EPTTL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ponyo
United States1231 Posts
| ||
|
Rhine
187 Posts
| ||
|
RogerX
New Zealand3180 Posts
I for one believe that it is real | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On December 13 2011 11:23 Mordanis wrote: I don't actually agree that the general public's opinion on any given issue has a great effect on politicians' decisions. The "99%" is not actually anything around a majority ( at least in America), but they get a lot of attention because they make a lot of uproar. I don't think that making people change their mind about climate change will actually influence policy. I think you need to get a lot of vigorous supporters to make a big stink during election time. If you try to make some people change their mind without saying anything to anyone it will change nothing. I think that if you want change you should try to get in personal contact with some politician at whatever level you can. A good conversation is much more effective than anonymous, silent, change in opinion. PS I am friends with someone who works in politics, so I'm probably more familiar with this than most people, but if you have actually worked in the politics of this subject, I could totally be wrong. This is all just my educated opinion. Whilst this is a somewhat cynical view of how democracy works it is no less relevant. The point however if that incorrectly held views on this subject harms any attempt at change. Politicians, as you know, are generally really conservative. It is much easier to slide by controversial issues than it is to take a stance. All the better to avoid confrontation. Thus a debate (no matter how small) allows politicians to buy time without acting. Of course one-on-one time is best, but that doesn't mean explaining the science to a public audience is detrimental. One does not preclude the other. | ||
|
gogogadgetflow
United States2583 Posts
that is a complex topic and a justified way of thinking about it. the problem is, as some has mentioned, that the cost of strong climate change will most certainly not be linear (as in many people live close to coastlines, precipiation changes will influence agriculture on a global level). it is there not only a cost-benefit analysis but also a cost-benefit-risk analysis, that societies should do around the world. i agree that the amount of "staatlichkeit" (dont know the english word, something like strength of the state) is decisivie for the ability to cope with climate change. if we can increase that today, we should probably do it. it is still useful, from a risk point of view, to think that a combination of adaptation (your example) and mitigation (we prevent it from happening) and not a neither / or will be the optimal way for society. Furthermore, its difficult to formulate reasonable policies when the IPCC (to name the most obvious source) hardly even knows what its dealing with. Climate models are nowhere near where they need to be before we can lean on them to toss away Billions of dollars on climate policy. Correct me if I'm wrong, climate guru but isnt there *recent* and *significant* doubt cast on our understanding of [CO2]'s forcing effect on [H2O]. I understand you want to talk science not politics (policies), but if you are going to take it upon yourself to make people understand CO2 emissions raise global average temperature (a no-brainer), shouldn't you feel responsible for PROVING the effect carbon emissions have on the earth is significantly detrimental to mankind (its currently impossible to prove at all, let alone pin down a number) and for PROVING (let us take a hypothetical instance where every nation at Kyoto signed and adhered to the Kyoto protocol.) that postponing warming from 2100 to 2105 is worth a cost of $180 billion annually. | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
I myself view the Global warming/Climate change of the Earth as similar to the Financial Crisis that happened in 2007. Like the Financial Crisis, the poors will suffer and pay most of the debt for a small potion of the wealthy to gain. After all, most Co2 or whatever greenhouse gases on Earth atmostphere today are the result of burning fossil fuel from developed nations (mostly EU/US). China and India has just join the table quite recently. Some people in this thread are quite arrogant, sea level rising will have devastating effect on coast-line people and most of the population that are effected by it are in poor developing country. | ||
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
On December 13 2011 11:32 Probulous wrote: Whilst this is a somewhat cynical view of how democracy works it is no less relevant. The point however if that incorrectly held views on this subject harms any attempt at change. Politicians, as you know, are generally really conservative. It is much easier to slide by controversial issues than it is to take a stance. All the better to avoid confrontation. Thus a debate (no matter how small) allows politicians to buy time without acting. Of course one-on-one time is best, but that doesn't mean explaining the science to a public audience is detrimental. One does not preclude the other. I totally agree, except that politicians are normally fairly liberal, (and most countries are actually republics  . On either side of the aisle, both parties want to be re-elected, which is more likely if they spend money.I think that everyone who is passionate about an issue should try to convince others that their passion is good/correct (think about anyone who came to TL to say that SC is not at all an eSport), but I'm not sure what impact it will have. For your sake I hope you succeed and for people who disagree I hope they succeed. I'm simply not well informed enough on the subject to decide in any way. Both sides have "scientists" on their side, and I'd need to spend a lot of time looking through how various papers were funded to have any really confidence in my own opinion. The whole issue is simply too mired in politics. Perhaps you could find a way to make this less divided by politics, but I think a surprising majority of people actually don't look past what their parties believe (I just want to make it clear that I am neither a proponent or opponent of any policy regarding climate change). This is a problem endemic in the current system (at least in America), but I do wish you good luck in this. