EPTTL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 34
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
shuurai
75 Posts
| ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On February 07 2012 04:04 shuurai wrote: Let me ask you a question in return: Don't you feel that when it comes to Urgency is a pretty broad term, in my perception global warming is not displayed (in the mediascape as a whole) to be as urgent as any imminent problem (for example environmental or humanitarian problems in 3rd world countries, or economic meltdown in Europe). And I suspect that most people who do not believe in global warming, including you, see it displayed as a lot more urgent. | ||
|
shuurai
75 Posts
| ||
|
shuurai
75 Posts
No Need to Panic About Global Warming over & out. | ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=294083¤tpage=27#522 | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On February 07 2012 05:03 shuurai wrote: Guess we all have our personal perception we like to call reality. Nowadays, the hype has certainly ebbed -- a few years ago, it was a front-runner, though. I'm actually pleased to hear that it doesn't appear all that urgent to you. This is kind of interesting. Are "climate sceptics" debating because they believe it shouldn't be as urgent as what they believe scientists are trying to get the public to perceive? I mean this kind of makes sense why this debate is going no-where, as there are *two separate agendas. If that were the case, then it explains psychologically why these people will do anything to sway the public opinion. I mean why would it please you that public doesn't think its as urgent? It just doesn't make sense in terms of the discussion. The debate was really about whether or not AGW is true or not, its a binary, there is no middle-ground. But if you have an agenda whereby the facts don't matter, you just don't want it to be the "front-runner" as you say, then I guess there is a middle-ground but not in terms of the argument but in terms of you trying to achieve your goal. The issue then is psychologically people like you will never change opinion, because it doesn't matter what facts are put in front of you it won't make a difference, you have an agenda that can't allow that to happen. The way you achieve your goal is to throw as much bullshit in the debate as possible that no one knows what to think anymore (even when you know its very likely to be factually incorrect). Although I'm not saying that's a good thing, its actually extremely ignorant, but at least it all makes sense to me now and the best thing to do is never give those people any attention. Or maybe I'm just giving you too much credit, and there really are really stupid people in this thread. *Edit: Two not too | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Take Al Gore as an example. The guy has a huge, carbon-unfriendly house, drives around in SUV motorcades, and flies on private jets. Doesn't the whole "do as I say, not as I do" mentality of people like him give you pause? | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On February 07 2012 14:34 xDaunt wrote: For all of you who are in favor "doing something" about climate change, doesn't the blatant hypocrisy of many of the climate change promoters/leaders bother you? Take Al Gore as an example. The guy has a huge, carbon-unfriendly house, drives around in SUV motorcades, and flies on private jets. Doesn't the whole "do as I say, not as I do" mentality of people like him give you pause? It does bother me, but it doesn't shift my stance one bit. Because neither Al Gore nor the mistakes of some, have ever represented more than 1% of the global science community. I mean yeah, the private jets and SUV is a given because high profile politians have to protect themselves, but a carbon un-friendly house would be a blow to his credibility. So if you don't wanna listen to him, by all means don't, that doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to the other thousands of scientists with actual factual evidence. Sceptics will look at this guy and go hey look at this guy, the scientists were wrong! Only to realise he did his own study that shows, the Earth was still steadily warming. On February 05 2012 21:25 KlaCkoN wrote: 2) There is a whole lote more fame to be gained from proving everyone else wrong than there is from being the billionth guy to reach a conclusion that has been considered self evident for more than a decade. Public research councils have no interest in funding "done" science, they are financed by tax money and have an obligation to premote new discoveries. They only people still interested in funding "is the earch truly warming?" studies are large industries for which the cost of financing yet another study is negligible but the potential payoff if it happens to show the right answer is huge. Example being the Berkeley earch project funded by among else Koch Industries. Though unsurprisingly and presumably much to the dismay of Koch industries they reached the conclusion that "yep still warming". http://berkeleyearth.org/ http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-decadal-variations.pdf | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18193 Posts
On February 07 2012 09:35 shuurai wrote: I just came across this recent statement made by people with plenty of credentials, for those of you into academic paraphernalia: No Need to Panic About Global Warming over & out. Before rehashing bullshit from 10 pages back, you could at least have checked... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=294083¤tpage=27#522 The discussion afterwards pretty much destroys the entire argument. | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
