/sci/ - Science & Math

The only answer in agreement with the scientific consensus and availible evidence is answer 1. You cannot deny this.

Sage for potential troll thread.

Considering the Climate is the Basis for whether life can exist I would say......

FUCKING DUHHHH

Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking idiot. If the Climate goes to hell then everything goes to hell.

1

1. Only because of you're broad use of "the future"

Yes at some point in "the future" climate change may present a genuine problem.

[1] of course it does.

4. Yes, in 250 million years.

[1]

1
but that doesn't mean its end of the world problem, just something that is going to fuck certain parts of the world and cause problems for the rest of us a result.

I can't completely agree that science works by consensus, that's too simple.

To a certain extent, of course, but it is the enormous diversity of ideas that creates science, many of which are contradictory/combative.

[1]

2

[1] Yes

Not that the question is not about weather its human caused or not, its weather climate change is present and weather its dangerous.

Russian here. To denies global warming is like standing in the fire and pretending there is none. Its here, its disastrous, it also in perspective good considering we have a large territory so can just use them differently or even more effectively with northern and arctic regions becoming warmer.

The problem is - the change brings with itself critical changes to weather, both in temperature and natural disasters, which affects agriculture e.t.c. a lot. But having 45°C summers we can stomach, forest fires - not so much, though its good that we now have access to northern regions.. whats DANGEROUS about global warming is that its effects are largely unpredicted - or at least predicted, but no one prepares to them. Thus change between current time to the next temperature equilibrium would be marked but a lot of catastrophes, problems, agricultural declines and natural disasters (i.e. water melting on top of peaks means no fresh watter for rivers that were supplying the valleys e.t.c).

At current point only idiot would deny the global warming (or American, not Canadian though as they can see it with bare eyes).

The question can we do something about it if its human caused? We are not sure, but its worth a try as it brings other benefits as well.
Weather we believe its human caused or not, should we prepare to the effects and changes global warming brings to the world? Hell yes! Its a great issue that at best could ruin economies of whole countries, at worst cause great number of catastrophes and hunger.

That said, the worst is that global warming enchances the possiblity of WW3 to happen - by opening Arctic for struggle of world powers over its resources.

>>2058603
It's the very diversity you refer to that emphasizes the importance of the consensus. Progress follows from the diversity for sure, but the best theory is the dominant theory. Over time this changes obviously, but I don't see the theory of climate change being altered significantly in the future. The only significant debate left is about its implications.

>>2058620

Hay

i tell poeple 1 but im in number 3's camp.

there is no consensus in science only fact and i don't believe all the facts are on the table yet therefor I don't know.

I have no problem telling people telling people that its true because what we are doing to stop it isn't bad at all

i tell poeple 1 but im in number 3's camp.

there is no consensus in science only fact and i don't believe all the facts are on the table yet therefor I don't know.

I have no problem telling people that its true because what we are doing to stop it isn't bad at al

>>2058696
That's fucking retarded. There is never fact only theory. You are implying theories can be definitively proven. Science doesn't work that way, science works by falsification. Theories simply become more credible the longer they remain unfalsified. 'The facts' are NEVER all above the table.

Then we agree on the process e.g.
diversity of opinions/ideas -> fact finding explorations -> building of theories to explain the impact of the previous, and so on.

However I don't agree that the last word on global warming is there yet, I used to think that, but over the last five years I've begun changing my mind on it. Certainly it is possible AGW is a problem, but I no longer believe it is (won't explain here, I don't intend to turn this into a flame-war etc).

[2]

Ok, OP here. Here is results so far.

2
Even though I believe that climate change might be, or even probably is, right; I don't believe that a change of a couple of degrees will change a lot. Even if it does, I believe we can solve it with 'quick and dirty' solutions; such as dissolving nutrients for algea in the ocean, building large heat convectors, inserting heat/light reflecting particles in the atmosphere, etc.

1. - because I am not a nigger.

[1]
>>2058809
>solve
A solution implies there is a problem you retard.

>>2058817
>genuine problem
>genuine

>Implying mild headaches are a genuine problem, because one takes painkillers.

>>2058827
Define genuine, nigger. If it requires pain medication I'd say it's a problem.

>>2058835
OK, let me translate my statement to headaches:

>I drank 8 beers, do you believe my headache will be a genuine problem for me tomorrow morning?

Even though I believe drinking might be, or even probably is, causing hangovers; I don't believe that 8 beers will give a bad hangover. Even if it does, I believe you can solve it with 'quick and dirty' solutions; such as painkillers, sleeping in or drinking lots of fluids.

Still defending that 8 beers causes a genuine hangover problem?

>>2058850
>Still defending that 8 beers causes a genuine hangover problem?
It all depends on how you define 'genuine'.

>>2058850
Another interesting thread reduced to semantic shit.

>>2058850
>I don't believe that
Exactly. You think this is a matter of belief. It's not. It's a matter of quantifiable constructs and objective observation. Science.

>>2058862
>It all depends on how you define 'genuine'.
No it does not. You can't possibly argue that hangovers cause problems, after consumption of 8 beers. You're just saying that to win the argument.

>>2058877
Your point being?

>>2058882
Yes I fucking can argue that because the validity of the statement depends on the definition of the construct in question you fucking moron.

Anyway, lets stick to climate change. There was no need for this retarded metaphor. As this anon [>>2058877] mentioned, it's irrelevant what you believe. It's science.

1

>>2058897
Well that settles it then.
There is no science showing that climate change will cause problems. Science shows that climate change exists.