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On December 13 2011 12:03 Mordanis wrote: I totally agree, except that politicians are normally fairly liberal, (and most countries are actually republics . On either side of the aisle, both parties want to be re-elected, which is more likely if they spend money.I think that everyone who is passionate about an issue should try to convince others that their passion is good/correct (think about anyone who came to TL to say that SC is not at all an eSport), but I'm not sure what impact it will have. For your sake I hope you succeed and for people who disagree I hope they succeed. I'm simply not well informed enough on the subject to decide in any way. Both sides have "scientists" on their side, and I'd need to spend a lot of time looking through how various papers were funded to have any really confidence in my own opinion. The whole issue is simply too mired in politics. Perhaps you could find a way to make this less divided by politics, but I think a surprising majority of people actually don't look past what their parties believe (I just want to make it clear that I am neither a proponent or opponent of any policy regarding climate change). This is a problem endemic in the current system (at least in America), but I do wish you good luck in this. Well I have managed to convince both my housemates to change their views on this so that it two more votes going towards actions  I don't think there is a need for every person to be up to date on the latest data. Some people are interested and then, yes, sources of data are useful. Most however have only a passing interest and it is in this case that it is very important to have people around who can explain the science behind the news. Unfortunately this is a complicated topic and so is not easy to explain in a simple manner. This allows simple catch phrases to muddy the discussion and make it harder to move things forward. Every question has a right to be answered and should be answered; however this does mean a lot of repitition and slow progress in moving the debate. I would really recommend the ScepticalScience, Global Warming & Climate Change Myths article. It goes through the most commonly used arguments by climate sceptics and provides well reasoned, data driven responses. It is also fairly simple to read. | ||
|
Mazer21Rackham
United States17 Posts
On December 13 2011 12:03 Mordanis wrote: I totally agree, except that politicians are normally fairly liberal, (and most countries are actually republics . On either side of the aisle, both parties want to be re-elected, which is more likely if they spend money.I think that everyone who is passionate about an issue should try to convince others that their passion is good/correct (think about anyone who came to TL to say that SC is not at all an eSport), but I'm not sure what impact it will have. For your sake I hope you succeed and for people who disagree I hope they succeed. I'm simply not well informed enough on the subject to decide in any way. Both sides have "scientists" on their side, and I'd need to spend a lot of time looking through how various papers were funded to have any really confidence in my own opinion. The whole issue is simply too mired in politics. Perhaps you could find a way to make this less divided by politics, but I think a surprising majority of people actually don't look past what their parties believe (I just want to make it clear that I am neither a proponent or opponent of any policy regarding climate change). This is a problem endemic in the current system (at least in America), but I do wish you good luck in this. This was a true eye opener for me on the media's failure in America. Democracy can't function if the people aren't informed. What is your vote worth really if you don't have the truth on the candidates? This movie is worth the time to watch it's unfortunate they didn't include Bill Clinton's Glass - Steagall act which I thought was a bit biased. Though as a whole it shows how America's democracy is in a sad state. Orwell rolls in his grave | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On December 13 2011 11:14 Probulous wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 13 2011 11:00 slytown wrote: Some are, that's true. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas, not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance. The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context. Alright, I think we need to deal with this completely because if true then there really is a problem. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly It is impossible to falsify the evidence because you cannot setup an experiment that would falsify the data. How do you prove that C02 is responsible for the warming? The only way to 100% prove it would be to create two identical worlds with varying concentrations of C02. Of course this is not possible so any evidence is going to be less than 100% certain. How do you prove the link? At some point who have to accept that the evidence is sufficient. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas The effect is not minimal. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance. Not tue. Please see http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm I know I keep quoting SkepticalScience, but that is because they specifically deal with these arguments. There is a very useful link on their site entitled Global Warming & Climate Change Myths which goes through these arguments in detail. Finally The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context. This is true for everyone in this debate. Everybody has an interest and you are correct that people stand to gain and lose if we take action. The question is, who gains more and who loses more. Then you look at the data and arguments put forward and make a decision. Focusing on funding for one side of the debate is disingenious and misleading. Who is funding the skeptics? We shouldn't debate semantics or rhetoric, but I should point out there is not 100% proven in science. There is falsifiability and intellectual honesty. There is bias in every popular and academic article written on climate change. Any theory, whether in climate science, physics, or history, is never settled but merely historically contextual. The evidence is heretofore, as I understand it from the sources mentioned: From 1940 to 1975, when industrialization had a boom period there was a cooling period that coincided with a public scare. Troposphere temps should rise to a greater effect from greenhouse gasses, when in fact its temp over the last hundred years has risen less than near the surface (beneath the clouds.) If you look at the history of warming periods they actually coincided with human and wildlife prosperity. Humans are of the smallest contributors to CO2, 6.5 megatons. Oceans produce the most and plants and animals produce 150 megatons. How much the ocean emits OR ABSORBS depends on temp. There is about a 100 year lag for the oceans' CO2 cycle to take effect. The last time the earth's climate wasn't variable was about 4 billion years ago. Over that context, the Earth has remained relatively stable but varied enough that living things have adapted. Consider the Medievil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The IPCC gained significant support from Margaret Thatcher in the wake of the miner's strike, a distinctively political move. EPICA and Vostok ice core data; Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace but now a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster; Bob Carter, adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory for James Cook University at Queensland. | ||