However, the only argument I believe unconditionally in favor of global warming is the keeling curve, and that in itself, is pretty convincing. I am still skeptical about a lot of the evidence and theories around global warming - but I am a believer in that it is warming, based only on that evidence alone. My main problem with climate change, is that I believe it has to a large degree been co-opted by organizations and people that use the money as foreign aid in disguise. In short, I believe the policies argued for to a large degree are ineffective and give the wrong incentive, and I would rather focus be on research into alternative cleaner energy sources - because we will be burning up our coal oil gas reserves regardless of whether or not the climate is changing, so it only make sense to focus on what we know will eventually be a problem anyway. My 2cp. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On February 07 2012 09:35 shuurai wrote: I just came across this recent statement made by people with plenty of credentials, for those of you into academic paraphernalia: No Need to Panic About Global Warming over & out. dear shuurai, there is a nice reply to exactly that article in the same journal, so I guess if you believe so much in the wall street journal, you might also like to read this: "Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? " http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html best w | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On February 07 2012 20:04 aebriol wrote: My main problem with climate change, is that I believe it has to a large degree been co-opted by organizations and people that use the money as foreign aid in disguise. In short, I believe the policies argued for to a large degree are ineffective and give the wrong incentive, and I would rather focus be on research into alternative cleaner energy sources - because we will be burning up our coal oil gas reserves regardless of whether or not the climate is changing, so it only make sense to focus on what we know will eventually be a problem anyway. My 2cp. dear aebriol, while I agree that transparency in the public debate is sometimes missing, this is due to many agents in a free democracy that follow different targets. this is usual behavior for most topics in policy. the one problem that is special to the climate sciences is the attempt of agents in the political arena to not critique political consequences but the science it self. science in itself is a sceptical and critical process. policy should try to put forward honest arguments for their policy options, not try to discredit the science behind it. best w | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On February 07 2012 14:34 xDaunt wrote: For all of you who are in favor "doing something" about climate change, doesn't the blatant hypocrisy of many of the climate change promoters/leaders bother you? hi xdaunt, on a personal level, of course, it bothers me a lot. it does not change, however, my stance toward the matter only one iota. everybody lives the life he deems responsible, and even if some people are hypocrites in polciy (which is not too shocking, I admit), the policy guidelines _can_ still be right. and on a professional level, it does not matter at all. scientists dont care about the lifestyle of politiciants when they do their science, at least not those I know. best w | ||
|
Deleted User 45971
533 Posts
I find that the Green Party in Sweden for example are pushing way too hard to "combat the climate threat". I really don't think it's relevant and shouldn't really be brought up until the big industrial countries decide to deal with, but they bring it up constantly as a talking point in elections. I would rather they completely ignore the climate change issue altogether and deal with other problems like pollution of various kinds and energy use/production/research issues. Or am I underestimating the effect smaller countries have on the climate change issue? Thanks a lot for making this thread and being so dedicated to it. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On February 07 2012 14:34 xDaunt wrote: For all of you who are in favor "doing something" about climate change, doesn't the blatant hypocrisy of many of the climate change promoters/leaders bother you? Take Al Gore as an example. The guy has a huge, carbon-unfriendly house, drives around in SUV motorcades, and flies on private jets. Doesn't the whole "do as I say, not as I do" mentality of people like him give you pause? Not in the sense that you think. Just because idiots/scammers/... support my position does not mean I will start being conspiracy theorist. It is not like Al Gore is a guy who I base my opinion on. He is not a scientist, he is a politician. Of course it would be nice if everyone supporting the reasonable side was also reasonable, but that is not how real world works. Actually your question illustrates what I feel a lot of "deniers" come from. They see a public figure being stupid/alarmist and they conclude the whole issue is a fraud, especially when the solution to the issue would threaten they politico-economical views. They never actually look at the evidence at hand, just search for the few sources confirming their anti-estabilishment position. The tactics are not dissimilar to creationists in evolution debate. | ||
|
shuurai
75 Posts
On February 07 2012 20:17 dabbeljuh wrote: dear shuurai, there is a nice reply to exactly that article in the same journal, so I guess if you believe so much in the wall street journal, you might also like to read this: "Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? " I did. In fact even before I read the corpus delicti. And it was hilarious! Handwaving for | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
I'm sure especially for this forum, the kind of people that would be a climate sceptic, would still be normally inclined to believe in evolution and things like that. On February 07 2012 20:04 aebriol wrote: I am a skeptic. I have read a lot of arguments back and forth. I find that a lot of it is guesstimates based on uncertain data, and I don't believe we know as much as we are led to believe However, the only argument I believe unconditionally in favor of global warming is the keeling curve, and that in itself, is pretty convincing. I am still skeptical about a lot of the evidence and theories around global warming - but I am a believer in that it is warming, based only on that evidence alone. My main problem with climate change, is that I believe it has to a large degree been co-opted by organizations and people that use the money as foreign aid in disguise. In short, I believe the policies argued for to a large degree are ineffective and give the wrong incentive, and I would rather focus be on research into alternative cleaner energy sources - because we will be burning up our coal oil gas reserves regardless of whether or not the climate is changing, so it only make sense to