|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 19 2014 11:51 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 11:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 19 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that when people get more educated they have a better ability to see through simple messaging and so become skeptical of it. Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype  Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. No they really don't. Are you really suggesting there is anything substantive to be gained from the perpetuation of the idea that the earth is ~9,000 years old? No, but that is a non-sequitur. Yes, everyone acknowledges climates change. Even basic changes such as the seasons, and longer scale periods such as Ice Ages and Maunder cycles. Don't be so dense. Yes, I understand you don't like religion, but don't bring those prejudices into science and use science as your personal bullwhip. Science is supposed to be objective and one of its core tenets is questioning, re-evaluating, and certainly not being a dismissive twat. This is basically so. It doesn't even take much acknowledging the greenhouse effect and CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That doesn't preclude questioning our understanding of quantitative climate models and their prescriptive effects. Maybe long term trends in the realm of centuries, but the status of doom in coming decades ... still keep a healthy skepticism, particularly in light of the decade and a half pause button we recently experienced.
Then when we get these people with a whip and a policy bullhorn, it does a lot to discredit the cause. Oh wait there's religious nuts out there, better be worried to death of their anti-science views!!! Kill industries in the US, card check climate change deniers ... but are we ignoring China and India now? With the charged rhetoric and this and that presidential report or National Climate Assessment ... are we agenda driven or science driven?
One skeptic's thoughts, appearing in Forbes, I'll excerpt a little
I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk….based on a theory that the increase in the atmosphere from the exhaust from the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in ‘the greenhouse effect’ causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the $2.6 billion dollars a year of Federal grants for global warming, climate change, research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.”
This is a well-informed, well-reasoned understanding of the National Climate Assessment report, which is an exercise in political science, not climate science. What you will not see in the report are the basic truths below regarding climate science, over which reasonable people cannot differ![...]
Soon, the more recent period of no global warming will be longer than the older period of actual global warming, which lasted only about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Preceding that were 30 years of global cooling, generating alarms regarding a new ice age (which is actually overdue, given historical climate cycles). Even Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 plus years with no global warming.
The foundation for the establishment’s argument for global warming is nothing more than broad theory, which does nothing to specify how much warming and when, and 73 climate models collected by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But the problem is that the warming trends projected by these models are all diverging farther and farther from the real world trend of actual temperature observations. Not only have these models never been validated, which means that their projections at this point are nothing more than fabrications. At this point, these models have been falsified by real world temperature data. Forbes
Don't create more skeptics if you're convinced in your understanding of the science, anthropogenic global warming and extreme weather events crowd. Convert the skeptics with your devotion to the data and acknowledgments when you make mistakes.
|
On May 19 2014 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 11:51 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 11:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 19 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that when people get more educated they have a better ability to see through simple messaging and so become skeptical of it. Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. No they really don't. Are you really suggesting there is anything substantive to be gained from the perpetuation of the idea that the earth is ~9,000 years old? No, but that is a non-sequitur. Yes, everyone acknowledges climates change. Even basic changes such as the seasons, and longer scale periods such as Ice Ages and Maunder cycles. Don't be so dense. Yes, I understand you don't like religion, but don't bring those prejudices into science and use science as your personal bullwhip. Science is supposed to be objective and one of its core tenets is questioning, re-evaluating, and certainly not being a dismissive twat. Well seasons are not 'Climate'. If you're going to play a semantics game, at least get the words right? http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/And the people I've been referencing also aren't so keen on things like 'Ice Age s' So comprehending climate on a scale of over ~9,000 years isn't currently an option for a lot of Americans. Which was the problem I was highlighting. Show nested quote +From the biblical creationist perspective, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are remnants of the Ice Age that followed the Genesis Flood. These ice sheets would have been built up through the Ice Age, which ended about 3,500 years ago, and then slowed as the oceans continued to cool. SourceSo sorry if I come off as a 'twat', but you were just flat wrong. Show nested quote + I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT. That part really sounded like you were trying to rationalize creationist loons as part of some rational debate... I stand corrected there.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that anyone on this thread is arguing young Earth creationism as a counter argument to anthropomorphic climate change.
