ᐅ Garden Photos Chat Corner

Snowy36 schrieb:

Scientists have been debating this for years, but you seem to know the facts.

No, they aren’t, and yes, I actually do in this case.

The controversy is exaggerated beyond recognition because the very few opposing views, dressed in scientific terms, gain incredible traction on the internet. In reality, the theory is about 150 years old, the first models are 60 years old, and satellite measurements have been available for nearly 45 years. All of this aligns perfectly: The deductively derived theory has led to models that made quantifiable predictions. These predictions were later tested and confirmed by measurements—millions of times by now.
(The theory in question is about the effect of infrared-active gases on the Earth’s surface energy emission to space.)

Snowy36 schrieb:

I don’t see why this shouldn’t be logically conclusive.

Because natural climate variability does not mean there can be no human-caused variability. The fact that wildfires have always existed doesn’t mean that a carelessly discarded cigarette in dry forest is generally without effect.

If one doesn’t exclude the other, the relevant question must be whether both can be distinguished.
They can. Result: The observed warming since the late 1940s is human-caused. Determined according to the method described above.

Snowy36 schrieb:

Just because there has been little rain this year, we don’t just talk about heat and summer, but immediately about climate change.

For a specific reason: Exceptional years like this one (above-average warm and dry) are not randomly distributed over time but have clustered recently. Statistically, this should not happen without a general warming trend.

Snowy36 schrieb:

In the past, the weather forecasts would color maps green at 26 degrees, today it’s deep red there.

This is one of those myths used by certain groups and parties to catch attention. It’s nonsense, but it appeals to the confirmation bias in all of us: We tend to find what matches our existing beliefs more plausible. In doing so, we lose sight that we all carry some incorrect assumptions through life.

The color coding of temperature maps is just as I always remember it (well, I’m only in my mid-30s). It’s different in winter than in summer, and a temperature map is something different from a weather map in general. And with that, the story falls apart.

Tolentino schrieb:

@Snowy36
You are making an invalid conclusion. It’s like saying all children are born by women, therefore all women give birth to children.
Or if in the past someone accidentally died from a gunshot, it means that all deaths caused by firearms are accidents.
Researchers don’t argue about whether climate change is real or human-caused; the debate is about whether it can still be stopped and, if so, how.
The so-called scientists who still oppose the consensus are usually not experts, outsiders, and/or are not taken seriously or addressed properly in peer-reviewed discussions.
Yes, we contribute to 80% of emissions; we are ranked 6th. But it’s true that other countries emit significantly more.
I don’t understand how people can conclude from this that there’s no need to do anything.
It’s not just this year. It’s clearly visible how, in the last 150 years (since the industrial revolution), extreme weather events have become more frequent, the temperature rise has happened at an unprecedented pace, and the origin of CO2 (not from volcanoes or similar sources) can be proven.
The claim about the weather map from the Tagesschau is incorrect. Such memes have been exposed as fake or manipulated. They show different things: current temperatures versus a three-day forecast.
I recommend reading a well-known fact-checking website for this.
Unfortunately, linking is not allowed here, but if you look beyond social media and skeptic bubbles, you’ll see this quite quickly.

Okay, I would have liked to have a discussion on equal terms here, but with citing fact-checkers as the source of your claims, I have to opt out. They declared the lockdown a fake news story just three days before it happened, to name just one example. And by the way, the Tagesschau admitted to changing the colors; it was supposedly just a standardization or a new PowerPoint template.

It’s the same as with COVID: everyone who said infection couldn’t be prevented despite vaccination was defamed. They were still right.

And now we’re repeating the whole show with a different topic, and again nobody questions it. Excluding critics and not taking them seriously is unfortunately systematic. This unfortunately prevents any factual exchange of arguments.

As I said, I am all for environmental protection, but it must not become a dogma. And it should be based on science, so it should be clear in advance whether a measure will be effective or not.

Snowy36 schrieb:

Unfortunately, any factual exchange of arguments is being prevented here.

Hmm… I believe I responded factually and, furthermore, presented real arguments.

You had previously made a claim without providing detailed justification.

If you want to explain your reasoning, I’d be happy to hear those arguments—I have no problem with a discussion. What I reject is:

Snowy36 schrieb:

Excluding critics and not taking them seriously is, unfortunately, systematic.

I don’t exclude anyone. I’m simply pointing out that physics is a “hard” science that can falsify opinions accordingly. That doesn’t ban opinions; it makes them either right or wrong. The fundamental questions of global warming (what causes it, where the CO2 comes from) have been definitively resolved. At this point, there are no scientifically valid opposing views.

The fact that all this can be clearly measured and derived from known natural laws fundamentally distinguishes this issue from epidemiology. That is why it is NOT comparable to C.

I think we could discuss this for hours, but the question is whether anyone is interested (-:

There was enough data available for C., but not in or for Germany, and not from public broadcasters.

I’m not saying you are excluding anyone; it’s more about the general mechanism that can be applied to all current issues. From C. to climate to war. There is only one accepted opinion, and anyone who tries to discuss it objectively from a different angle, as your previous speaker said, is marginalized and ridiculed. As a result, all arguments on this page no longer count because all sources are labeled as false—they come from so-called experts who suddenly aren’t experts anymore. I find that unfortunate because it prevents any real discussion. There is only right and wrong, and nothing in between.

Well, maybe we should create a separate climate change thread since this one is supposed to be about gardening, right?

Snowy36 schrieb:

I’m not saying you are excluding anyone; it’s more about the general mechanism that applies to all current topics. Whether it’s about COVID, climate, or war. There is only one correct opinion, and anyone who tries to discuss another perspective in a factual way gets, as your predecessor mentioned, marginalized and ridiculed. As a result, all arguments from that side are dismissed because the sources are labeled as false—they supposedly come from questionable experts who suddenly are no longer experts. I find this unfortunate because it shuts down any discussion. There is only right and wrong now, with nothing in between.

There are no alternative facts. All data on climate change tell the same story. And no, just because a few unreliable people claim the opposite, that does not make it a scientifically supported opinion. Science is not a democracy — deal with it. Science works differently, based on evidence.
Take a look at the MaithinkX episode on freedom of speech. It explains this very clearly.

Snowy36 schrieb:

I’m more concerned with the general mechanism that can be applied to all current topics. From Covid to climate to war. There is only one correct opinion […] There is only right and wrong, and nothing in between.

That is the problem. The mechanism is not transferable. The process of scientific knowledge acquisition is exclusive to certain fields and unsuitable for others.
It is scientifically correct to categorize opinions about observed measurements as right or wrong. That does not mean the same can be done for all other opinions.
And regarding opinions on “measured facts,” there may be many, but most can be judged false based on an established method.

I rather see the problem that outsiders often cannot distinguish between science, personal opinion, and activism, and therefore see “THE universal mechanism” everywhere.

—————

Regarding the plants: My south-facing balcony is dying. By now, I’m acting more palliatively. No rain for weeks. Ruhr area here.