My wife and I made the mistake of watching Before the Flood before going to bed last night. Bad idea. It's pretty infuriating seeing what was presented and the statistics behind it all. Makes me wonder what kind of life we are leaving behind for my little Boston Terrier and his children.
Anyone else watch it?
Haven't seen it, but since this is near a choking hazard hopefully everyone remains civil.
Thanks.
Counterpoint: There is plenty of soft, warm junk science out there to believe in if you think that damn near every scientist on the planet is engaged in an international conspiracy to make this stuff up 
IBTL!
I love thinking for myself. I'll get my wife and myself to watch it. We try to be critical even when we generally agree with viewpoints presented in documentaries.
For those (like me) who have no idea what this is about, it's a doc about climate change.
And that will be my last post in this thread. Have fun! 
GameboyRMH said:Counterpoint: There is plenty of soft, warm junk science out there to believe in if you think that damn near every scientist on the planet is engaged in an international conspiracy to make this stuff up
IBTL!
Yeah I did a quick search this morning and the first thing that popped up was an article on Breitbart which told me everything I needed to know.
I wasn't trying to stir the pot. I just struggle with the concept that the environment is a partisan issue. Why can't we agree that leaving the earth as we found it (or better) is a good idea?
Its 2018. Everything is partisan. Even science. 
We found the one about the junkyard family in Wisconsin to be very disturbing. I forget the name. See also, the jinx.
Enyar said:GameboyRMH said:Counterpoint: There is plenty of soft, warm junk science out there to believe in if you think that damn near every scientist on the planet is engaged in an international conspiracy to make this stuff up
IBTL!
Yeah I did a quick search this morning and the first thing that popped up was an article on Breitbart which told me everything I needed to know.
I wasn't trying to stir the pot. I just struggle with the concept that the environment is a partisan issue. Why can't we agree that leaving the earth as we found it (or better) is a good idea?
It's the way it is now. If you don't believe my theory, you're against me and an idiot. There was a time when science welcomed questions and theories that disagreed with yours and people worked on answers together. Unfortunatley that time appears to have passed. Ever since W uttered those words "if you're not with us youre against us" we have entered the path of the dark side. Only a sith thinks in absolutes, black and white and we apparently have a lot of sith.
I haven't watched it and don't plan to. I did add a movie to my list the other day that I know I will not agree with because one has to at least listen and be open to all sides of arguments in general, but this movie seems so over the top that I am skipping it.
Bob the REAL oil guy. said:Enyar said:GameboyRMH said:Counterpoint: There is plenty of soft, warm junk science out there to believe in if you think that damn near every scientist on the planet is engaged in an international conspiracy to make this stuff up
IBTL!
Yeah I did a quick search this morning and the first thing that popped up was an article on Breitbart which told me everything I needed to know.
I wasn't trying to stir the pot. I just struggle with the concept that the environment is a partisan issue. Why can't we agree that leaving the earth as we found it (or better) is a good idea?
It's the way it is now. If you don't believe my theory, you're against me and an idiot. There was a time when science welcomed questions and theories that disagreed with yours and people worked on answers together. Unfortunatley that time appears to have passed. Ever since W uttered those words "if you're not with us youre against us" we have entered the path of the dark side. Only a sith thinks in absolutes, black and white and we apparently have a lot of sith.
Here's a theory I hold and would like to see succinct answers or rebuttals within the text of replies if possible. The earth's climate does what it does independently of the actions of any group of inhabitants.
The self-selection of data is both fundamental to science (and human conscious thought), and one of the greatest problems.
That said - variety is the spice of life! We should try to embrace the fact that people think differently than we do.
In reply to Crxpilot :
I think that is mostly true - given a large enough time scale. but there are cases where a group of inhabitants can have effects (especially very short term, which is what humans are compared to the life of the planet). A good example is ozone-killing free radicals included in many old refrigerant products.
The problem with free radicals is that they don't get 'used up'. They aren't part of the chemical reaction, they are just an enabler. So they destroy an ozone molecule, but don't change themselves. Then they destroy another, and another, and another. As you can imagine this means only a very few free radicals can destroy a whole lot of ozone.