focus on what we know will eventually be a problem anyway. My 2cp. I believe by the keeling curve you mean the hockey stick? Ironically this was found to be false by another climate scientist. However an independent study that was done due to that, that was sponsored by Koch industries (a stakeholder in proving this is false) still found that the earth was still warming quite substantially and in a very consistent pattern, just not hockey stick style. However this should be a positive thing, not a negative. Scrutiny is what makes science science, and the fact that climate-gate was exposed by another climate scientist is a great thing. Keep note that the voice of a few does not represent the voice of many, and around 97% of scientists are publishing positive articles for athropogenic global warming. If you really want to find out, you need to look at the science, not the press. On February 07 2012 09:35 shuurai wrote: I just came across this recent statement made by people with plenty of credentials, for those of you into academic paraphernalia: No Need to Panic About Global Warming over & out. On February 08 2012 08:10 shuurai wrote: I did. In fact even before I read the corpus delicti. And it was hilarious! Handwaving for Confirmation bias. One is no more substantial than the other, yet you treat the anti-AGW one as the one global source of truth that destroys all arguments, and dismiss the AGW one as silly. Even though, they are both the same newspaper, and it is owned by Murdoch. Do you also believe everything you see in Fox news? Also you didn't even bother to respond to the answer that was referenced 10 pages back that destroys your argument. | ||
|
Phantom_Sky
Hong Kong512 Posts
On December 13 2011 07:08 dabbeljuh wrote: hi shuurai, sorry I cannot adress all your points, because I am kind of busy and you seem to be very convinced that climate change science is a scam. I will still adress your point 1, because it might be misleading to more: The evolution of global averaged temperature trends is a combination of signal and noise. Think about daily + yearly cycle as an easy noise, and the signal is the proven and measured warming trend of the 20th century. There is also longterm variation in the system, the ocean has cycles that are on the length scale of years to decades. A famous multiyear variation is the El Nino / La Nina oscillation. This means, that on top of a trend you have fluctuations that naturally increase / decrease the strength of the trend . Think about it: even if September 22 would be colder than september 21 (noise) you would not dare to say that Winter wont be colder than summer (signal, forcing due to orbit of the Earth). The same holds for periods of stronger and weaker coolings, it does not invalidate the signal. The communication problem is: to give the best and most robust analysis to the public, scientists usually take the mean of all their models, so call ensemble average. This gives the best estimate of the true signal. It also averages the noise, because one model has a La Nina, one model has a El Nino, and so forth. the resulting graphs are "too smooth" to be realistic, they are also not to be interpreted as a forecase for a realistic realization of the stochastic system Earth. They should be interpreted as our best guess as to how strong the underlying forcing due to human made CO2. If you look at normal climate model output, they have periods like the 2000s with a slightly decreased trend all over the place. Its just natural variability. I hope that helps a little bit w I am skeptic myself , I am just wondering how can you differentiate noise from signal ? the age of earth is like what? 4.54 billion years ? (taken from wiki) and we have data like what? maximum of 200 years? if you say weather change from 1 day is noise, how can we sure that the data from last 200 years is nothing but noise? consider the scale of the age of earth, I dont see how 1 day is quite different from like 100 year, how we can know we are just now reading part of a normal weather cycle as "climate change" got the feeling that it's almost like proving I bought a bottle of coke today, its share went up 2 % !, just the whole thing cannot be proven | ||
|
EmperorKira
United Kingdom107 Posts
I am skeptic myself , I am just wondering how can you differentiate noise from signal ? the age of earth is like what? 4.54 billion years ? (taken from wiki) and we have data like what? maximum of 200 years? if you say weather change from 1 day is noise, how can we sure that the data from last 200 years is nothing but noise? consider the scale of the age of earth, I dont see how 1 day is quite different from like 100 year, how we can know we are just now reading part of a normal weather cycle as "climate change" got the feeling that it's almost like proving I bought a bottle of coke today, its share went up 2 % !, just the whole thing cannot be proven http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/12/31/1073 This is a good explanation of how past CO2 is estimated. The whole thing is that yes, there's been more co2 in the past and yes its been hotter BUT the speed of warming is unprecedented. The increase in co2 and temperature over the last 150 years would take thousands of years if it was from natural forcing. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
Even if it is all true, why should we not just accept that its going to get a bit warmer? It seems to me that cutting down on CO2 at all, or enough to have a significant effect, is going to be an impossible task for various political, economic and demographic reasons. Would it not be better to simply prepare for a warmer future rather than to attempt to prevent the inevitable? Presumably the temperature will not rise to unlivable conditions, and will just reach some equilibrium higher than what it is now. We would have to move away from current coastal regions maybe build some dykes and what not, probably abandon some islands, but that doesn't seem that troublesome to me. Forgive the jest, but to me it isn't such a big deal that polar bears are going to be getting a bit hot. Also, why do I never hear anyone speak of potential positive effects of a warmer climate? Am I not looking hard enough? In short, why should I care? If someone could point out why I am an idiot for thinking this way, that would be lovely. | ||
| ||