|
On May 19 2014 12:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 11:51 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 11:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 19 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that when people get more educated they have a better ability to see through simple messaging and so become skeptical of it. Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. No they really don't. Are you really suggesting there is anything substantive to be gained from the perpetuation of the idea that the earth is ~9,000 years old? No, but that is a non-sequitur. Yes, everyone acknowledges climates change. Even basic changes such as the seasons, and longer scale periods such as Ice Ages and Maunder cycles. Don't be so dense. Yes, I understand you don't like religion, but don't bring those prejudices into science and use science as your personal bullwhip. Science is supposed to be objective and one of its core tenets is questioning, re-evaluating, and certainly not being a dismissive twat. This is basically so. It doesn't even take much acknowledging the greenhouse effect and CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That doesn't preclude questioning our understanding of quantitative climate models and their prescriptive effects. Maybe long term trends in the realm of centuries, but the status of doom in coming decades ... still keep a healthy skepticism, particularly in light of the decade and a half pause button we recently experienced. Then when we get these people with a whip and a policy bullhorn, it does a lot to discredit the cause. Oh wait there's religious nuts out there, better be worried to death of their anti-science views!!! Kill industries in the US, card check climate change deniers ... but are we ignoring China and India now? With the charged rhetoric and this and that presidential report or National Climate Assessment ... are we agenda driven or science driven? One skeptic's thoughts, appearing in Forbes, I'll excerpt a little Show nested quote +I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk….based on a theory that the increase in the atmosphere from the exhaust from the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in ‘the greenhouse effect’ causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the $2.6 billion dollars a year of Federal grants for global warming, climate change, research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.”
This is a well-informed, well-reasoned understanding of the National Climate Assessment report, which is an exercise in political science, not climate science. What you will not see in the report are the basic truths below regarding climate science, over which reasonable people cannot differ![...]
Soon, the more recent period of no global warming will be longer than the older period of actual global warming, which lasted only about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Preceding that were 30 years of global cooling, generating alarms regarding a new ice age (which is actually overdue, given historical climate cycles). Even Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 plus years with no global warming.
The foundation for the establishment’s argument for global warming is nothing more than broad theory, which does nothing to specify how much warming and when, and 73 climate models collected by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But the problem is that the warming trends projected by these models are all diverging farther and farther from the real world trend of actual temperature observations. Not only have these models never been validated, which means that their projections at this point are nothing more than fabrications. At this point, these models have been falsified by real world temperature data. ForbesDon't create more skeptics if you're convinced in your understanding of the science, anthropogenic global warming and extreme weather events crowd. Convert the skeptics with your devotion to the data and acknowledgments when you make mistakes.
I have to admit that that Forbes article is a pretty well-written propaganda piece. I can see how it would be convincing to people who don't believe that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat.
|
On May 19 2014 11:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 04:48 farvacola wrote:
The issue, in the end, has everything to do with how the average persons regards expertise as it pertains to issues of public consequence, and the fact of the matter is that there is a well defined sub-population that only gets their information a la carte, meaning that very little is impressed upon them through external, authoritative sources. The variety of media outlets available and the self-directed nature of internet news consumption allows folks to confirm their bias at practically every step of the information gathering process if they so choose, and, seeing as humans are creatures of comfort, it shouldn't be too surprising that many people seek out only that which conforms with what they already know to be true. Among vaccine deniers, everything that the medical establishment produces is already tainted a priori because the likes of Jenny McCarthy tell them so on practically a daily basis.
