|
really important talk by noam chomsky about the environment.
really important talk by noam chomsky is a contradiction in terms
It's the role of these institutions to maximize short term profit. If someone at the top refuses to fund climate change denial propaganda, they will replace them with someone that will.
how about you try to learn about capitalism from people who are not bitter opponents of capitalism? every time someone says 'their role is to maximize short-term profit' millions of brain cells die worldwide.
It is the role of any human being that wants the species to survive to interfere with these institutional roles and hinder them in some way.
if you're worried about the survival of the human race you are either incredibly ignorant, incredibly overwrought, dishonest, or all three.
the news for climate change seems to be getting worse all the time, i just read a study done at MIT(2012 outlook) that predicated a scenario that was worse than the worst case scenario in the IPCC 2007 report. Namely, the A2 scenario done by the SRES team.
the only proper response to "predicated scenarios" whether they be from MIT, the IPCC, or anywhere else is derisive laughter.
skepticism is the natural pro-science argument, being sheep is the climate change alarmists suggestion.
why should i care that there is a 97% consensus when their computer models have been significantly wrong and it took them almost 3 years to admit as much. that's very scientific right there, make predictions about apocalypse based on bad science and then refuse to acknowledge it for years when reality doesn't match your predictions. but remember, 97% consensus (that turned out to be wrong).
But you see, mistakes are simply a part of science, and we should continue to believe pronouncements of climate change apocalypse nowsers because scientists say the stagnation in warming is just a blip in the trend (despite saying or heavily implying for years that such a thing was unpossible) and of course you can't expect them to be 100% right 100% of the time, so let us still believe their assertions about the future that have remained essentially unchanged despite their acknowledgement that they were not accurate and are still trying to gain a full understanding of earth's climate.
i'd rather not deliberately lower the standard of living for the billion or so people who have a western standard of living and also deny 6 billion people the chance to have a western standard of living just because some 1%er who will most assuredly not sacrifice his or her standard of living tells a bunch of sheep that we must hamstring our economy to save the world. sorry noam chomsky and the number-fudging crew at east anglia, we're not going to go back to the 19th century or to some utopian commune idea (also from the 19th century) just because you don't like capitalism and got caught up in your own hysteria.
Right now a big concern is that the Siberian tundra is melting. The problem is that there is currently a lot of methane hidden under the tundra that will cause even bigger changes if it is released into the atmosphere.
this is the kind of anti-science hysteria that infects the climate change alarmist movement. not even the famed climate change consensus could hold up in the face of the methane hydrate / clathrate apocalypse scenario
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/arctic-methane-release_n_3671497.html
climate change would be a much higher priority among the general public and have a lot more credibility if climate scientists and activists stopped with the advocacy and particularly with the chicken little scenarios and stuck with just the facts ma'am. but of course catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is a religious dogma and the way religion dogma reacts to skepticism or blasphemy is usually not very well.
turns out promising the world will end if unquestioned power is not given to fix the climate change problem and then refusing to engage your critics except with mockery or anger does not translate into public relations success or public support for economy-killing climate change policies.
|
hey deepelemblues,, you seem quite engaged about the topic, which I think is partially cool to see (I hate people who just dont care) but I think in your well placed scientific skepticism you are shooting over the target.
But you see, mistakes are simply a part of science, and we should continue to believe pronouncements of climate change apocalypse nowsers because scientists say the stagnation in warming is just a blip in the trend (despite saying or heavily implying for years that such a thing was unpossible) and of course you can't expect them to be 100% right 100% of the time, so let us still believe their assertions about the future that have remained essentially unchanged despite their acknowledgement that they were not accurate and are still trying to gain a full understanding of earth's climate.
I think it might be instructive to see the side from someone who has been in the science community for a while:
Models have forever shown phases of several decades of now trend, this is why a whole sub discipline called detection and attribution has been very active for many years to understand how many decades you need to find the climate change signal behind the noise. So it is simply untrue, that the current hiatus came as a major surprise to the science community.
As to b): problematic is, that all communication from science to the public has been dumbed down tremendously. All projections for IPCC are multi model, multi run means that "average" away all variability. If you look at all plots you always see the weird behavior that there is a lot of randomness in the 20C temperature data (http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/IPCC%20Projections.jpg) that goes away from the point on, that there are projections. This has many scientific reasons and does NOT mean that we expect a linear temperature increase in the future:
- reason 1) multi models filter out internal variability, because in ModelA a El Nino is in year x and in Model B it is in year x+3
- reason 2) there are no forced reactions: most kinks in the 20C runs are influenced by volcanoes or other events ( massive aerosol emissions, for example). We cannot predict volcanoes or emission changes, so therefore all model runs are by design smoother than reality. We know that beforehand and knew it for decades. It has not been communicated efficiently, though, leading to misunderstanding even from interested audiences as you.
Last point: even given volcanic forcings and slight decrease in solar activity, the scientific community does not completely know what is the exact reason for the global warming hiatus of the last 15 years. It is, however, consensus, that most the know effects (solar, volcanic) will switch back within their natural cycle to a behavior that will lead to higher global warming rates again.