>>2058888
My point being that you hold a belief in disregard of the available evidence. It's irrational.

>>2058904
Not denying climate change, I just believe that it ain't a problem.

1

>>2058911
>implying the consensus isn't that climate change has wide consequences for the global ecosystem, and any counteracting measures on the short term will have side effects concerning the same ecosystem.

>>2058809
>building large heat convectors

What's this?

[1]. Also, we have to acknowledge that overpopulation is a the core of our problems.

>>2058911
>I just believe that it ain't a problem.
Which is also irrational.

[1]

Yes, we're playing with fire

1

1

However the Earth itself changes climate more with natural occurances than we do it ourselves. In millions of years yes, we may see issues because of climate changes that can be attributed to humans but I'd say that in millions of years we'll either all be dead because of ourselves or populating other planets.

Considering we'll all be dead in around 100 years aside from a lucky few (talking about people in this thread, not humanity in general) my answer is 4. I dont give a shit

>>2058949
You can know climate change is real, but not think it causes a problem to the human species.

Climate change is:
>average weather conditions or a change in the distribution of weather events with respect to an average
It having an effect on humans is outside the definition of climate change. I was the first guy to post 2 btw.

>>2059036
Both the part where you think climate change doesn't occur and the part where you think it doesn't cause problems are irrational.
It exists.
It causes changes in the ecosystem.

>>2059117
>implying I made the implication that climate change wasn't real
>Implying you can't believe in something yet not think it causes significant problems
>"Does climate change present a genuine problem"
So the only way you can believe in hurricanes is if you think that it will always tear a house down? Do you believe in A; yes. Do you believe A will cause B; no.
>implying you're not a retard.

>>2059184
I am not implying any of these things you fucking retard. I'm saying you are irrational both if you deny the existence of climate change as well as if you deny it has consequences. Believing either one makes you irrational. I'm not saying you believe in the first because you denied that, but the fact that you believe the second makes you irrational.

Do you fucking get it now motherfucker?

Can we get back to how "large heat convectors" can solve the problem?

>>2059212
Not believing it causes a problem in the future doesn't make you irrational. I believe we'll be able to adapt, make changes now that mitigate the lethalness, or that its final effects isn't enough to pose a significant threat to humankind.

>>2059250
>I believe we'll be able to adapt, make changes now that mitigate the lethalness, or that its final effects isn't enough to pose a significant threat to humankind.
Which is in blatant denial of reality. It's not like this hasn't been investigated.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf

>>2059250

Your belief is based on an entirely manufactured faith in your head and no data. Welcome to religion.

The data indicates not only that CO2 is likely going to change the temp by a couple degrees in the next half century, but that a couple degrees change will have massive effects on ecosystems and therefore human habitability of this planet.

The Earth only has a brief sliver of habitability for humans to make it off this rock before we have to manufacture our own environments to live in, but we're speeding up the closing of that window aggressively with CO2.

>>2059314
Hm I don't think your idea of what global warming is and could be is even remotely accurate, and you should reevaluate what your relative terms are defined by. It's a huge issue, but there's literally no way Humans can even begin predicting the thousands to millions of years we are going to exist on this "just right" rock. Oh and CO2 is hardly what you should open your argument with, you been getting your info from the news channel, boy?

94% of scientists say GCC is real.

84% say it is caused by humans

92% say it is a very serious or somewhat serious problem

how does /sci/ compare to real scientists?

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550

>>2059345
Says nothing. Baits with "boy".

0/10

>>2059345
Way to ignore the IPCC report you fucking idiot.

[1]- yes.

Which is more likely- a huuuuuuge conspiracy going through huge effort purely out of some sort of vague concept of using this issue to decrease the population's freedom somehow, or a relatively small but powerful conspiracy spreading doubt to keep oil profits going.

Unless you're 100% confident that global warming is a hoax then it doesn't make sense to not do anything about it.
Earth MAY never be hit by an asteroid. Let's never build any defences, yay \o/-!!!

Lrn2 common sense

>>2059345

>>Hm I don't think your idea of what global warming is and could be is even remotely accurate, and you should reevaluate what your relative terms are defined by.

AGAIN what data are you basing this on? I'm just responding to my conclusion of the data currently collected. You seem to just be basing your opinion on some kind of intrepid faith that stems from who knows where.

>>2058730
im sorry what

The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept

>sorry i missed that

"it means a provable concept"

>ohh wait what

a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts

>ohh ok then

>check to see if i got the 2 mixed upnope im good, i wont facts before i have a theory

if you wont i will spell if out a different way

WE NEED TO DO MORE RESEARCH


fuckin moron

>>2059359
Group-think is not an alternative to science.

>>2059500
>WE NEED TO DO MORE RESEARCH
We always need to do more research. You are retarded for thinking we haven't done enough research to be able to say beyond doubt that climate change is happening. Furthermore we can say that the consequences are going to be severe if nothing is done to counteract it. In fact the consequences are going to be severe even if we were to reduce carbon emissions to 0 today.

You didn't specify what time span you meant, so
[1].

The climate is going to kill us whether it be by nuclear dust storms, forcing us to wear gas masks while outdoors from pollution, or by the oceans boiling away a billion years from now because the Sun is getting too hot.

>>2059512

sounds like a creationist with respect to evolution

pic related.

Assuming we are talking about human-aided climate change, [2].

Climate change as the natural process, yes, there probably will be problems, but nothing humankind hasn't encountered before.

>>2059568
How old is this?

>>2059889
Irrational and in denial of scientific evidence.