I think this phenomena can be directly related to the splintered, state-centric nature of K-12 education here in the US; without a standard, national baseline with which an "adequate" education can be compared, cultural communities are given tacit authority to create their own relativized notions as to how one regards information, expertise, and authority. If the state of Tennessee has the legal authority to teach young earth creationism in their public schools, it isn't exactly a far leap to imagine that similar logic is at work in the background of something like vaccine denial; such lenience in the name of state's rights only confirms the notion that practically anything can be politicized, and the erosion of trust in the scientific establishment is at least an indirect result of that.
The US is one of the last countries in the world to rely on such an antiquated, levy based system of K-12 education, a system that simply gives the people too much authority on matters that are best served via a healthy respect for the utility of expertise. Furthermore, we can already see the signs that factionalism is, and perhaps always has and will be, alive and well, due in no small part to the notion that even the idea of knowledge itself can be put to a vote. What is your solution to a mistake in a one-size all authoritarian system? No Child Left Behind should have been a wild and wonderful success then! Nationalizing education is not a solution, in fact, I wonder how much you will start to moan if and when the 'other' side grabs the power and starts to change the education standards for everyone, never mind the inherent problems associated with technocracy. Localism is far better, even if there will be areas where people disagree with you on things, even basic things. It provides a valve outlet for the expression of ideas, something that is no where present in top-down authoritative systems. (I'd like to see you, use the same reason to defend authoritarianism against democracy...would be interesting)
There is a very very VERY big difference between coming to the debate saying: I collected evidence X in this that and the other manner, and it turns out that it doesn't neatly fit into established theory Y, on the one hand. And on the other hand coming to the debate swinging. a book and a gun uelling that you are right, and therefore everybody else must be wrong...
|
On May 19 2014 14:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2014 11:51 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 11:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 19 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that when people get more educated they have a better ability to see through simple messaging and so become skeptical of it. Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. No they really don't. Are you really suggesting there is anything substantive to be gained from the perpetuation of the idea that the earth is ~9,000 years old? No, but that is a non-sequitur. Yes, everyone acknowledges climates change. Even basic changes such as the seasons, and longer scale periods such as Ice Ages and Maunder cycles. Don't be so dense. Yes, I understand you don't like religion, but don't bring those prejudices into science and use science as your personal bullwhip. Science is supposed to be objective and one of its core tenets is questioning, re-evaluating, and certainly not being a dismissive twat. This is basically so. It doesn't even take much acknowledging the greenhouse effect and CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That doesn't preclude questioning our understanding of quantitative climate models and their prescriptive effects. Maybe long term trends in the realm of centuries, but the status of doom in coming decades ... still keep a healthy skepticism, particularly in light of the decade and a half pause button we recently experienced. Then when we get these people with a whip and a policy bullhorn, it does a lot to discredit the cause. Oh wait there's religious nuts out there, better be worried to death of their anti-science views!!! Kill industries in the US, card check climate change deniers ... but are we ignoring China and India now? With the charged rhetoric and this and that presidential report or National Climate Assessment ... are we agenda driven or science driven? One skeptic's thoughts, appearing in Forbes, I'll excerpt a little I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk….based on a theory that the increase in the atmosphere from the exhaust from the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in ‘the greenhouse effect’ causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the $2.6 billion dollars a year of Federal grants for global warming, climate change, research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.”
This is a well-informed, well-reasoned understanding of the National Climate Assessment report, which is an exercise in political science, not climate science. What you will not see in the report are the basic truths below regarding climate science, over which reasonable people cannot differ![...]
Soon, the more recent period of no global warming will be longer than the older period of actual global warming, which lasted only about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Preceding that were 30 years of global cooling, generating alarms regarding a new ice age (which is actually overdue, given historical climate cycles). Even Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 plus years with no global warming.