Best regards,
W
|
So if climate warming is really just a hoax, then what's in it for all the scientists and such who are convinced by their data and analyses that it's anthropogenic? Does it just so happen that all of them are bad scientists, all reaching the same bad conclusion stemming from different studies? Are they making huge amounts of money because the illuminati/world governments/whatever is paying them off? I've never understood this part of the conspiracy theory view
|
hey falldownmarigold,
On August 19 2013 02:19 FallDownMarigold wrote:
So if climate warming is really just a hoax, then what's in it for all the scientists and such who are convinced by their data and analyses that it's anthropogenic? Does it just so happen that all of them are bad scientists, all reaching the same bad conclusion stemming from different studies? Are they making huge amounts of money because the illuminati/world governments/whatever is paying them off? I've never understood this part of the conspiracy theory view
I just want to repeat that for emphasis:
everbody who argues that climate chang eis a hoax is not thinking it through. there are two options to be "against" consensus positions in the climate science debate
1) it _could_ be that science is wrong or that some of the uncertainties are bigger than expected and that you therefore dont want to base policy on the science
2) you just dont care about impacts, for whatever reaons ( not your region, not your time, not so bad, not as bad as alternatives)
Those two positions are value based decisions and can be hold by any rational human being ( I dont share them, but I respect them). Telling other people (or even worse, believing it) that one of the most publicly scrutinized and critiziced and attacked sciences of all time is performing a hoax, is simply delusional (or maybe you get paid, than it might not be delusional but immoral =)
Best regards
W
|
I say leave the scientific questions to the scientists. With the access to internet and the "information age" that has followed everyone has views on everything, even on highly academic topics. Hubris is the new pandemic.
The only reasonable thing, assuming you're not a scientist in the field concerned yourself, is to adhere the views of the majority of scientists. The majority seem to share the view that man has in fact affected the climate, and that it's not solely 'natural' causes behind apparent changes. That's all that concerns me. All other discussion is moot.
Word of wisdom: don't discuss things you know nothing about.
|
On August 19 2013 02:43 PerryHooter wrote:
I say leave the scientific questions to the scientists. With the access to internet and the "information age" that has followed everyone has views on everything, even on highly academic topics. Hubris is the new pandemic.
The only reasonable thing, assuming you're not a scientist in the field concerned yourself, is to adhere the views of the majority of scientists. The majority seem to share the view that man has in fact affected the climate, and that it's not solely 'natural' causes behind apparent changes. That's all that concerns me. All other discussion is moot.
Word of wisdom: don't discuss things you know nothing about.
yeah we should just stfu and turn the tv on...
|
Dear Perryhooter,
On August 19 2013 02:43 PerryHooter wrote:
I say leave the scientific questions to the scientists. With the access to internet and the "information age" that has followed everyone has views on everything, even on highly academic topics. Hubris is the new pandemic.
The only reasonable thing, assuming you're not a scientist in the field concerned yourself, is to adhere the views of the majority of scientists. The majority seem to share the view that man has in fact affected the climate, and that it's not solely 'natural' causes behind apparent changes. That's all that concerns me. All other discussion is moot.
Word of wisdom: don't discuss things you know nothing about.
I agree to the part of leaving scientific questions to scientists (and I can tell you, we discuss a lot. I am currently involved in some projects where the discussions are highly intense =). But I believe this fact is not so natural to everbody in this discussions: some agents (politicians, companies, NGOs,...) use science facts and quotes of scientists to push their agenda. This process is dangerous for both science and society. Therefore it is useful if the public "knows" what part of climate science is majority view of scientists and why. You are certainly harder to persuade as a lobbyist because you follow a rational ethos. You are not really representative in that regard, I fear °J
Best regards (and forGG played damn spectacular in aTC°)
W
|
On August 19 2013 02:45 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 02:43 PerryHooter wrote:
I say leave the scientific questions to the scientists. With the access to internet and the "information age" that has followed everyone has views on everything, even on highly academic topics. Hubris is the new pandemic.
The only reasonable thing, assuming you're not a scientist in the field concerned yourself, is to adhere the views of the majority of scientists. The majority seem to share the view that man has in fact affected the climate, and that it's not solely 'natural' causes behind apparent changes. That's all that concerns me. All other discussion is moot.
Word of wisdom: don't discuss things you know nothing about. yeah we should just stfu and turn the tv on...
He's not saying we should turn on the TV and blindly soak up whatever Fox News at 6 tells us. He's saying when it comes to specialized topics in science, we should defer to the ones who have knowledge to talk about it with authority. This does not mean blindly accepting everything. It means not blindly denying things under the totally disingenuous garb of "scientific skepticism"
|
On August 19 2013 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:
how about you try to learn about capitalism from people who are not bitter opponents of capitalism? every time someone says 'their role is to maximize short-term profit' millions of brain cells die worldwide. Er, why is that? Are you denying that the role of businessmen is to maximize short-term profits? Or are you arguing that they're titanic masterminds who plan 40 years ahead?
