Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

palmerc2

macrumors 68000
Feb 29, 2008
1,621
683
Los Angeles
Ya know....I don't know enough about the Paris Agreement, because I view manmade climate change as a farce pushed on people for further control over our lives. I've read some articles here and there saying how much the Paris Agreement costs us, how little it does, etc. Interesting video on the subject.


And, another interesting video on climate change.

 

Glockworkorange

Suspended
Feb 10, 2015
2,511
4,184
Chicago, Illinois
Ya know....I don't know enough about the Paris Agreement, because I view manmade climate change as a farce pushed on people for further control over our lives. I've read some articles here and there saying how much the Paris Agreement costs us, how little it does, etc. Interesting video on the subject.


And, another interesting video on climate change.

Stossel is great.
 

siddavis

macrumors 6502a
Feb 23, 2009
722
2,190
What a silly take on things. There is no stopping death either, does that mean we may as well hurry things along?
Yet implementing policies that have great potential (it's math) to decimate global economies is a better option? If you don't agree that it's settled "science" that the changing climate is primarily due to human activity, then you are labeled a denier and the discussion is shut down. Therefore, we cant have real discussions about different solutions because the one side that claims science is the only one allowed to present solutions. Those solutions involve centralized control, diminished personal liberty, wealth redistribution and a whole bevy of (intended) consequences that strangely (not really) are the principles of one political leaning. I'm sorry, but that isn't just a coincidence.
 

Glockworkorange

Suspended
Feb 10, 2015
2,511
4,184
Chicago, Illinois
LOL. 4 whole failed fact checks out of everything they've ever done. As compared to the thousands by Fox News. Adorable that you don't think it's true.
What are you even talking about?

Is it your contention Buzzfeed has only been incorrect 4 times? Really?

Okay, sure.

I don't know what Fox News has to do with anything. I don't watch it or read their website. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
  • Like
Reactions: zaphon

Zab the Fab

macrumors regular
Nov 26, 2003
145
121
There’s a scientific consensus. There’s no debate to be had. That’s like asking to hear both sides of the story about whether or not the earth is flat.
You just told everyone, you never watched this movie. So why don't you allow yourself to make up your own mind? Why can you only repeat what you are told? Why are you afraid of examining information that are critical of your authorities?

The key to ignorance is avoiding the other side of the story. Propaganda always tells you, it is the only side worth listening to.
 

unobtainium

macrumors 68030
Mar 27, 2011
2,519
3,712
You just told everyone, you never watched this movie. So why don't you allow yourself to make up your own mind? Why can you only repeat what you are told? Why are you afraid of examining information that are critical of your authorities?

The key to ignorance is avoiding the other side of the story. Propaganda always tells you, it is the only side worth listening to.
Ever heard the saying “don’t believe everything you read”? We need to update that - don’t believe everything you see online. One of the most important life skills we can teach our kids in this age of information overload is assessing the reliability of sources. A YouTube video is not a good source for scientific information. Look at peer-reviewed scientific literature or news stories that report on peer-reviewed science from reputable publications. There is a lot of junk information out there from unreliable sources with an agenda.
 

Grade

macrumors regular
Apr 13, 2007
177
54
I haven't read the whole thread, but here is what I say:

If it happens to be true (I believe it so), when cities like Venice and Miami are at risk of disappearing due to rising seas, provoked by global warming/climate change, don't come crying. By then it will be too late for Human kind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roy Biggins

Nuno Lopes

macrumors 65816
Sep 6, 2011
1,123
959
Lisbon, Portugal
When is it going to hit the fan? Like it was supposed to in the early 1900s? Like it was supposed to in the mid-late 1900s? Like it was supposed to early 2000s? Like it was supposed to early this decade? Tell me, what is your weather prediction 2 weeks from now? Just yesterday in my area, the forecast high temp from just the day before was off by 15 degrees F!

You sound like those flat earthers”s.

I guess science and statistics are onky good when they fit your bill right?

https://www.c2es.org/content/wildfires-and-climate-change/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roy Biggins

Zab the Fab

macrumors regular
Nov 26, 2003
145
121
There’s a scientific consensus. There’s no debate to be had. That’s like asking to hear both sides of the story about whether or not the earth is flat.
You are denying the counter science exists, even after I gave you the opportunity to sit down and hear the other side of the story. It's called fanaticism. To refuse hearing opposing arguments.

Listing more examples where you don't want to hear opposing arguments, only solidifies your already admitted ignorance.

"To dismiss something before investigation, is the height, of ignorance"
-- Albert Einstein.