The foundation for the establishment’s argument for global warming is nothing more than broad theory, which does nothing to specify how much warming and when, and 73 climate models collected by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But the problem is that the warming trends projected by these models are all diverging farther and farther from the real world trend of actual temperature observations. Not only have these models never been validated, which means that their projections at this point are nothing more than fabrications. At this point, these models have been falsified by real world temperature data. ForbesDon't create more skeptics if you're convinced in your understanding of the science, anthropogenic global warming and extreme weather events crowd. Convert the skeptics with your devotion to the data and acknowledgments when you make mistakes. I have to admit that that Forbes article is a pretty well-written propaganda piece. I can see how it would be convincing to people who don't believe that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat.
Too bad that while Danglars is toting from his high horse that we should believe facts and data-driven science, the Forbes piece he quotes does none of that and gets quite a few FACTS flat-out wrong.
|
On May 19 2014 20:33 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 14:56 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2014 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2014 11:51 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 11:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 19 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that when people get more educated they have a better ability to see through simple messaging and so become skeptical of it. Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. No they really don't. Are you really suggesting there is anything substantive to be gained from the perpetuation of the idea that the earth is ~9,000 years old? No, but that is a non-sequitur. Yes, everyone acknowledges climates change. Even basic changes such as the seasons, and longer scale periods such as Ice Ages and Maunder cycles. Don't be so dense. Yes, I understand you don't like religion, but don't bring those prejudices into science and use science as your personal bullwhip. Science is supposed to be objective and one of its core tenets is questioning, re-evaluating, and certainly not being a dismissive twat. This is basically so. It doesn't even take much acknowledging the greenhouse effect and CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That doesn't preclude questioning our understanding of quantitative climate models and their prescriptive effects. Maybe long term trends in the realm of centuries, but the status of doom in coming decades ... still keep a healthy skepticism, particularly in light of the decade and a half pause button we recently experienced. Then when we get these people with a whip and a policy bullhorn, it does a lot to discredit the cause. Oh wait there's religious nuts out there, better be worried to death of their anti-science views!!! Kill industries in the US, card check climate change deniers ... but are we ignoring China and India now? With the charged rhetoric and this and that presidential report or National Climate Assessment ... are we agenda driven or science driven? One skeptic's thoughts, appearing in Forbes, I'll excerpt a little I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk….based on a theory that the increase in the atmosphere from the exhaust from the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in ‘the greenhouse effect’ causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the $2.6 billion dollars a year of Federal grants for global warming, climate change, research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.”
This is a well-informed, well-reasoned understanding of the National Climate Assessment report, which is an exercise in political science, not climate science. What you will not see in the report are the basic truths below regarding climate science, over which reasonable people cannot differ![...]
Soon, the more recent period of no global warming will be longer than the older period of actual global warming, which lasted only about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Preceding that were 30 years of global cooling, generating alarms regarding a new ice age (which is actually overdue, given historical climate cycles). Even Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 plus years with no global warming.
The foundation for the establishment’s argument for global warming is nothing more than broad theory, which does nothing to specify how much warming and when, and 73 climate models collected by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But the problem is that the warming trends projected by these models are all diverging farther and farther from the real world trend of actual temperature observations. Not only have these models never been validated, which means that their projections at this point are nothing more than fabrications. At this point, these models have been falsified by real world temperature data. ForbesDon't create more skeptics if you're convinced in your understanding of the science, anthropogenic global warming and extreme weather events crowd. Convert the skeptics with your devotion to the data and acknowledgments when you make mistakes. I have to admit that that Forbes article is a pretty well-written propaganda piece. I can see how it would be convincing to people who don't believe that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat. Too bad that while Danglars is toting from his high horse that we should believe facts and data-driven science, the Forbes piece he quotes does none of that and gets quite a few FACTS flat-out wrong.