|
Qi Gong
China40 Posts
In personal opinion, I think we not need to conclude yet. There are lots of interest from business on both of side so maybe they want something or not. | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
This is not a sensationalist man or a video from infowars. This is Bob Carter, respected researcher, explaining on a national news outlet his findings in the simplest terms. Please listen and consider what he's saying. | ||
|
dbald27
United States49 Posts
| ||
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
On December 13 2011 12:18 Probulous wrote: Well I have managed to convince both my housemates to change their views on this so that it two more votes going towards actions I don't think there is a need for every person to be up to date on the latest data. Some people are interested and then, yes, sources of data are useful. Most however have only a passing interest and it is in this case that it is very important to have people around who can explain the science behind the news. Unfortunately this is a complicated topic and so is not easy to explain in a simple manner. This allows simple catch phrases to muddy the discussion and make it harder to move things forward. Every question has a right to be answered and should be answered; however this does mean a lot of repitition and slow progress in moving the debate. I would really recommend the ScepticalScience, Global Warming & Climate Change Myths article. It goes through the most commonly used arguments by climate sceptics and provides well reasoned, data driven responses. It is also fairly simple to read. I'm actually really interested in what policy you advocate. Again, I lead toward thinking that climate change is existing and is likely caused by humans, but I don't want to intellectually commit. Anyways, what do you think is a good policy change that would curtain any change but also make any sense from an economic point of view. Obviously it would not help anyone to go back to hunting and gathering | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On December 13 2011 12:23 slytown wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On December 13 2011 11:14 Probulous wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 13 2011 11:00 slytown wrote: Some are, that's true. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas, not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance. The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context. Alright, I think we need to deal with this completely because if true then there really is a problem. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly It is impossible to falsify the evidence because you cannot setup an experiment that would falsify the data. How do you prove that C02 is responsible for the warming? The only way to 100% prove it would be to create two identical worlds with varying concentrations of C02. Of course this is not possible so any evidence is going to be less than 100% certain. How do you prove the link? At some point who have to accept that the evidence is sufficient. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas The effect is not minimal. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance. Not tue. Please see http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm I know I keep quoting SkepticalScience, but that is because they specifically deal with these arguments. There is a very useful link on their site entitled Global Warming & Climate Change Myths which goes through these arguments in detail. Finally The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context. This is true for everyone in this debate. Everybody has an interest and you are correct that people stand to gain and lose if we take action. The question is, who gains more and who loses more. Then you look at the data and arguments put forward and make a decision. Focusing on funding for one side of the debate is disingenious and misleading. Who is funding the skeptics? We shouldn't debate semantics or rhetoric, but I should point out there is not 100% proven in science. There is falsifiability and intellectual honesty. There is bias in every popular and academic article written on climate change. Any theory, whether in climate science, physics, or history, is never settled but merely historically contextual. So the point is moot then. Saying the data cannot be falsified does not mean the data is false or the theory is incorrect. It is just that is cannot be proven. Moot. The evidence is heretofore, as I understand it from the sources mentioned: From 1940 to 1975, when industrialization had a boom period there was a cooling period that coincided with a public scare. As has been explained above there is a lag between C02 and temps. More importantly picking an choosing time scales to prove cooling or warming in a dynamic system such as the climate is nonsense. The long term data shows significant warming. Yes, the climate is variable, hence why you look at long term trends. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm Troposphere temps should rise to a greater effect from greenhouse gasses, when in fact its temp over the last hundred years has risen less than near the surface (beneath the clouds.) Can you explain your point here a little more. Are you saying that the models are wrong, or that clouds are too blame? I am not quite following your point. Sorry. Maybe this helps http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm If you look at the history of warming periods they actually coincided with human and wildlife prosperity. Relevance? Are you saying we can adapt easily? A little info for you http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.htm Humans are of the smallest contributors to CO2, 6.5 megatons. Oceans produce the most and plants and animals produce 150 megatons. How much the ocean emits OR ABSORBS depends on temp. There is about a 100 year lag for the oceans' CO2 cycle to take effect. Are you saying that we are not having a significant effect? http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm The last time the earth's climate wasn't variable was about 4 billion years ago. Over that context, the Earth has remained relatively stable but varied enough that living things have adapted. Consider the Medievil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Please explain this a little further. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. The IPCC gained significant support from Margaret Thatcher in the wake of the miner's strike, a distinctively political move. Relevance? So it is political, so is economics but you don't see people complaining about their use of models. Or better yet, the political influence of economics. This is not about politics, it is about science. + Show Spoiler + EPICA and Vostok ice core data; Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace but now a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster; Bob Carter, adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory for James Cook University at Queensland Finally, I know my rebuttals have come from SkepticalScience. Again it is because these arguments have been explained much better by actual scientists, than by myself. Hence I defer to them. | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
To be honest, I feel climate change deniers are in the same boat as evolution deniers. Ages ago science happened upon the cusp of a very complex problem the would take lifetimes to unravel and made the mistake of letting the media dumb everything down into a catch phrase. How many times have we seen some weather person standing in the snow in recent years saying "global warming, go figure" or some kid in a classroom saying "so if monkeys evolved into humans, why are there still monkeys"? Its not entirely their fault but our work is cut out for us because when your mind is made up and you are looking for reasons to disbelieve, you will find it. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On December 13 2011 12:43 slytown wrote:+ Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU This is not a sensationalist man or a video from infowars. This is Bob Carter, respected researcher, explaining on a national news outlet his findings in the simplest terms. Please listen and consider what he's saying. I am afraid I can't. I should be working  I know it is unfair to ask this but can you provide the gist of it. What are the main arguments he is portraying and how do they sit with the information I have linked. As mentioned I am not a climate scientist, as such I am more than willing to read stuff from all sides Ps. That was supposed to be a joke. | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
On December 13 2011 07:23 QuXn wrote: man made global warming probably exists, but it is not nessessary to take any direct action stopping/delaying it, as the finite resources of the earth make it impossible to cause any real harm to humankind. anyway, nobody cares about it because of financial trouble in the world. have you ever heard of radiation? | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On December 13 2011 12:50 Mordanis wrote: I'm actually really interested in what policy you advocate. Again, I lead toward thinking that climate change is existing and is likely caused by humans, but I don't want to intellectually commit. Anyways, what do you think is a good policy change that would curtain any change but also make any sense from an economic point of view. Obviously it would not help anyone to go back to hunting and gathering Holy shit that is a hard question... Ok, this is my opinion so please people don't tear me a new one. To me if you believe that something needs to be done, than it is reasonable to believe it should happen soon. Delaying increases the costs associated with action. In addition, the costs should be as minimal as possible and should allow as much flexibility for change as possible. Hence I am in favour of market orientated systems. Yes there are opportunities for corruption and for perverse outcomes. I am fully aware of the limitations of carbon markets. The problem is that for developed countries, it is much more costly to take direct action. Shutting down dirty power stations is very expensive, due to compensation and to having to find alternative sources of power. At least with a carbon market companies have some control over the expenses they will incur in changing to more efficient methods. This area is hugely complicated, subjective and is possibly off topic. Probably not the right place to discuss these things. Edit: PM me if you want further details. | ||
|
Yuriegh
United States327 Posts
On December 13 2011 13:05 Probulous wrote: Holy shit that is a hard question... Ok, this is my opinion so please people don't tear me a new one. To me if you believe that something needs to be done, than it is reasonable to believe it should happen soon. Delaying increases the costs associated with action. In addition, the costs should be as minimal as possible and should allow as much flexibility for change as possible. Hence I am in favour of market orientated systems. Yes there are opportunities for corruption and for perverse outcomes. I am fully aware of the limitations of carbon markets. The problem is that for developed countries, it is much more costly to take direct action. Shutting down dirty power stations is very expensive, due to compensation and to having to find alternative sources of power. At least with a carbon market companies have some control over the expenses they will incur in changing to more efficient methods. This area is hugely complicated, subjective and is possibly off topic. Probably not the right place to discuss these things. Edit: PM me if you want further details. It would be very costly and would hurt many an area and person if we just switched to alternative energy. Like were I live now in Beaumont this area is so dependent on oil that if it stopped this area would collapse and most people in this area would lose their jobs (refinery workers/contractors etc) several thousands of people would be out the job. Though I do agree there needs to be change to protect the environment it needs to come off slowly and not dramatically. (I have no idea if what I have said has made any sense and my grammar usage is probably not a+ either.) | ||
| ||
