Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
Dark Matter hypothesis never reached escape velocity, and is currently cratering.
|
Dark Matter is just a placeholder. A scientific way of saying: "Here there be something but we don't know what the hell it is, and we're not going to say 'Dragons' because that could be wrong. So we're going to call it Dark Matter because we know some kind of Matter is there, but we can't see it."
Also, not cratering, if you're referring to the news about the Galaxy that's supposedly lacking Dark Matter. It's all in the maths.
https://gizmodo.com/heated-debate-su...mat-1825292954
Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler
World banking has been operating on a fractional (nearly creationist) model. Loans are created from thin air with no actual money taken out of circulation to balance it. The virtual money anihlates itself as it is paid back but the interest becomes real added debt. The only way this has always worked through all time, and continues to work, is if GDP growth outpaces the interest rates. If energy growth outpaces the interest rates. But there is a limit to growth on a planet with finite resources.
|
I missed this when it was posted, but QFT.
Even some rationalists I respect fall for the blue sky thinking of infinite economic and energy growth (science will find a way), without considering the practical limits of that.
I do miss "Do The Math". Wish that guy hadn't stopped posting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
That 95% figure is merely those who agree that human activity affects global temperatures (anthropogenic global warming). It says nothing concerning the degree to which people affect the climate, or what the consequences will be.
Most on here would agree that humans affect the environment, and that includes global climate, so that is relatively uncontroversial. The interesting part of the debate is to what degree do we impact it, what are the consequences (both good and bad), and what are reasonable steps to mitigate the negative consequences.
|
Even worse... that 97% was the number of studies on climate that pointed towards the strong anthropogenic effect... the other 3% of the studies in the metastudies on this don't necessarily reject anthropogenic effects on the climate... they reject the idea that anthropogenic emissions are the main driver.
But further consensus studies have shown those numbers to be closer to 98% to 99%... and these are by the people who actually DO know what they are talking about. Not talking heads like us or on YouTube.
Again, I used to be a skeptic. But new data over the past ten years has changed that. Taking all the natural cycles into account, the Earth should be cooling. But it isn't.
-----
We have released millions of years' worth of sequestered carbon within just the past hundred odd years. That will have a big effect on the climate, whether we like it or not. The question now is: Do we have enough resources to deal with the problem? Or is adapting to the inevitable change the only realistic way forward?