuss your population hypothesis in greater detail please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

Please discuss your population hypothesis in greater detail please.

---

How’s this for detail?
Attachment 501055

well shit, that's gonna stimulate some growth

this was a depressing read:
Attachment 501065

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod9301

He's right though

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

---

Actually he’s nothing but a useless troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcski

How’s this for detail?
Attachment 501055

---

That's gonna cause a population increase....unless it's just the poster on bedroom wall every 8th grader had in the 1980s.

You guys paying attention to the rapid decline in birthrate since just 2010? We were 2.0-2.1 from 1990-2007, then declining 2-3%/yr, now down to 1.6 this year.

USA is already in population decline as of 2024, without immigration. We'll add 40-50 million people in the next 40-50yrs, about 1/3 the growth in the last 40-50.

What say ye population wingers? Kids these days don't want kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofro261

Kids these days don't want kids.

---

I really want to be a grandfather. It is looking very likely I will not get to enjoy my wish as my daughter is in this boat. Hoping things change as she matures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

That's gonna cause a population increase....unless it's just the poster on bedroom wall every 8th grader had in the 1980s.

---

You need to review the premise of Logan’s Run

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofro261

<snip>
What say ye population wingers? Kids these days don't want kids.

---

I've been counseling my kids since they were young that kids are a PITA.

We'll see if it has stuck.

:fmicon:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcski

You need to review the premise of Logan’s Run

---

I won't do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcski

You need to review the premise of Logan’s Run

---

Floating disco dancing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snow Dog

To reduce birth rates you need ... more access to television (The Association of Television and Radio with Reproductive Behavior). Keep the men distracted with reruns of Baywatch.

On a different note - a recent 485 million year temperature reconstruction indicates that we're at the coldest time in the last half a billion year.

https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/...adk3705-fa.jpg

---

According to that study the climate sensitivity of the earth is 8C per doubling of CO2, meaning we have already created 4 degrees of warming it just hasn’t had time to kick in yet [emoji24]


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

#1. Can we all agree that Climate change is real and not a hoax?

Then we can discuss the causation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion 2020

#1. Can we all agree that Climate change is real and not a hoax?

Then we can discuss the causation.

---

It's real, today.

I think the eternal debate is how much of it is anthropogenic versus natural evolution. Like all things in "science", our understanding is not concrete or determined, but evolving. We see this every decade in healthcare, what we assume as beneficial one decade, is proven useless in the next.

One can, in the same breath, advocate for less carbon emissions, but also wonder and remain curious about how much is truly anthropogenic, without being a "climate denier".

Yeah, science evolves from one polemic that becomes a paradigm to the next depending on the interpretation of relevant data and consensus among experts.

But that's not an excuse to ignore the current paradigm.

Wonder is a very different thing from calling a paradigm a hoax.

Wondering is good and necessary to the scientific process but developing a polemic into a paradigm takes a lot of work and a consensus among people who care.

Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible - FZ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

Yeah, science evolves from one polemic that becomes a paradigm to the next depending on the interpretation of relevant data and consensus among experts.

But that's not an excuse to ignore the current paradigm.

Wonder is a very different thing from calling a paradigm a hoax.

Wondering is good and necessary to the scientific process but developing a polemic into a paradigm takes a lot of work and a consensus among people who care.

Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible - FZ

---

Agreed, and I'm not advocating for skepticism that would politically or pervasively hinder the advance of cleaner technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

It's real, today.

I think the eternal debate is how much of it is anthropogenic versus natural evolution. Like all things in "science", our understanding is not concrete or determined, but evolving. We see this every decade in healthcare, what we assume as beneficial one decade, is proven useless in the next.

One can, in the same breath, advocate for less carbon emissions, but also wonder and remain curious about how much is truly anthropogenic, without being a "climate denier".

---

Debate implies there are two reasonable sides to the argument. The vast majority of published scientists accept the theory that the current rise in global temperature is human caused based on 1) the rapidity of rise which is unprecedented in previous warm periods 2) the physics which finds the calculated CO2 emissions from human activity is enough to explain the increase in atmoshperic CO2 which is in turn enough to explain the rise in global temperature. No other explanation is necessary. (I would include increased emissions from increased wildfires to be a consequence of human activity--the suppression of wildfire in the past and the increase in fire from already increased temperatures. ) The "debate" is between science on the one side and those who have ulterior motives--greed, political power, attention--on the other. There is no reason to challenge anthropogenic global warming until science produces data that contradicts that theory. For now that science is lacking, although opinions are not. The only serious debate at this point is the rapidity of the rise in temps under various scenarios, whether reversal is possible, whether resources should be prioritized for reversal or for adaptation, etc.

