• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should we believe the experts or the politicians regarding climate change?

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'm only impressed with experts that have actual evidence to put forth. Not experts to only have theories and models.

I think climate change has been manipulated and embellished in some cases. We definitely contribute, but it's not entirely human caused as some alarmists try very hard to make it out to be. I'm also still waiting for those islands to sink.

They also make it sound like climate change happens at a snap of the fingers.

The truth is, it takes thousands of years for these processes to cycle through by which a global environment is terraformed. Not decades.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
There will always be some carbon dioxide that is produced naturally in the world. The people who want to save the planet from global warming have seen over many years that we now produce more carbon dioxide then the planet itself can manage and solve. This is the cause we see global warming, and since we humans made "progress" in industry and fuel consummation it is our responsibility to clean up after our self. But the problem is that the industry has a huge impact on the political people and in general it is no longer politicians who decide what is good for the world, it is the business people since they would lose a lot of money if we get a clean world.

But we also know that if we do not start to focus even more on green living we will not far in the future have no more earth to live on. Then, of course, we have the threat of nuclear war that can happen in the future, and this again will destroy our planet.
The solution is not to run away to a new planet and destroy that too in the future.
The only solution I can see is that we start to clean up this planet.
It's like cleaning up our own home
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'm only impressed with experts that have actual evidence to put forth. Not experts to only have theories and models.

I think climate change has been manipulated and embellished in some cases. We definitely contribute, but it's not entirely human caused as some alarmists try very hard to make it out to be. I'm also still waiting for those islands to sink.

They also make it sound like climate change happens at a snap of the fingers.

The truth is, it takes thousands of years for these processes to cycle through by which a global environment is terraformed. Not decades.
Is it the fault of scientists that the popular media gets the facts wrong? You cited such an example.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Let's see, should I believe the people who are being paid to explore and study our climate, so that we can understand and predict it, better? Or the people who are being paid to tell us what the people paying them want us to believe, because it's good for their profit margins?

Such a difficult question! How will I ever decide?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Let's see, should I believe the people who are being paid to explore and study our climate, so that we can understand and predict it, better? Or the people who are being paid to tell us what the people paying them want us to believe, because it's good for their profit margins?

Such a difficult question! How will I ever decide?

How many experts work for an agency that is funded by, ran by, or over seen by the government/politicians?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
If people are unethically hiding the fact that they are paid advocates for a cause while misrepresenting their credentials feel free to point them out then.

Beginning with the first one - Australian Conservation Foundation.
It receives several million per year from the govt and then uses
that money to oppose govt programs.

The one in the news at the moment is the group GetUp! which
claims to be "politically neutral" but opposes the conservative
govt.. Three attempts have been made by that govt to bring this
group to heel but always there's that claim they are "issue based"
and "not political." Of course, they are political - I can see Alinksy
and the Frankfurt School in their tactics against the coalition govt..
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Climates change is killing people now, that is a fact. If 'certain' experts are ok with that then it says much about them

Considering we are overdue for another ice age, the huge increase in CO2 in our atmosphere
just might save us from the fate. Imagine the entire norther hemisphere smothered in ice. Famine
would be rather immediate.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Considering we are overdue for another ice age, the huge increase in CO2 in our atmosphere
just might save us from the fate. Imagine the entire norther hemisphere smothered in ice. Famine
would be rather immediate.


Over due yes a problem to face in the future, climate change is an immediate problem
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
Unfortunately Patrick Moore cannot be believed as he is funded by Asia Pulp & Paper, which has been involved in widespread (and illegal) rainforest clearing.
He is a global warming denier who cherry picks facts that suit and ignores others that don't.

The facts that I have seen are impressive. Can you provide any that are better?

BTW, I’m still on the fence and can be persuaded either way.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
I'm not "the left" and it's not a "smear" to point out a paid advocate for a cause is a paid advocate. What is unethical is presenting a paid advocate as a neutral expert and that paid advocate misrepresenting his credentials.

As if politicians are not paid and quite likely to have their self-interests at the forefront of their minds.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
Paraphrased: "All the fossil fuels we use are from plants, it is solar powered."

True, in a roundabout way. It still ignores all the bad stuff from fossil fuel use like emission of nitrogen oxides.

And yes, he is right that there is a "greening" effect from the extra carbon dioxide, which makes sense since plants act as a carbon sink. But ultimately, this is limited, and likely won't stop the negative effects of global warming: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

Glad to see he is admitting the human role in climate change, though!

Another fun Patrick Moore video:

This is from the comments section –

Just because he didn’t drink it doesn’t mean he believes it’s dangerous. Any doctor will tell you a big glass of **** is perfectly safe to drink. Doesn’t mean any of them would drink it .
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Considering we are overdue for another ice age, the huge increase in CO2 in our atmosphere
just might save us from the fate. Imagine the entire norther hemisphere smothered in ice. Famine
would be rather immediate.

How Often Do Ice Ages Happen?
So, how often do ice ages happen, and when is the next freeze expected to begin?

The answer to the first question depends on whether you're talking about big ice ages or the little ice ages that happen within those larger periods. Earth has undergone five big ice ages, some of which lasted for hundreds of millions of years. In fact, Earth is in a big ice age now, which explains why the planet has polar ice caps. [Photo Gallery: Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier Cracks]

Big ice ages account for about 25 percent of Earth's past billion years, said Michael Sandstrom, a doctoral student in paleoclimate at Columbia University in New York City.
The five major ice ages in the paleo record include the Huronian glaciation (2.4 billion to 2.1 billion years ago), the Cryogenian glaciation (720 million to 635 million years ago), the Andean-Saharan glaciation (450 million to 420 million years ago), the Late Paleozoic ice age (335 million to 260 million years ago) and the Quaternary glaciation (2.7 million years ago to present).

These large ice ages can have smaller ice ages (called glacials) and warmer periods (called interglacials) within them. During the beginning of the Quaternary glaciation, from about 2.7 million to 1 million years ago, these cold glacial periods occurred every 41,000 years. However, during the last 800,000 years, huge glacial sheets have appeared less frequently — about every 100,000 years, Sandstrom said.
This is how the 100,000-year cycle works: Ice sheets grow for about 90,000 years and then take about 10,000 years to collapse during warmer periods. Then, the process repeats itself.itself.

Given that the last ice age ended about 11,700 years ago, isn't it time for Earth to get icy again?
"We should be heading into another ice age right now," Sandstrom told Live Science. But two factors related to Earth's orbit that influence the formation of glacials and interglacials are off. "That, coupled with the fact that we pump so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere [means] we're probably not going to enter a glacial for at least 100,000 years," he said.

How Often Do Ice Ages Happen?
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
The thing is that it's very easy to fool people if you have even marginally more scientific knowledge than your intended audience and you are telling them something that they want to hear.

The fact is that this guy is neither an expert nor impartial.



Wow - really!? Well, he must be an expert then..... :rolleyes:

Until I find some substantial evidence to the contrary, I believe he is worth taking notice of.

Why should everyone that disagrees with the majority be dismissed out of hand?

We would not be where we are today if we had not had any pioneers.
 
Top