Extreme obesity

This is probably the dumbest take I've seen on this website ever.
And I've been here for a long long time.

Yeah let’s all eat and drink and be merry. Hopefully we all agree on that... Cheers

I dunno, I'm of the opinion that people that deny basic science like climate change or wearing masks to stop COVID should be shamed at any and every opportunity because honestly fuck you. Seriously, you're the worst.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

That will happen in billions of years. But pollution can ruin the planet in a century or two. That's a significant difference.

I respect that some people are adamant about their beliefs. But the potential effects of human activity on climate change are still being extensively studied and debated in the scientific community, at least here in the United States. I understand Europeans see far greater urgency in erring on the side of caution.

In first world countries like the US, the amount of land being used for food production has been decreasing as production per acre increases. Technology is reducing our impact on the environment continually.

Ironically, some of newest fads in environmentalism represent some of the most significant new threats to the environment. For example, the batteries currently used for electric cars requires increasing amounts of lithium that is one of the highest polluting mining operations in the world. Disposal of these batteries also presents a waste disposal problem.

Fortunately, we are mostly still using cars made with aluminum and steel that can be recycled easily rather than batteries and plastic that is difficult to recycle.

The usual market forces that drive efficiency and lower cost also drive reduced energy use and reduced pollution.

Buck up buddy! Things are getting better!

As an experienced engineer, in god I trust, all others bring data. Not your models tweaked to give you the results you want, but the raw data.

So far, the data says climate change looks within normal planetary behavior.

You are however, entirely welcome to your firmly held religious beliefs.

LOL

People are so cute when they are defending their religion.

Licensed Professional Engineer by the way.

LOL

Gonna throw another fit?

ok, now we are having a serious conversation.

The truth is that there is no question that there is climate change and there is no question that human activity plays some role.

In general however, we know very little of the detail of many of the natural subsystems that contribute to climate change.

The models are utter nonsense. That does not mean that the people working on them are stupid or dishonest, they are full of constants and placeholder formulas for natural relationships that we don't have real data on. If in fact all this stuff was well understood, there would not be 20 plus models that vary all over the place because they would all match.

I am in fact a Control Systems/Process Control Engineer and I do work with models. Getting a good working model without the full detailed understanding of all the subsystems requires that you be able to set up you model, run a simulation with a scenario, change the conditions, run it again and repeat that over and over until the model performs under all conditions. That is not practical with a global climate model because we can't vary one condition, rerun the climate and the model to compare them, and repeat over and over until we have refined it. Further, this is a daunting task with 15 variables, climate has thousands.

Many of the people in the climate field are taking the position in private that "the potential consequences of potential man-made climate change are so bad that it is better that we convince people we are sure so they will do something about it, that way even if we are wrong things will still be ok".

And there is another issue with people who get degrees in some of these fields. You can get a straight physicist, chemical engineer, or biologist to work on climate change related fields and most of the time the data they produce will be straight up.

Those who chose a degree like "Environmental Engineer" or "Climatologist" however, are often like the guy who goes into seminary. The guy goes into seminary not to find God, he already believes. He goes into seminary to learn more, to learn to convince others, etc.

There is a tendency for fields like those I mentioned to attract true believers. They don't go into climate related studies to learn with a open mind, but rather having already made up their mind they go into those fields to save the world.

So, I believe I have provided answers to your questions and explained them. Bias and groupthink exist everywhere, including climate fields. This explains to a great extent why there are surveys of scientists in fields related to climate that overwhelmingly question the certainty of man being the primary driver of climate change even as those
degreed in the specific fields of climate and meteorology tend to poll as believing in it.

With regard to my comment on bringing the data. NASA has changed the correction of historical temperature data gathered in different ways over time. Correction of instrumentation data is right in my "wheelhouse", the corrections they use are nothing more than judgement calls as they have no hard data basis to support the adjustment. The changes they have made are nothing more that reflections of the shifting politics in the agency. The "old" corrected data showed little warming, the "new" corrected data shows more warming.

Bring me the raw data and the expose how "you" did your work and I will evaluate your conclusions myself is my view. I actually have a open mind, but arguments based on "everybody says" or "all the experts say" cut no ice with me. When they refuse to disclose the formulas and code in the models, despite having received public grant money, I automatically assume they have something to hide.

Since I DO know how little we actually know, and that conventional methods of resolving models is not applicable in the case of climate, I will continue to maintain that we simply don't know what man's actual impact is.

I could go on, discuss the impact of positive and negative feedback potential in many natural subsystems related to climate, but I have already written a lot.

So the summary is, I don't take the position that man-made climate change is, or is not, a problem. I take the position, one I can support, that we don't actually know.

Took some courses on how to build a bridge, thinks he's more qualified on the totality of human knowledge than every specialist within their specific field of lifelong study, all while having the attitude of a level 20 neckbeard? Engineer confirmed.