No one is forcing you to be scientific about this issue. We are actually pointing out, that you're not.
 

Zab the Fab

macrumors regular
Nov 26, 2003
145
121
You sound like those flat earthers”s.

I guess science and statistics are onky good when they fit your bill right?

https://www.c2es.org/content/wildfires-and-climate-change/
I was not aware flat earth's demanded actual evidence? Are you sure you want to use that as an example?

The scientific method is to test a hypotesis. You are being told there's no time to hear opposing views, no time to debate, no time for questioning. All the while their doomsday scenarios keep getting postponed. None of this is making you skeptical. The reason is you are not, one.
 

Nuno Lopes

macrumors 65816
Sep 6, 2011
1,123
959
Lisbon, Portugal
I was not aware flat earth's demanded actual evidence? Are you sure you want to use that as an example?

The scientific method is to test a hypotesis. You are being told there's no time to hear opposing views, no time to debate, no time for questioning. All the while their doomsday scenarios keep getting postponed. None of this is making you skeptical. The reason is you are not, one.

Well. Opposing view are always welcome. On the matters of uncertainty I tend favor probability. Meaning, that yes, there always may be other reasons even if less probable as per existing data and consensus to explain a phenomena and their may be spot on in the end. Still, this is a case that action vs non action actually leans towards one or another.

Suppose we invest had on bio friendly energy and we face right on restructuring the energy industry (that may include nuclear if safety issues are taken care off). This is a case that is a win win situation. If global warming is not due to the heavy reliance in fossil fuels than you still win in the bio part (crops, air quality, etc etc). So its Win situation with very probable of a Win Win.

Keeping fossil fuels and combustion, it may be a Win situation (less probably), but fundamentally its still a loose one in the bio part.

Recent studies show how the reduction of air pollution across the globe due to the Covid Pandemic had a immediate positive impact in the biosphere. Not profound but a positive one. This is expected. Don’t think there will be a solution whose impact will be radical from on year to the other, it will always be through a cumulative effect … will talk years …

Its smart thinking to align a industry with this objective. Call it a positive kick. In this alignment there will always be companies that have more to loose than to win finantially, depends on how they align themselves.

One thing is for sure. I don’t think the solution is to have people traveling less, not using cars, avoid using trains and airplanes, avoid using computers and TVs, stop eating, stay at home, stop launching rockets to space … so on and so forth ... Knowing human nature that will never happen, so I’m not really a radical. Hey, maybe this all thing is irreversible anyway, maybe its just hearth saying, look man, you are already history, temps will rise 8c anyway,… but its worth a try no?

“I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames” - Jim Morrison.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:

JagdTiger

macrumors 6502
Dec 20, 2017
479
695



Apple CEO Tim Cook and a group of other CEOs, including Google's Sundar Pichai and Microsoft's Satya Nadella, have jointly signed a letter urging the Trump administration to keep the United States a member of the Paris Agreement.

apple-environment-800x434.jpg

The Paris Agreement aims to combat climate change by keeping the global temperature rise this century well below 2ºC above pre-industrial levels. The United States was one of over 190 countries to pledge support for the Paris Agreement in 2015, under the Obama administration, but the Trump administration is in the process of formally exiting the agreement due to economic concerns.

Cook and the other CEOs who signed the letter believe the Paris Agreement could actually provide a boost to the economy.

"Staying in the Paris Agreement will strengthen our competitiveness in global markets, positioning the United States to lead the deployment of new technologies that support the transition, provide for our workers and communities, and create jobs and companies built to last," the letter states.

"The promise of the Paris Agreement is one of a just and prosperous world. We urge the United States to join us in staying in."

The letter was prepared by AFL-CIO, the largest federation of unions in the United States, representing more than 12.5 million working people in the country. Visit the United For The Paris Agreement website for more details.


Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Tim Cook and Other CEOs Urge U.S. Government to Stay in Paris Agreement to Fight Climate Change
Humans won't stop the climate change wether it's because of human interaction or biblical, it's most likely too late for that plus all these so called environmentalists at least some like the politicians, hollywood, music industry live right next to the ocean so either it's a lie about global warming or they don't care because when the tide rises they will hop, skip and jump to someplace where it's safer to be leaving everyone (public) else behind....besides they want to release what is left of the rod in fukushima and will devistate what is the pacific and poison more of the atlantic ocean and cause a little more acidic rain...the politicians and entertainers don't seem to care about that.
 