Examples?
|
On May 19 2014 14:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2014 11:51 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 11:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 19 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that when people get more educated they have a better ability to see through simple messaging and so become skeptical of it. Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. No they really don't. Are you really suggesting there is anything substantive to be gained from the perpetuation of the idea that the earth is ~9,000 years old? No, but that is a non-sequitur. Yes, everyone acknowledges climates change. Even basic changes such as the seasons, and longer scale periods such as Ice Ages and Maunder cycles. Don't be so dense. Yes, I understand you don't like religion, but don't bring those prejudices into science and use science as your personal bullwhip. Science is supposed to be objective and one of its core tenets is questioning, re-evaluating, and certainly not being a dismissive twat. This is basically so. It doesn't even take much acknowledging the greenhouse effect and CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That doesn't preclude questioning our understanding of quantitative climate models and their prescriptive effects. Maybe long term trends in the realm of centuries, but the status of doom in coming decades ... still keep a healthy skepticism, particularly in light of the decade and a half pause button we recently experienced. Then when we get these people with a whip and a policy bullhorn, it does a lot to discredit the cause. Oh wait there's religious nuts out there, better be worried to death of their anti-science views!!! Kill industries in the US, card check climate change deniers ... but are we ignoring China and India now? With the charged rhetoric and this and that presidential report or National Climate Assessment ... are we agenda driven or science driven? One skeptic's thoughts, appearing in Forbes, I'll excerpt a little I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk….based on a theory that the increase in the atmosphere from the exhaust from the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in ‘the greenhouse effect’ causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the $2.6 billion dollars a year of Federal grants for global warming, climate change, research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.”
This is a well-informed, well-reasoned understanding of the National Climate Assessment report, which is an exercise in political science, not climate science. What you will not see in the report are the basic truths below regarding climate science, over which reasonable people cannot differ![...]
Soon, the more recent period of no global warming will be longer than the older period of actual global warming, which lasted only about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Preceding that were 30 years of global cooling, generating alarms regarding a new ice age (which is actually overdue, given historical climate cycles). Even Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 plus years with no global warming.
The foundation for the establishment’s argument for global warming is nothing more than broad theory, which does nothing to specify how much warming and when, and 73 climate models collected by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But the problem is that the warming trends projected by these models are all diverging farther and farther from the real world trend of actual temperature observations. Not only have these models never been validated, which means that their projections at this point are nothing more than fabrications. At this point, these models have been falsified by real world temperature data. ForbesDon't create more skeptics if you're convinced in your understanding of the science, anthropogenic global warming and extreme weather events crowd. Convert the skeptics with your devotion to the data and acknowledgments when you make mistakes. I have to admit that that Forbes article is a pretty well-written propaganda piece. I can see how it would be convincing to people who don't believe that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat.
Feel free to point out what's wrong with it.
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye.
|
On May 19 2014 22:43 xDaunt wrote:
Feel free to point out what's wrong with it.
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye.
His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs.
Source
Looking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration.
 ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png)
Here is another inaccuracy: That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President.
http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=96&units=us
After that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science.
|
On May 19 2014 20:42 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 20:33 Acrofales wrote:On May 19 2014 14:56 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2014 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2014 11:51 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 11:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2014 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
Regarding the more educated people that are science skeptical, I guess that's more like a hippie/new age thing like gluten free food. Like the stereotypical mom that graduated in sociology and only shops in vegan stores and does yoga in her free time. That kind of anti-science stance is probably more lifestyle based than on actual belief. That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. No they really don't. Are you really suggesting there is anything substantive to be gained from the perpetuation of the idea that the earth is ~9,000 years old? No, but that is a non-sequitur. Yes, everyone acknowledges climates change. Even basic changes such as the seasons, and longer scale periods such as Ice Ages and Maunder cycles. Don't be so dense. Yes, I understand you don't like religion, but don't bring those prejudices into science and use science as your personal bullwhip. Science is supposed to be objective and one of its core tenets is questioning, re-evaluating, and certainly not being a dismissive twat. This is basically so. It doesn't even take much acknowledging the greenhouse effect and CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That doesn't preclude questioning our understanding of quantitative climate models and their prescriptive effects. Maybe long term trends in the realm of centuries, but the status of doom in coming decades ... still keep a healthy skepticism, particularly in light of the decade and a half pause button we recently experienced. Then when we get these people with a whip and a policy bullhorn, it does a lot to discredit the cause. Oh wait there's religious nuts out there, better be worried to death of their anti-science views!!! Kill industries in the US, card check climate change deniers ... but are we ignoring China and India now? With the charged rhetoric and this and that presidential report or National Climate Assessment ... are we agenda driven or science driven? One skeptic's thoughts, appearing in Forbes, I'll excerpt a little I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk….based on a theory that the increase in the atmosphere from the exhaust from the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in ‘the greenhouse effect’ causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the $2.6 billion dollars a year of Federal grants for global warming, climate change, research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.”