On August 19 2013 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:i'd rather not deliberately lower the standard of living for the billion or so people who have a western standard of living and also deny 6 billion people the chance to have a western standard of living just because some 1%er who will most assuredly not sacrifice his or her standard of living tells a bunch of sheep that we must hamstring our economy to save the world. sorry noam chomsky and the number-fudging crew at east anglia, we're not going to go back to the 19th century or to some utopian commune idea (also from the 19th century) just because you don't like capitalism and got caught up in your own hysteria. Since when was a working scientist a "1%er"?
I'd love to know what evidence you have linking living standards with increased automobile usage and population density. I'm also curious as to why you're so confident that dependence on non-renewable energy until it runs out is the most humanitarian strategy even if you don't accept the results of science.
|
On August 19 2013 02:35 dabbeljuh wrote:
Those two positions are value based decisions and can be hold by any rational human being ( I dont share them, but I respect them). Telling other people (or even worse, believing it) that one of the most publicly scrutinized and critiziced and attacked sciences of all time is performing a hoax, is simply delusional (or maybe you get paid, than it might not be delusional but immoral =) Special request: please stop using the language of a moderate, e.g. "I respect these opinions".
Trying to please as many people as possible should be the eighth cardinal sin. It's the language of a politician, not an honest and truth-seeking scientist such as yourself.
Often the language of a sophisticated moderate acts as a garb for extremism. I fear that moderate climate scientists like yourself might inadvertently give them a weapon that they will use against you. They will waffle on about "bi-partisan dialogue" and "respecting both sides", while doing very, very little about addressing climate change. The Tories here in England have already reached this stage.
The message you need to convey is "good versus evil", not "let's hold hands and respect each other's views".
|
One thing that bother me quite a bit is that a lot of people think that climate change might affect us in a good way ...
While it might advantage humanity in some ways after we adapt to the changes(who knows ?), there is little doubt that the transition wil be chalanging to us.
Depending on how fast and drastic the changes are, consequences could range from little annoyance to death in the billions.
This is because be it human infrastucture or biodiversity, it is tailored for a particular environment, change that environment and things wont work as smoothly ... and it take time to adapt.
Fossiles proved that drastic climate changes causes mass extinction of species (for exemple according to most theories dinosaurs have not been killed directly by the asteroid but by the climate change of the aftermath).
Another important point to note is that weather as been unusualy stable these last 10000 years and admitedly it allowed for the rapid development of humanity, some scientists believe climate change could disrupt that stability.
I have no idea how much of an impact climate changes might have on us, but our generation will have to bear with the transition ... I really hope it is not so drastic ...
|
"Climate Change": the ploy to institute a global tax, paid to the UN by sovereign nations. Effectively world governance cleverly marketed as saving the planet.
|
On August 19 2013 04:09 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
"Climate Change": the ploy to institute a global tax, paid to the UN by sovereign nations. Effectively world governance cleverly marketed as saving the planet.
Thank God we've got John Galt to save us, right?
|
On August 19 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 04:09 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
"Climate Change": the ploy to institute a global tax, paid to the UN by sovereign nations. Effectively world governance cleverly marketed as saving the planet. Thank God we've got John Galt to save us, right?
This is where the discussion loses traction and turns into something nasty.
|
|
|
Please don't patronize me by labeling me a conspiracy theorist.
|
On August 19 2013 04:14 TricksAre4Figs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:On August 19 2013 04:09 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
"Climate Change": the ploy to institute a global tax, paid to the UN by sovereign nations. Effectively world governance cleverly marketed as saving the planet. Thank God we've got John Galt to save us, right? This is where the discussion loses traction and turns into something nasty.
The discussion began losing traction the moment you swept in and dropped 2 lines, out of nowhere, that reference "world governance".
|
On August 19 2013 04:18 TricksAre4Figs wrote:Please don't patronize me by labeling me a conspiracy theorist.
If you don't want to be labeled as a conspiracy theorist then don't announce to everybody in a thread discussing the science of climate change that it's a ploy made to strengthen the UN
|
On August 19 2013 04:18 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 04:14 TricksAre4Figs wrote:On August 19 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:On August 19 2013 04:09 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
"Climate Change": the ploy to institute a global tax, paid to the UN by sovereign nations. Effectively world governance cleverly marketed as saving the planet. Thank God we've got John Galt to save us, right? This is where the discussion loses traction and turns into something nasty. The discussion began losing traction the moment you swept in and dropped 2 lines, out of nowhere, that reference "world governance".
So you're saying that world governance isn't relevant to the discussion of climate change?
|
On August 19 2013 04:25 TricksAre4Figs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 04:18 farvacola wrote:On August 19 2013 04:14 TricksAre4Figs wrote:On August 19 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:On August 19 2013 04:09 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
"Climate Change": the ploy to institute a global tax, paid to the UN by sovereign nations. Effectively world governance cleverly marketed as saving the planet. Thank God we've got John Galt to save us, right? This is where the discussion loses traction and turns into something nasty. The discussion began losing traction the moment you swept in and dropped 2 lines, out of nowhere, that reference "world governance". So you're saying that world governance isn't relevant to the discussion of climate change?
Yes, that is what I am saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