Zab the Fab

macrumors regular
Nov 26, 2003
145
121
Science is always a debate, followed by the scientific method when possible. What we are seeing is a rejection of science. The media, the authorities are using ridicule and stigmatization against those presenting science that goes against the political agenda. As a civilization we have scientists, but humanity has yet to embrace science. In fact they'll reject it every chance they get, if it goes against the #SelectiveScience they have been presented with so far. Doesn't matter if it's global warming, COVID lockdowns or masks. Selective Science has been weaponized to further a global agenda of control.

Those rejecting science, meaning both sides of the story, are more than happy to join up and gather around, to defend the very authorities and political agendas leading to their own demise.

As an example, people will spend hours online raving about global warming doomsday, but there's no time to approach the issue objectively and watch something like The Great Global Warming Swindle (just as an example).
 

unobtainium

macrumors 68030
Mar 27, 2011
2,519
3,712
You are denying the counter science exists, even after I gave you the opportunity to sit down and hear the other side of the story. It's called fanaticism. To refuse hearing opposing arguments.

Listing more examples where you don't want to hear opposing arguments, only solidifies your already admitted ignorance.

"To dismiss something before investigation, is the height, of ignorance"
-- Albert Einstein.

No one is forcing you to be scientific about this issue. We are actually pointing out, that you're not.
There already has been plenty of research done. And now there’s a consensus. Your Einstein quote does not apply. Are you suggesting this hasn’t been investigated?? It’s been exhaustively studied.


Observation leads to data leads to induction leads to hypotheses leads to deduction leads to reproducible experiments that can falsify or confirm those deductions. Add a few decades and thousands of brilliant researchers following this process and you get a consensus. It’s not about “hearing the other side of the argument.” That is not what the scientific method is about. Do we all need to sit down and “hear the flat earthier argument”? What a waste of time.
 

siddavis

macrumors 6502a
Feb 23, 2009
722
2,190
There already has been plenty of research done. And now there’s a consensus. Your Einstein quote does not apply. Are you suggesting this hasn’t been investigated?? It’s been exhaustively studied.


Observation leads to data leads to induction leads to hypotheses leads to deduction leads to reproducible experiments that can falsify or confirm those deductions. Add a few decades and thousands of brilliant researchers following this process and you get a consensus. It’s not about “hearing the other side of the argument.” That is not what the scientific method is about. Do we all need to sit down and “hear the flat earthier argument”? What a waste of time.
For me, the sheer number of confounding variables tells me that it may never be "exhaustively" studied. I personally don't think we should be dismissive of the hypothesis that the climate is changing for a vast number of reasons (most of which have existed for the earth's 4 billion year + life) and that humans are but a small contributor to the changing climate. In the same way, I will not be closed off to the hypothesis that humans DO contribute significantly to changing climate.

Just proclaiming there's a consensus and shutting all others down advances nothing. I think it's funny that "flat earth" is always brought up. The first thinking of a spherical earth came near 500BC, and people were still thinking that it could be flat up until the 1500s. That's 2000 years of many in a "consensus" thinking it was flat. With climate, we've got 4 billion years all figured out in the matter of 50 years. Well that is... going from an impending ice age, to the coming meltdown.

We are so vain to think that we have so much power going both ways - that we have such a dramatic impact, and that we can control it as well. I start by just looking at the size difference between the sun and earth and the profound power and affects the sun has on earth's climate. For me, that's Occam's Razor - the starting point for all of this. Then there's the CO2 as a pollutant making up 0.04% of the atmosphere. All of that said, I won't just stick my head in the sand and dismiss anything outright. But I want continuing studies that can isolate and remove (major) confounding variables. I'll continue to wait...
 

unobtainium

macrumors 68030
Mar 27, 2011
2,519
3,712
I personally don't think we should be dismissive of the hypothesis that the climate is changing for a vast number of reasons (most of which have existed for the earth's 4 billion year + life) and that humans are but a small contributor to the changing climate.
See this has been studied intensively. There is natural climate variability - it comes from slight changes in Earth’s orbit, volcanic activity (blocking solar radiation), other kinds of dust veils (meteorite impacts etc), and possibly changes in solar output (still debated).

We’re not experiencing any of those factors currently that would explain the dramatic warming of the poles and oceans especially.

Another tell-tale sign that greenhouse gases are to blame: if the current warming were caused by changes in the sun’s output or the Earth’s orbit, then the entire atmosphere would heat up (both upper and lower atmosphere, but especially the upper atmosphere). If the warming is caused by greenhouse gases, then warming would be restricted to the lower atmosphere, and the upper (stratosphere) would actually be cooling — because the heat is trapped below. Benjamin Santer proved brilliantly in the 90s that this is exactly what we’re seeing, a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere. The cause of the warming is greenhouse gases.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.