Climate Change and Bad Psychology Jokes

[ChappyUK]

Here's the other thing. Anybody who has been to an industrial area, or a city with intense traffic knows that cars and factories with chimney stacks produce a fairly unpleasant local atmosphere. Even if these emissions aren't warming the globe, wouldn't it just be nicer if we reduced the noxious fumes that we breathe? Chappyuk wouldn't you like the experience of walking your kids through London to be as pleasant and fresh as walking them through a quaint country village?

Of course I would. Who wouldn't?

 

[El Dubya]

Genuine question Mr Dubs, how do you see this occurring?

I'm no scientist, I'm just asking that if it's possible, why wouldn't we want to work towards that?

Of course I would. Who wouldn't?

Exactly, so no matter what we should be working to lower our emissions as a society. I think by governments setting targets and creating financial consequences for not meeting those targets, we'll force industry into innovating solutions.

 

[BRAB]

Just wondering if there's anyone with a science degree in here that doesn't accept the anthropogenic nature of climate change?

Want to make sure my purge is comprehensive

 

[atlas1]

Some psych jokes from Frasier:

"Oh I hate lawyers"
"Yes me too, although they make wonderful patients - they have great health insurance and never get better"

"I couldn't attend because I had my fear of abandonment workshop and I've already been a no show twice"

"I'm conducting a seminar in multiple personality disorders and it takes me forever to fill out the name tags"

 

[El Dubya]

Just wondering if there's anyone with a science degree in here that doesn't accept the anthropogenic nature of climate change?

Want to make sure my purge is comprehensive

People seem to be ignoring logical and clearly reasoned arguments too.

 

[ChappyUK]

I'm no scientist, I'm just asking that if it's possible, why wouldn't we want to work towards that?

Exactly, so no matter what we should be working to lower our emissions as a society. I think by governments setting targets and creating financial consequences for not meeting those targets, we'll force industry into innovating solutions.

Governments first goal shouldnt be to punish. It should be to reward and enable. There are many very smart progressive people and companies out there who are working towards solving the very problems you mention.

Slapping all industry with financial consequences is just making them uncompetitive against the rest of the globe.

Give these people and companies the freedom to realise their goals. Don't drown them in red tape.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

I do believe that there is natural warming however it's been exacerbated tenfold by human activities.

Lol. Nah. I think you will find there are far more powerful sources at play than us... take the sun for example.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

There's no opposing view that's backed by peer reviewed data, so no.

In the same way, I didn't learn that decapitation is good for you, because not every situation has two viewpoints.

There's no opposing view backed by peer reviewed data because there is no government funding for the opposing view. This should ring alarm bells.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Why is it bad?
Increased CO2 is bringing increased temperatures. Increased temperatures bring increased sea level. That is catastrophic damage globally.

Well, at least according to a leading scientist, the Great Barrier Reef will be loving us!

 

[El Dubya]

Lol. Nah. I think you will find there are far more powerful sources at play than us... take the sun for example.

That doesn't at all refute what she said. Has the sun altered temperature massively in the past century?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

There could be a lag in the process. Putting procedures in now might not have a noticeable (or significant, outside random variance etc) difference immediately.

We also certainly haven't gone close to meeting the targets. Has some effort been made? Sure. Could we be doing a hell of a lot better? Absolutely.

The issue is once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, how do we get rid of it? Trees can only do so much.

Why do we need to get rid of CO2 in the atmosphere? It's always been there. And besides, from what I've researched on the topic, CO2 only makes up a very small percentage of the total greenhouse gases.

 

[por_please_ya]

Lol. Nah. I think you will find there are far more powerful sources at play than us... take the sun for example.

How old is the sun? How long until it actually becomes a red giant?! The sun doesn't change its temperature within the space of 100 years.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

That doesn't at all refute what she said. Has the sun altered temperature massively in the past century?

The sun alters temperatures all the time. More specifically the activity of the sun. Meteorologists have been using sun spots on the sun to predict weather forecasts for decades. I think if you really investigate you will find that temperature hasn't "altered massively" in the past century compared to the past. It is interesting that the temperature during the medieval period for hundreds of years was higher than what we are experiencing today.

 

[por_please_ya]

The sun alters temperatures all the time. More specifically the activity of the sun. Meteorologists have been using sun spots on the sun to predict weather forecasts for decades. I think if you really investigate you will find that temperature hasn't "altered massively" in the past century compared to the past. It is interesting that the temperature during the medieval period for hundreds of years was higher than what we are experiencing today.