This is a well-informed, well-reasoned understanding of the National Climate Assessment report, which is an exercise in political science, not climate science. What you will not see in the report are the basic truths below regarding climate science, over which reasonable people cannot differ![...]
Soon, the more recent period of no global warming will be longer than the older period of actual global warming, which lasted only about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Preceding that were 30 years of global cooling, generating alarms regarding a new ice age (which is actually overdue, given historical climate cycles). Even Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 plus years with no global warming.
The foundation for the establishment’s argument for global warming is nothing more than broad theory, which does nothing to specify how much warming and when, and 73 climate models collected by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But the problem is that the warming trends projected by these models are all diverging farther and farther from the real world trend of actual temperature observations. Not only have these models never been validated, which means that their projections at this point are nothing more than fabrications. At this point, these models have been falsified by real world temperature data. ForbesDon't create more skeptics if you're convinced in your understanding of the science, anthropogenic global warming and extreme weather events crowd. Convert the skeptics with your devotion to the data and acknowledgments when you make mistakes. I have to admit that that Forbes article is a pretty well-written propaganda piece. I can see how it would be convincing to people who don't believe that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat. Too bad that while Danglars is toting from his high horse that we should believe facts and data-driven science, the Forbes piece he quotes does none of that and gets quite a few FACTS flat-out wrong. Examples?
The world stopped warming sometime in the 90s is blatantly false, and almost invariably spouted by deniers.
Firstly, that global temperatures stopped rising for a 5 year period (approx) in the 00ties is largely irrelevant for trends. Secondly, temperatures are rising again, albeit slower than some models predicted. And finally, that slowing down can be explained by including volcano eruptions in the models. So let's just pray volcanoes keep erupting in numbers similar to the last decade, right?
Sources: www.ncdc.noaa.gov, Www.scientificamerican.Com/article/sun-dimming-volcanoes-partly-explain-global-warming-hiatus/
But it's okay. Clearly an opinion piece in Forbes holds more weight than your own government climate bureau or publications in Nature.
|
Peter Ferrara.. isn't that the guy working for the same conservative think tank that claimed that there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan a few years ago and that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer? And yeah, good that we have a lawyer telling us that climate change "obviously" is a hoax, what do we have the IPCC for.
Feel free to point out what's wrong with it.
Climate change is happening, it's real, it's a fact.
|
On May 20 2014 00:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 20:42 coverpunch wrote:On May 19 2014 20:33 Acrofales wrote:On May 19 2014 14:56 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2014 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2014 11:51 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 11:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. No they really don't. Are you really suggesting there is anything substantive to be gained from the perpetuation of the idea that the earth is ~9,000 years old? No, but that is a non-sequitur. Yes, everyone acknowledges climates change. Even basic changes such as the seasons, and longer scale periods such as Ice Ages and Maunder cycles. Don't be so dense. Yes, I understand you don't like religion, but don't bring those prejudices into science and use science as your personal bullwhip. Science is supposed to be objective and one of its core tenets is questioning, re-evaluating, and certainly not being a dismissive twat. This is basically so. It doesn't even take much acknowledging the greenhouse effect and CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That doesn't preclude questioning our understanding of quantitative climate models and their prescriptive effects. Maybe long term trends in the realm of centuries, but the status of doom in coming decades ... still keep a healthy skepticism, particularly in light of the decade and a half pause button we recently experienced. Then when we get these people with a whip and a policy bullhorn, it does a lot to discredit the cause. Oh wait there's religious nuts out there, better be worried to death of their anti-science views!!! Kill industries in the US, card check climate change deniers ... but are we ignoring China and India now? With the charged rhetoric and this and that presidential report or National Climate Assessment ... are we agenda driven or science driven? One skeptic's thoughts, appearing in Forbes, I'll excerpt a little I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk….based on a theory that the increase in the atmosphere from the exhaust from the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in ‘the greenhouse effect’ causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the $2.6 billion dollars a year of Federal grants for global warming, climate change, research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.”
