killer-curry

Oro.........?

Age 24
Male
Malaysia
Seen February 26th, 2021
Posted November 1st, 2020
2,521 posts
7.8 Years
So based from this article, Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever, rejected President Obama’s statements on global warming which claims that man-made global warming is causing climate change.

After, I read this article I was wondering why he rejected this claim, because I always believe that humans activity are contributing Global Warming such as deforestation, industrialization, etc.

"I would say that global warming basically is a non-problem. Just leave it alone, it will take care of itself,” he added.
It is true that global warming is a basically non-problem because by scientifically the sun will grow bigger and Earth surface will soon become hotter. But if we do not control our activities global warming will eventually speed up and we will face bigger problem faster.

But anyways, what do you think about this? Do you simply agree or disagree what he said?

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
That's one person's view. The majority feel otherwise. And besides, even if it's not a real problem, what is the outcome if we do act as though climate change is a real threat? We get renewable energy to power everything and energy efficient homes and vehicles and we stop destroying environments and ecosystems.

I mean, if that were the case then, yes, we did it under a misunderstanding, but the outcome is a good outcome. It's something we should be doing regardless of what climate is doing just because it makes sense whatever the scenario.
Male
Seen June 21st, 2018
Posted March 18th, 2018
322 posts
11.4 Years
It'd be best to note that this man's field of science has nothing directly to do with climate change and as such his opinion is no different than the average joe's on the subject.

Overall climate denial is very hard to justify when it's a nearly unanimously considered real by anyone in any related field of science, and constantly backed up by data

It is true that global warming is a basically non-problem because by scientifically the sun will grow bigger and Earth surface will soon become hotter. But if we do not control our activities global warming will eventually speed up and we will face bigger problem faster.
You're right that the sun will eventually grow become a red giant, but the amount of time it'll take the sun to start expanding at all is about 5 billion years. Climate change is happening on a much smaller timesscale and the effects are way more immediate, earth is still heating up slowly as it's coming out of an ice age the effects of global warming are both intensifying this heating and making it go way faster than it naturally would

It's like it's a hot summer day already, and you turn the air conditioner on "hot" and then just sit in front of it

Exothermic

Keeper of the Hammer

Male
Mariana Trench
Seen May 3rd, 2021
Posted March 12th, 2018
236 posts
14.6 Years
I'd like to post an article by Robert Essenhigh, E.G Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State University (Department of Mechanical Engineering)

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

Yes, the gases we burn contribute to the greenhouse gases which heats up the atmosphere. But what we release is merely a small fraction of what is released naturally via decaying vegetation and methane emissions from animals. Methane destroys 16 times more ozone than carbon dioxide. Fundamentally, his position is that Global Warming is a natural phenomenon and suggests that higher temperatures result in increased carbon dioxide levels - not the other way round.
Male
Seen June 21st, 2018
Posted March 18th, 2018
322 posts
11.4 Years
I'd like to post an article by Robert Essenhigh, E.G Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State University (Department of Mechanical Engineering)

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

Yes, the gases we burn contribute to the greenhouse gases which heats up the atmosphere. But what we release is merely a small fraction of what is released naturally via decaying vegetation and methane emissions from animals. Methane destroys 16 times more ozone than carbon dioxide. Fundamentally, his position is that Global Warming is a natural phenomenon and suggests that higher temperatures result in increased carbon dioxide levels - not the other way round.
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

https://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm

The EPA declares 60% of all methane emissions coming from the US are produced by human activities (Considering methane is a pretty common byproduct produced by humans, it's not that surprising).

Most methane produced by animals is produced by large livestock- through human farming- and to assume it was just natural for the earth to just naturally exponentially produce enough methane to heat itself up is a very odd statement considering how long life has been around on earth, and how it hasn't been heating up consistently from some kind of frozen point at the beginning that would account for current temperatures
Male
Seen August 8th, 2016
Posted August 5th, 2016
61 posts
6.8 Years
I like your last point which a lot of people seem to neglect. There are a lot more larger livestock then there were even 50 years ago. Everyone seems to glide past this point when saying that natural emissions are the main contributor. Simply because something isn't made by man doesn't mean that man isn't a huge influence on it.