False.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

 

[Better Loosen Up]

How old is the sun? How long until it actually becomes a red giant?! The sun doesn't change its temperature within the space of 100 years.

Sun activity is constantly changing. Scientists who question the relativity between CO2 and temperature have found that the correlation between sun spots and temperature over a long period of time is far more reliable and consistent than CO2.

 

[por_please_ya]

Sun activity is constantly changing. Scientists who question the relativity between CO2 and temperature have found that the correlation between sun spots and temperature over a long period of time is far more reliable and consistent than CO2.

I do know that solar flares and the like can affect things here on Earth. However it simply cannot be the only reason for big ice shelves breaking up or glacial retreat or permafrost melt.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

False.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

Lol "sceptical science". They also make the claim that "97% of scientists agree that humans cause global warming"

This statement is extremely misleading as discussed by several leading scientists

 

[Better Loosen Up]

I do know that solar flares and the like can affect things here on Earth. However it simply cannot be the only reason for big ice shelves breaking up or glacial retreat or permafrost melt.

But CO2 can be? Are you suggesting that big ice shelves breaking up or glacial retreat or permafrost melt has never happened before?

 

[Loonerty]

Well, at least according to a leading scientist, the Great Barrier Reef will be loving us!

Lol I don't think you know Dr Hughes's work well enough.

 

[por_please_ya]

But CO2 can be? Are you suggesting that big ice shelves breaking up or glacial retreat or permafrost melt has never happened before?

It's never happened at the rate that it's happening right now.

What is the issue with creating a better world anyway?! What if the climate scientists happened to be wrong, and we had cleaner energy and a better environment for the next generations? That doesn't seem so bad does it...

 

[Better Loosen Up]

It's never happened at the rate that it's happening right now.

What is the issue with creating a better world anyway?! What if the climate scientists happened to be wrong, and we had cleaner energy and a better environment for the next generations? That doesn't seem so bad does it...

Not at all and perhaps I should clarify my position on all of this before i'm labelled a heretic or something.

I do believe that CO2 emissions would have some impact on the global climate.

I would also like to see more of a focus on cost effective renewable energies for the future.

My issue is that as it currently stands, climate change is a $1.5 Trillion, policy driven industry where the worlds largest governments stand to benefit significantly financially. As a result, funding for scientists seems to be only provided to those who are willing to push the agenda. What this leaves us with is basically a court room with a prosecutor and no defense. How can you expect to achieve a factual based outcome? After all, isn't that meant to be the purpose of science.

I find myself supporting the scientists who are accused of "opposing" climate change when in reality they don't. Their position as i interpret it is mostly that we should all take a deep breath and attempt to get to an understanding that's supported with undeniable fact as best as possible. They are the ones that look at all the models that are produced to push the climate change movement and are daring enough to say "hang on a minute, this doesn't quite add up". The number of these scientists are beginning to grow today as previously it would have almost been career suicide to do so. Some of these scientists also happen to be some of the highest regarded and awarded in their field.

Rather than making the world a better place for future generations by creating unsubstantiated hysteria, personally i would rather arm them with the truth. So that way, with further technological advancements and knowledge, they can build on our our understanding and put real, beneficial action plans in place for the future of our planet with known expected outcomes.

I think we are a pretty smart race these days. What we can achieve becomes more and more impressive by the day. I just worry we are selling ourselves short here.

 

[TheKanga]

Didn't Al gore say all of poles would be melted by now?

 

[Scotland]

Didn't Al gore say all of poles would be melted by now?

He wasn't being cereal.

 

[TheKanga]

While i do believe mankind has had an impact.
The Earth has always cooled and warmed historically.
It's to do with 9 year lunar cycles and high /low solar activity.
Wouldn't be suprised if we have a cooler period sometime soon.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

While i do believe mankind has had an impact.
The Earth has always cooled and warmed historically.
It's to do with 9 year lunar cycles and high /low solar activity.
Wouldn't be suprised if we have a cooler period sometime soon.

And that's exactly the point that a lot of scientists are questioning. It seems that no one up until this point has being able to quantify conclusively how much of the current climate change we are responsible for and how much is just natural cycles... though governments aren't really interested in this as it doesn't suit their agenda.