I would DARE anyone to watch only 64 seconds of this video before dismissing the entire series completely.
The patience of "Headline Worshipers" will of course not last that long but don't worry it's my last try on that one.
Weather is improving and I won't have time for silly discussions with uneducated (on the topic) people.
(3 votes)
Comments
(Old Spike)
The arguments are all pretty much done to death. It kinda boils down to whether you believe the supposed majority of experts (and the system within which they work). The science is like the length of the coastline. The closer you look the more details you discover. To me the fundamentals just don't add up to draw any conclusion and the idea that we could set the planet's atmosphere into an unstable state by adding CO2 seems silly. If some people have to move away from the equator then whatever - countries around the equator are shitholes anyway. The only thing I've seen that could cause permanent problems is the acidity & heat of the ocean but I haven't bothered to find out much about that, just read the scaremongering headli(n)es.
(Old Spike)
(Old Spike)
The problem is that, although the science pretty established and being refined as a process, the "headline worshippers" like the blackswordsman above or fullauto or backdraft (and yourgoodself it seems) don't like to go a little deeper into the matter but are very happy in their ignorant state, whether this is because they have a feeling that it is (partly) wrong or it feeds into their right wing political bias or both.
What they have in common is that they only read the "huge headlines" from both sides of the argument agree with "their favourite" and dismiss the opposition when, in fact, BOTH should be dismissed! Long established theories and models RARELY feature "headline worthy discoveries". This is what this series is about, the science and NOT the headlines. All including references and sources btw, so anybody can dive deeper if they like.
(Old Spike)
The only way to know for sure is to spend a lot of time studying the actual science but to do that you need to be enrolled in a university to access the papers. Without a background in physics it's almost impossible to know for sure without trusting anyone's conclusion/opinion.
In an ideal world, we'd have the IPCC do an honest apprasel and admit the percentage of doubt and from there we'd use a few billion $ to come up with a solution to the most problematic issues (if the risk seemed worth it), whether it's CO2 in the atmosphere, acicidity levels of the ocean or cloud cover - all can be manipulated with some decent engineering.
People make money or gain status from propping up the headli(n)es so it's gonna be slow going before we see any real solution. Once industry suffers (and hence tax collection) we may see CO2 collecting turbines or whatever.
China's going to fix their air polution problem with some decent engineering - https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/china-air-pollution-solutions-environment-tangshan/ - I don't see why we can't get something like that happening for CO2. We could probably even re-use it for fuel.
You're right though, back when I could be bothered looking into this stuff I was a pretty heavy into conspiracy stuff & I haven't bothered much since. Whether or not there's a real danger within the next hundred years or so from human-induced climate fuckery I don't really care any more. I just hope it gets a little bit warmer. 3-5 degrees would be awesome. And a bit dryer too, it's kinda muggy here :)
(Old Spike)
If you want to understand the mechanisms better watch the video series I submitted here. They are all 10-20 mintes and if you feel you need to get deeper into it ALL the references (published, peer reviewed studies and papers, of course) are given in the videos or the descriptions. The series is one of the few unbiased in depth summaries of the matter you will find. No doomsday propaganda or similar shit.
From the article: "Reducing the production of steel and of coal-fired electricity. To replace coal, China is rolling out the world’s biggest investment in wind and solar power."
So no magic solution but exactly what is propagated everywhere else: pollute less in general and use renewable energies.
Whether or not someone can invent a CO2 "catalytic converter" I don't know. Trees are actually quite good at that.
(Old Spike)
Sorry if I don't take this video seriously. I've heard that guy before & he's just another internet cynic with no background in science unless I'm mistaken. There are no links or references in the video's description and it starts out talking about Al Gore. Seems like a waste of time. I've spent a bit of time looking into this debate already so watching another person's summary isn't really just a waste of time. I've probably seen at least 5 of these types of video series before. Back when I gave a shit about finding out how much truth there was to the sccare mongering. I've decided it doesn't matter because even in the worst case scenario that we'll destroy 90% of oceanlife within a century, nobody's going to do anything in time because capitalism. And I won't be alive so I don't give af.
(Old Spike)
That is a shame. Potholer is a scientific journalist and (of course university educated) geologist by trade. As mentioned above in some videos the references are in the video itself, others have them in the description.
This is not a channel supportng loudmouths and alarmists like Al Gore, QUITE THE OPPOSITE. He even says this in the first 60 seconds of the video. This channel is about the science behind it, NOT fearmongering.
There is no political agenda attached to this neither, as far as I can tell.