I think a lot of people dismiss global warming by humans simply because it's convenient for them, and makes them feel less guilty or whatever. But it's like a mess in your room. Sure, you can shove it all under the bed, but that doesn't mean you've cleaned it one bit.

Pinkie-Dawn

Vampire Waifu

Age 30
Male
California
Seen February 16th, 2021
Posted May 16th, 2019
9,528 posts
10.5 Years
Lisalombs from KYM has provided numerous sources to back up Ivar Giaever's claim as to why Global Warming isn't caused by human activity and why it's not a life-threatening issue. You can them in her thread here: http://knowyourmeme.com/forums/serious-debate/topics/43959-anthropogenic-global-warming-mega-post

Melody

Banned

Female
Cuddling those close to me
Seen March 4th, 2018
Posted March 2nd, 2018
6,459 posts
18.6 Years
I firmly disbelieve that humans have the capability to produce greenhouse gases in such an excess that we can warm the planet significantly in 10, 20, 30 or even 50 years. Most data I see that opposes my theory tends to be just weather data, which is there is plenty of, and is easy to "cherry pick" with unscientific research techniques.

Do we cause any net effect in the short term? NO! Can we cause a measurably significant effect in the very long term? Perhaps. But it would probably take a couple thousand years or so to even make long term weather patterns speed up or slow down by a week or two.

This however does not mean we shouldn't try to always improve technologies anyways. Therefore I don't think that any dollar spent researching ways to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases is wasting anyone's time or money. It will only benefit us as a whole.

I do however believe that it is unfortunate that scientific community at large won't stop this perception. But considering this excuse is what draws research dollars in, I can't say I blame them. I just don't think that humans can effect climate change unless we all revert back to burning coal in everything and start pumping out unscrubbed emissions back into the atmosphere. We haven't done anything like that for several centuries now...so I think any small effect that even that would have isn't going to be felt now.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
Lisalombs from KYM has provided numerous sources to back up Ivar Giaever's claim as to why Global Warming isn't caused by human activity and why it's not a life-threatening issue. You can them in her thread here: http://knowyourmeme.com/forums/serious-debate/topics/43959-anthropogenic-global-warming-mega-post
I do however believe that it is unfortunate that scientific community at large won't stop this perception.
Well, considering how actual scientists in their public, peer-reviewed articles based on data and not hunches, keep insisting that climate change a) exists and b) is >95% likely to be caused by humans pumping greenhouse gases, then there are only three possibilities:

a) The random guy from KnowYourMeme and Melody have found something that actual scientists are too dumb to see, but for some reason they/you aren't submitting articles to scientific journals to tell actual scientists how wrong they all are, which would probably net you a Nobel prize and tons of money.

b) Scientists know they are wrong but there is a massive conspiracy involving essentially every scientist working in the field, all the major scientific publications, universities and basically everyone who could submit the articles mentioned in a) and prove that everything is a farce (probably the Illuminati are somewhere in there as well).

c) Actual scientists know something the KnowYourMeme bloke happens to not be aware of and that refutes Melody's hunches, and which you could learn if you actually read scientific papers and studied their investigations, which of course requires a training most laymen do not have; and your "hunches" and KnowYourMeme compilations are equivalent to arguing with your doctor because you have read something in google, except the argument is putting the entire planet at risk.

Although I do respect melody's "Pascal's Wager" approach to the issue: whether scientists are right or not, there is no reason to keep using non-renewable energy sources when renewables exist.

Melody

Banned

Female
Cuddling those close to me
Seen March 4th, 2018
Posted March 2nd, 2018
6,459 posts
18.6 Years
Well, considering how actual scientists in their public, peer-reviewed articles based on data and not hunches, keep insisting that climate change a) exists and b) is >95% likely to be caused by humans pumping greenhouse gases, then there are only three possibilities:

a) The random guy from KnowYourMeme and Melody have found something that actual scientists are too dumb to see, but for some reason they/you aren't submitting articles to scientific journals to tell actual scientists how wrong they all are, which would probably net you a Nobel prize and tons of money.

b) Scientists know they are wrong but there is a massive conspiracy involving essentially every scientist working in the field, all the major scientific publications, universities and basically everyone who could submit the articles mentioned in a) and prove that everything is a farce (probably the Illuminati are somewhere in there as well).

c) Actual scientists know something the KnowYourMeme bloke happens to not be aware of and that refutes Melody's hunches, and which you could learn if you actually read scientific papers and studied their investigations, which of course requires a training most laymen do not have; and your "hunches" and KnowYourMeme compilations are equivalent to arguing with your doctor because you have read something in google, except the argument is putting the entire planet at risk.

