I can feel a "conspiracy" coming on!

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by paddoboy, Apr 9, 2020.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,809
    The probability that AGW will kill off most of humanity is small, but far from zero.
    According to the science.
    The methane bomb is the most famous (and probably the most likely), but other factors also threaten in concert (rapid oxygen depletion, drought, etc).

    Focusing on the science is probably a good thing - but not a panacea, and not easy to do these days.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,035
    Are you saying climate change (human induced) deniers disbelieve these facts about the environment improving after global lock downs, due to CV19? (thus they would be the conspiracy theorists?)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,021
    It is quite small; much, much lower than the odds of being wiped out by an asteroid, for example.
    Nope. There is simply no credible way that happens. We could, of course, kill ourselves off - but that's quite different.
    Yes. All those things could happen. Indeed, they have happened before; mankind has seen climactic changes before, both before and after civilization arose. They did not wipe us out then and they will not wipe us out now. Can we make our own lives miserable and see tens of millions of dead? Yes. Will it wipe out "most of humanity?" No.
    Agreed.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Yes, if I'm understanding what you are asking....from post 10...
    As the facetious thread title insinuates, the lessening of observed pollution due to whole country lockdowns, may be something that climate change denialists would grab hold of and run with.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,021
    Yes, it is real. People who understand science know that. People who worship anti-science political agendas will never believe it.

    And the huge middle ground between those extremes? Every time climate change advocates make another failed prediction, more and more of them will think "huh, they were wrong again. Why am I listening to them?"
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,021
    Simple. "They were wrong about that; therefore, they will be wrong about this." What part of that do you not understand? I am sure you do exactly the same thing. Most people potential future performance by past performance. It's how we hire people. for example.
    Because there are people (even otherwise intelligent people here) who are saying they are not silly.
    It pretty much is - as anyone who has taught anyone anything knows. Every political campaign is organized around the premise that that's possible.
    Then you will never get anything done. You will fail. If that's OK with you, then by all means - ignore people who you consider stupid, misinformed and unpersuadable.
    And you just surrendered without a fight.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,809
    Yes, there is.
    It's credible if you focus on the science, anyway.
    The methane bomb is a low but not zero probability, for example. It would kill most of the human population of the planet.
    The science includes the unlikely, see.
    The part where you think any such argument would have (or ever has had) dominating influence on responsible adults - as an argument.
    Who is that "they" you keep referring to, for example, and why would anyone be listening to them instead of the much larger and ever-present body of informed and responsible adults?
    Look, this is propaganda 101: The people who choose to pay attention to the fringe and the uninformed, like those swayed by uncontested propaganda, cannot be persuaded by argument. That is because they are not arguing. Arguing is not what they do.
    The Republican voter, for example, is not arguing. They are not persuadable by argument - any argument. If they were, they would not be Republican voters.
    So?
    Again - why do you set the few and the fringe up as the ones people will pay attention to, rather than the large majority of the informed and responsible?
    How does it happen that the climate change discussion is made to depend on "persuading" the unpersuadable, arguing with those who do not argue, somehow disrespecting and eliminating every single fringe opinion of one kind while pandering and catering to the utterly idiotic bs peddled by the Republican media feed, in a vain and doomed attempt to get its victims to see the reason they have never seen and never respected?
    No successful political campaign has ever been organized around persuading the unpersuadable.
    You cannot make the unreasonable see reason.
    Not on my terms. I'm not the one attempting the ridiculous, and blaming others when I fall short.
    On yours, where the only way to succeed is to persuade people you cannot persuade to do in the future what has to be done now, failure is indeed inevitable. Just don't blame the fringe lefty for your inability to persuade Republicans to see reason. The inability of the Republican voter to see reason is part of reality. The reality-based fringes of AGW discussion don't have their own media conglomerates, their own Federal and State governments, their own Court, their own amplification infrastructure - nobody is forcing anyone to listen to them, nobody is inundated with repetitions of their opinions.
    Backwards.
    Choosing to adopt a failed tactic, one that has never worked, is surrender. When you stake your mission on silencing every bus stop rant and fringe opinion that a Republican voter could ever possibly react against (and every dishonest representation of legitimate opinions as such), you might as well wave a white flag and go watch TV.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Aspects in all three of these posts I can agree with, some aspects I don't agree with.
    My attitude is simply the consequences probably will not be catastrophic [meaning the end of mankind] but by the same token, if ignored, serious enough to force life style changes.
    [The lifestyle changes we are experiencing now due to coronavirus is temporary I believe, and most of the world should return as per normal when it is over.]
    Doubts that exist, mistakes that are made etc, need to be taken with the fact that while the end of mankind is probably very small, affects are being felt as we speak. Some of that is in relation to sea level rises, and loss of habitat and agriculture land with South Pacific Islands.
    I'm no expert either way, and sadly and regretably I have not as yet put in the time to understand all the facts, but my mind keeps telling me, if we are to err, we should and need to err on the side of caution.
    just my 2.5cents worth.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,809
    Depends on how you figure in the uncertainty and the time interval.
    At the top end of the error range (if the "diffusion of heat only" thawing of hydrates is replaced by a calculation involving slumps and earthquakes and alteration of ocean currents, say) and the short end of the time interval invoked (what's likely to kill us in the next 250 years, rather than overall), the odds start to look a bit worse.
    If you are focused on the science.
    And the wingnut jumps the shark - straight Republican bullshit media feed.

    Mankind has never - ever - seen anything close to the global climate change that is the most likely or "expected" consequence of AGW. The comparison is itself a propaganda meme from the motherlode of lies that is the media operation of the Republican Party.
     

Share This Page