The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

New supercapacitors, cheap, high energy density, safe about fire :

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/supe...ic-car-battery

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

51 things you can do lol.
The antartic is just about back to 1980 ice levels.
So much for less and less ice every year and it melting faster and faster, then we all die...

No - it is far below 1980 levels.



2014 was a record HIGH - and just 3 years later, we have a record LOW.

[All Darc]

It's a very polemic question, but i will do it, and cross fingers to nobody delete :

Do you belive in race (ethnicity) can have significativa variable, between each other, for inteligence ?
Do you belive in race (ethnicity) can have significativa variable, between each other, for violence ?
Do you belive in race (ethnicity) can have significativa variable, between each other, for empathy ?

NOTE : This question is not about say all people from one ethinic group are better or worse than another, since there are variables in all groups, and so inteligent and dumd, good will or criminal, emapathic or selfish people, in all ethinic groups.

The question it's about the percentage, the incidence of such variables, between ethnic groups.

I personally believe there are quite variables, but it's not easy to measure in genetic terms without first spot the genes. Social, educational and economic factors, even pregnancy quality, first years nutrition, cultural, brain stimulus, parents's culture and behavior, can all affect the outcomes.

There is also populationalç gene incidence, that can be altered with cultural changes, environment changes. For example right now we maybe are altering the incidence of a lot of genes, since medical science make things easier for people survive and breed.
I would bet that today the incident of genes for somewhat lower inteligence and less social behavior can be rising , since the culture of sexual freedon and drugs, drunkness, are leeding more births among people who have such beahvior, in the form of unwanted pregnancies. In the oposite side people with genes for better intelligence and behavior tends to plan less kids.

In other words, a bad culture can screw up as deep as the own society genes. When a society really evolves, I think it's fair to consider that the genes incidence can evolve too.
The quetion is : Do we really evolve in the last 45 years ?

[redpoint5]

What does the question have to do with climate change? I'd start a different thread and maybe elaborate more on what the purpose for the debate is.

To answer the question, I believe genetics can predispose people for any number of traits. We can group similarities of genetic traits into race groups, but at the end of the day every person is an individual.

[oil pan 4]

Riddle me this. Why do people obsess over a less than 5% variation on a 40 year sample size on a system that is at least a few millions years old?

If we watched it for 200 years we may find that 15% ice coverage change is perfectly normal.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by niky

Why do we keep coming back to this after it's been explained that the quote that led to this misconception is a quote of the claim that the Arctic sea ice *might* fully disappear during the summer taken completely out of context?

Where's the claim? Where are the papers predicting this?

Then what is global warming? If it's not polar bears dieing and ice caps melring what it?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Riddle me this. Why do people obsess over a less than 5% variation on a 40 year sample size on a system that is at least a few millions years old?

Because rapid change causes more problems than slow change. I tend to downplay the hysteria of climate change, since it occurs naturally, but I do accept that rapid change is likely to have more negative consequences than positive, if for no other reason than it takes time to adapt to changes.

I don't care about polar bears. They are dangerous predators, and have never done anything for me. Sure, I would choose to keep 'em around if I could just out of novelty, but attempting to change the outdoor thermostat for their sake is absurd. Furthermore, if we wanted to save them, we would outlaw hunting them and enforce the law (600 killed by hunting per year). There are much better arguments for concern about global warming, and polar bears can only serve as a distraction from those good arguments.

[oil pan 4]

If rapid change is the worry then volcanos should be the main worry. Anything that could be misconstrued as man driven climate change gets blown away by vulcanism.

If polar bears are being legally hunted then they probably aren't about to all die off from global warming.

[freebeard]

It's a very polemic question, but i will do it, and cross fingers to nobody delete :

Do you belive in... [Love?]

It is The Lounge, but what redpoint5 said; start a thread and let it live or die on it's own.

What you're suggesting is Idiocracy

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Then what is global warming? If it's not polar bears dieing and ice caps melring what it?

Run-away greenhouse effect.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Run-away greenhouse effect.

So something totally ambiguous with no measurable values.
Just like religion.