Although I do respect melody's "Pascal's Wager" approach to the issue: whether scientists are right or not, there is no reason to keep using non-renewable energy sources when renewables exist.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

This is even mentioned in an earlier post. Thing is; there are scientists who hold similar viewpoints to my own. Problem is that nobody wants to take them seriously when they question the scientific method behind the studies "proving" that Global Warming is a thing. Further it benefits them none to try; you don't keep a career by being someone who replicates study results. It just doesn't pay. So....yeah. There's probably flaws and biases in the data for both sides of the debate; but I've always found the side disproving global warming to have a much more logical and I would say more easily provable reason; and the data to back up that reason.

Even more strangely; people love to get fierce for some reason when someone says "Global Warming isn't a thing" It's...almost like it's a *gasp* political issue! For that we can blame media and politicians. Unfortunately though even scientists are capable of being tilted by political biases as well as an average person is.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

This is even mentioned in an earlier post. Thing is; there are scientists who hold similar viewpoints to my own. Problem is that nobody wants to take them seriously when they question the scientific method behind the studies "proving" that Global Warming is a thing. Further it benefits them none to try; you don't keep a career by being someone who replicates study results. It just doesn't pay. So....yeah. There's probably flaws and biases in the data for both sides of the debate; but I've always found the side disproving global warming to have a much more logical and I would say more easily provable reason; and the data to back up that reason.

Even more strangely; people love to get fierce for some reason when someone says "Global Warming isn't a thing" It's...almost like it's a *gasp* political issue! For that we can blame media and politicians. Unfortunately though even scientists are capable of being tilted by political biases as well as an average person is.
The guy you just linked to has not published a single paper about the issue. He's just doing politics, publishing a non-reviewed opinion in a random magazine. And I think this is the scary part in the issue.

Because one side is showing objective science, with studies and peer-reviewed articles. The other side is pretending that it's not a scientific matter but rather a political issue in which "both views should be heard" as long as their arguments are plausible enough. But science is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of empiric evidence published in peer-reviewed journals. Since the denialists can't find anything that can hold up to actual scientific scrutiny, they need to move the goalposts and argue that actually, a random piece in a non-scientific magazine is worth as much as a peer-reviewed article in an official journal. They need to argue that actually it's not a matter of looking at the evidence, but a matter of opinion. They have to argue that there are "two sides of the debate" when apparently only one can get any articles published, which is the actual measure you should be looking at.

I know that this post is not going to change an iota of your beliefs. You say that the non-scientifically-accepted arguments from the denialist group are good enough for you and chances of anybody ever changing your mindset are close to 0, because that's how we humans work. I'm just ranting at the world and expressing my profound sadness that this is the case, and that there are millions of people like you. It's just depressing.

Nah

Age 30
she/her, they/them
Seen 10 Hours Ago
Posted 18 Hours Ago
15,643 posts
9.5 Years
I think that the more important thing to talk about in regards to global warming or whatever you wanna call it is what the effects of the planet warming up/the climate changing are and what they means for us, both long term and short term, and how to deal with it, rather than "is it real?".

Also just wanna post a graph from that KYM page Pinkie linked (I'm not the only one who finds it strange that a place called KnowYourMeme, which primarily is for posting memes and cool images, has a serious debate section, right?):


Just to reiterate that regardless of whether or not the current things are human-related or not, climate changes and it's probably a good idea to learn how to live with it.
Though really I just like graphs and found it cool that there was a period of glaciation in the Permian (and Carboniferous) just before its temperature skyrocket due to its volcanically related mass extinction.
Nah ンン
“No, I... I have to be strong. Everyone expects me to."