To put it another way--not all opinions are equal.

Maybe I'm too entrenched in the flip flopping of medical science and I shouldn't project that cynicism of certainty to climate science? Which do you think is easier to interpret?

Dr. David Sackett (known to be a pioneer in evidence based medicine) once famously said:

"Half of what you’ll learn in medical school will be shown to be either dead wrong or out of date within five years of your graduation; the trouble is that nobody can tell you which half–so the most important thing to learn is how to learn on your own."

And:
"Confirmation bias and other forms of motivated cognition can fuel a self-reinforcing dynamic in which censorship and self-censorship discourage empirical challenges to prevailing conclusions, encouraging a false consensus that further discourages dissent."

Lets rabbit hole some more, just for fun. Science isn't perfect, and it is certainly influenced by academic ego. If nothing else, I find the procurement of evidence interesting.

"Surveys of US, UK, and Canadian academics have documented support for censorship (98). From 9 to 25% of academics and 43% of PhD students supported dismissal campaigns for scholars who report controversial findings, suggesting that dismissal campaigns may increase as current PhDs replace existing faculty. Many academics report willingness to discriminate against conservatives in hiring, promotions, grants, and publications, with the result that right-leaning academics self-censor more than left-leaning ones (40, 75, 99, 103)."

I know on TGR it is required to have a disclaimer, so ones discussion is not to be misinterpreted. "I believe in anthropogenic climate change".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

Lets rabbit hole some more, just for fun. Science isn't perfect, and it is certainly influenced by academic ego. If nothing else, I find the procurement of evidence interesting.

---

Interesting paper, I'd guess some of the reason it is in PNAS nexus and not PNAS is the data source, FIRE, which has ties to the Bradley Foundation, Koch Bros, and the State Policy Network - all right-wing agenda drivers. Doesn't mean the data or analysis are inherently incorrect, but there may be bias in the cases that FIRE takes on, which could conceivably be reflected in the conclusions. Background: I'm not an academic, though have published in PNAS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

Maybe I'm too entrenched in the flip flopping of medical science and I shouldn't project that cynicism of certainty to climate science? Which do you think is easier to interpret?

Dr. David Sackett (known to be a pioneer in evidence based medicine) once famously said:

"Half of what you’ll learn in medical school will be shown to be either dead wrong or out of date within five years of your graduation; the trouble is that nobody can tell you which half–so the most important thing to learn is how to learn on your own."

And:
"Confirmation bias and other forms of motivated cognition can fuel a self-reinforcing dynamic in which censorship and self-censorship discourage empirical challenges to prevailing conclusions, encouraging a false consensus that further discourages dissent."

---

I practiced medicine long enough to see standards of care come and go and come back again. I don't think that medicine and physical sciences are the same in that respect. For one thing the really smart kids go into sciences, the slower ones into medicine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion 2020

#1. Can we all agree that Climate change is real and not a hoax?

Then we can discuss the causation.

---

Climate change has been real since before man walked the earth. Why would it be different now? You'd gave to be reasonably dense to think that humans have had no effect on things like greenhouse gas emissions.

My trouble with some of the "science" is not the science itself, but where the funding for the "science" comes from. This is on both sides of the argument.

Can we all agree that we need to not treat the earth like a garbage can?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnowMachine;[emoji[emoji6[emoji640

[emoji638]][emoji640][emoji639]][emoji637][emoji639][emoji638][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]]

My trouble with some of the "science" is not the science itself, but where the funding for the "science" comes from. This is on both sides of the argument.

---

Of course. We all have run into well heeled climate science gajillionaires who made their millions by writing academic papers for the right investor. The fossil fuel industry doesn’t stand a chance, even if it had the time in between washing hapless sea birds with Dawn dish soap.

Quote:

---

Can we all agree that we need to not treat the earth like a garbage can?

---

Only if it does not impact my quality of life.

I should be able to live in a 4K sq ft home with2 cars and a truck, a boat and a snowmobile and fly all over the world to see how the less well heeled live.