This is a well-informed, well-reasoned understanding of the National Climate Assessment report, which is an exercise in political science, not climate science. What you will not see in the report are the basic truths below regarding climate science, over which reasonable people cannot differ![...]
Soon, the more recent period of no global warming will be longer than the older period of actual global warming, which lasted only about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Preceding that were 30 years of global cooling, generating alarms regarding a new ice age (which is actually overdue, given historical climate cycles). Even Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 plus years with no global warming.
The foundation for the establishment’s argument for global warming is nothing more than broad theory, which does nothing to specify how much warming and when, and 73 climate models collected by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But the problem is that the warming trends projected by these models are all diverging farther and farther from the real world trend of actual temperature observations. Not only have these models never been validated, which means that their projections at this point are nothing more than fabrications. At this point, these models have been falsified by real world temperature data. ForbesDon't create more skeptics if you're convinced in your understanding of the science, anthropogenic global warming and extreme weather events crowd. Convert the skeptics with your devotion to the data and acknowledgments when you make mistakes. I have to admit that that Forbes article is a pretty well-written propaganda piece. I can see how it would be convincing to people who don't believe that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat. Too bad that while Danglars is toting from his high horse that we should believe facts and data-driven science, the Forbes piece he quotes does none of that and gets quite a few FACTS flat-out wrong. Examples? The world stopped warming sometime in the 90s is blatantly false, and almost invariably spouted by deniers. Firstly, that global temperatures stopped rising for a 5 year period (approx) in the 00ties is largely irrelevant for trends. Secondly, temperatures are rising again, albeit slower than some models predicted. And finally, that slowing down can be explained by including volcano eruptions in the models. So let's just pray volcanoes keep erupting in numbers similar to the last decade, right? Sources: www.ncdc.noaa.gov, Www.scientificamerican.Com/article/sun-dimming-volcanoes-partly-explain-global-warming-hiatus/But it's okay. Clearly an opinion piece in Forbes holds more weight than your own government climate bureau or publications in Nature.
There's a whole lot of "I don't know" and "this is our best guess" in those articles. And it's not like any of the factors discussed are "new." I wonder why none of this stuff was considered beforehand and incorporated into the latest and greatest climate models....
More to the point though, there's a tacit admission in those articles that there are far larger forces at work than mankind, raising the question of the extent to which we can influence climate change.
|
On May 20 2014 00:32 Nyxisto wrote:Peter Ferrara.. isn't that the guy working for a conservative think tank that claimed that there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan a few years ago? And yeah, good that we have a lawyer telling us that climate change "obviously" is a hoax, what do we have the IPCC for. Climate change is happening, it's real, it's a fact.
Well no shit, climate change is always happening. The issue is what to do about it.
|
Concerning everything Snowden released you can check the website of the independant journalists that came with the Snowden leak.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/
There is a lot of information about all the programs and deceitful actions the US government (and others) have taken in order to make the world a "safer" world.
|
On May 20 2014 00:17 Sandvich wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 22:43 xDaunt wrote:
Feel free to point out what's wrong with it.
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye. His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs. SourceLooking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration. Here is another inaccuracy: http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=96&units=usAfter that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science.