Crxpilot said:Here's a theory I hold and would like to see succinct answers or rebuttals within the text
of replies if possible. The earth's climate does what it does independently of the actions of any group of inhabitants.
Rebuttal: The greenhouse effect is a real thing and Earth's atmosphere is not immune from the laws of physics.
GameboyRMH said:Crxpilot said:Here's a theory I hold and would like to see succinct answers or rebuttals within the text
of replies if possible. The earth's climate does what it does independently of the actions of any group of inhabitants.
Rebuttal: The greenhouse effect is a real thing and Earth's atmosphere is not immune from the laws of physics.
Yeah, to say that putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere has zero effect on the climate is a bit silly. That is essentially saying that you choose to not believe in physics of how molecules interact with different wavelengths of electromagnetic energy. Now, there is still plenty of room to discuss how much of an effect humans have and now much is just other non-human cycles. So, I sorta agree with both of you. The earth's climate has always been changing, it changed long before there were any humans at all and it will continue to change without any help from us, but that doesn't mean that our contributions have no effect.
The problem I have is that the computer models just do not hold up and the only way they can seem to show there is an issue is to cherry pick and massage the data to make it fir their beliefs and that is not science. If you want to worry about what sort of place we are leaving for future generations, I recommend you leave climate change hysteria behind and focus on debt, or food or water or anything other issue that you want, but pick one that is not based on faith.
I watched it a while back and was struck in the face with the irony of Leo zipping around in a private plane and a helicopter while ranting about pollution. But it's okay because he buys carbon credits. In my opinion, the documentary somewhat undermines the very movement it was trying to reinforce, but it does make a few good points and causes thought and discussion.
In reply to Crxpilot :
These are my own personal thoughts. I have nothing but my convictions to back them up. I don't want to change anyone's mind, and I do not intend to offend with my words. I apologize in advance if it comes across as inflammatory, I genuinely do not mean it to and tried to word this post appropriately.
in the 70s, there was huge fear and craziness about a coming ice age.
80s and 90s the hole in the ozone layer was going to turn the planet into a desert.
Now, massive floods and rising sea levels are the environmental disasters we need to be scared of.
In 50 years that is 5 different mass extinction possibilities, some polar opposites of the others, all decided on by the best tech available at the time. That means we really have no clue at all as far as I can tell.
I personally feel (my own opinion) that climate is cyclical, and we as a species haven't even been here very long at all on the geologic time scale to be able to make anything more than guesses as to what it will do in the future with or without our help. We certainly haven't had the monitoring technology long enough to have any concrete answers. "Well we have simulations" and simulations are programmed by people, and people are biased. (Sorry, this last sentence actually was a bit inflammatory and I don't know how to word it so it isn't)
I've always been of the opinion that the earth will be fine because it's far bigger than we are, was here long before us, and will be here long after we kill ourselves off. Frankly I think it's narcissistic as hell to say that us, barely out of caves for 60k years, can somehow completely destroy something that's been alive over 4 billion years, survived hundreds of millions of years of dinosaurs, plagues, worldwide drought, worldwide ice cover, radiation bombardment, millions of space impacts, including some that blacked out the sun for years according to geological surveys. It's cute we've grown this species wide ego that somehow we're special because we grew opposable thumbs and shed some body hair, but we've barely even been a species for a million years. On a geological time scale, we're still in diapers.
If we do somehow do enough damage, the earth will shake us off like fleas from a dog, and the next step in the evolution of life will begin, with or without us, just as it has from the beginning of time. Just like it did when the asteroid killed the dinosaurs, just like the other 5 mass extinctions I can't remember the names of that took out 90% of life on earth.
Again, these are just my opinions on the matter. It was not my intention to offend or upset, and I apologize again if it came across that way.