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
|
On May 20 2014 00:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 00:32 Nyxisto wrote:Peter Ferrara.. isn't that the guy working for a conservative think tank that claimed that there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan a few years ago? And yeah, good that we have a lawyer telling us that climate change "obviously" is a hoax, what do we have the IPCC for. Feel free to point out what's wrong with it. Climate change is happening, it's real, it's a fact. Well no shit, climate change is always happening. The issue is what to do about it.
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap26_FGDall.pdf
As the effects of rising temperatures on our/North Americas economy are going to be overwhelmingly negative... I guess we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions, right?
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Well obviously his blatantly made up 'facts', as well as calling Obama Stalin or whatever his point was are way more intelligent. There are no alarmists. What you label 'alarmist' is the scientific consensus on the topic. It's not going to change because you use the word every ten seconds. If you think the Heartland lobby group has more authority on the topic of climate change than 99% of all climate scientists on this topic then that's fine, but stop making up wrong facts.
|
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
You do realize this loses the majority of the Republican party? They don't believe the earth goes back even 100,000 years and they believe there was only 1 Ice Age ~3,500 years ago after 'The Great Flood' that carved the Grand Canyon in about a month or few...
Are some of the predictions from climate science a bit over the top.. probably. But look at the majority of the opposition party... They are not arguing the nuance of humans impact on climate change, they are completely delusional deniers.
If the majority of the party opposing climate legislation was even remotely close to your position this debate would be much different. But the same people questioning IPCC and other climate science ("Lies straight from the pit of Hell") are largely people who don't even believe in science at all, or are all but completely scientifically illiterate. (Think Rep. Broun)
It doesn't help when alarmists go claiming the sky is falling if we make reasonable changes to our energy production and consumption. Just out of curiosity what terrible catastrophe are you predicting sensible climate legislation would have on the US?
|
On May 20 2014 00:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 00:17 Sandvich wrote:On May 19 2014 22:43 xDaunt wrote:
Feel free to point out what's wrong with it.
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye. His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs. SourceLooking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration. Here is another inaccuracy: That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President. http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=96&units=usAfter that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science. Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that. As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
There's a whole lot of "I don't know" and "this is our best guess" in those articles. And it's not like any of the factors discussed are "new." I wonder why none of this stuff was considered beforehand and incorporated into the latest and greatest climate models....
More to the point though, there's a tacit admission in those articles that there are far larger forces at work than mankind, raising the question of the extent to which we can influence climate change.
Welcome to science. There are no "latest and greatest" climate models, just different ones. They are always up for revision to make them more accurate, or they can be completely invalidated by new findings. The fact that we don't have perfect models doesn't mean the notion that climate change isn't happening or that humans don't play a significant role, it just means we don't know the exact measure yet, but have a pretty good guess.
If you want to refute, go find some reputable models/studies that assume humans have no effect on climate that fit our observations on climate now.
|
On May 20 2014 01:21 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 00:51 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 00:17 Sandvich wrote:On May 19 2014 22:43 xDaunt wrote:
Feel free to point out what's wrong with it.
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye. His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs. SourceLooking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration. Here is another inaccuracy: That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President. http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=96&units=usAfter that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science. Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that. As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing. Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
|
On May 20 2014 01:21 aksfjh wrote:
It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
Funny sidenote: If the co2 concentration would be 15 times higher, like it was back then, the co2 concentration would actually be higher around us than in our bloodstream, which would mean you would be unable to exhale co2, which would result in everyone simply dying.
|
On May 20 2014 01:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 01:21 aksfjh wrote:On May 20 2014 00:51 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 00:17 Sandvich wrote:On May 19 2014 22:43 xDaunt wrote:
Feel free to point out what's wrong with it.
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye. His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs. SourceLooking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration. Here is another inaccuracy: That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President. http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=96&units=usAfter that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science. Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that. As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing. Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category. His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