T.J. said:The problem I have is that the computer models just do not hold up and the only way they can seem to show there is an issue is to cherry pick and massage the data to make it fir their beliefs and that is not science. If you want to worry about what sort of place we are leaving for future generations, I recommend you leave climate change hysteria behind and focus on debt, or food or water or anything other issue that you want, but pick one that is not based on faith.
Aaand now we've reached the international conspiracy stage. The models have done well so far. The first scientist to break ranks in this supposed conspiracy would be the next Einstein. What gives?
RevRico said:in the 70s, there was huge fear and craziness about a coming ice age.
80s and 90s the hole in the ozone layer was going to turn the planet into a desert.
Now, massive floods and rising sea levels are the environmental disasters we need to be scared of.
In 50 years that is 5 different mass extinction possibilities, some polar opposites of the others, all decided on by the best tech available at the time. That means we really have no clue at all as far as I can tell.
The ice age fear was some nonsense from a tiny minority of crackpots (vs. the vast majority that expected warming) that got too much media attention, not decided by the best tech available at the time:
Your understanding of the ozone problem is basically correct in the long term. We've been doing a decent job of fixing it.
Edit: If you think the current warming could be natural, have a scroll:
RevRico said:If we do somehow do enough damage, the earth will shake us off like fleas from a dog, and the next step in the evolution of life will begin, with or without us, just as it has from the beginning of time. Just like it did when the asteroid killed the dinosaurs, just like the other 5 mass extinctions I can't remember the names of that took out 90% of life on earth.
The Chicxulub impactor had nothing to do with Earth's ecosystem BTW, it was a random rock from space that would've wiped out the dinosaurs all the same if they were Earth-tending hippie dinosaurs. You're right about the rest though, and that's what I want to prevent.
If he really bought carbon offsets for all that then we shouldn't hold it against him, even though it looks bad. We should also include pics of the reforestation those offsets bought, alongside the private jet and helicopter.
In reply to red_stapler :
Regarding the cartoon: This of course is only feeding the extreme ends of the arguments. The more reasonable question should be: "What if it's another miscalculation/misestimate and we hamstring and stunt our economy for nothing?"
I did see some doc on this that actually surprised me in what it admitted. The scientist they interviewed admitted that (in his opinion of course) it did not matter what we do now, we are well beyond fixing most of the problems they predict. That of course doesn't imply you should do nothing, but the ability to stop it is long gone.
aircooled said:I did see some doc on this that actually surprised me in what it admitted. The scientist they interviewed admitted that (in his opinion of course) it did not matter what we do now, we are well beyond fixing most of the problems they predict. That of course doesn't imply you should do nothing, but the ability to stop it is long gone.
He's right, but it's on a sliding scale, so things can always be worse or less bad, even though we're locked in for a certain amount of bad.
aircooled said:In reply to red_stapler :
Regarding the cartoon: This of course is only feeding the extreme ends of the arguments. The more reasonable question should be: "What if it's another miscalculation/misestimate and we hamstring and stunt our economy for nothing?"
I did see some doc on this that actually surprised me in what it admitted. The scientist they interviewed admitted that (in his opinion of course) it did not matter what we do now, we are well beyond fixing most of the problems they predict. That of course doesn't imply you should do nothing, but the ability to stop it is long gone.
You have a point. But there is a flip side to that, too- what if the alternate energy sources end up less expensive in the long run? Look at the path that solar power is on for cost per watt, add in the cost per watt for wind, and the trends suggest that even without counting the CO2 benefits, it can be cheaper to get a huge portion of our energy from these sources.
Or the long term costs of using long term oil based stuff- like the huge area of floating plastic in the oceans? That will eventually hurt the food chain enough to harm our food.
And that's one of the big problems with this whole argument- it's almost entirely framed on whether you think global warming is a serious problem or not. When the actual questions can be asked in very many other fields OTHER than that. Fuel economy of your car costs you real money. Increased cost of food due to bad things we are doing costs you money and food. etc.
Then add the developing countries- instead of helping them get expensive solutions that are cheaper over the long term, we don't and they choose cheap solutions that cost more over the long term. Makes no sense.
You'll need to log in to post.
