|
On September 29 2013 02:38 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 01:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere? As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict. Again, the IPCC can't be trusted either. They've proven that. Look at the Ad Hominem style of "debate" they use whenever anyone so much as suggests that maybe they don't know everything. Look at the papers they cited as evidence that actually came from Greenpeace and the WWF. I'm not saying you should trust the oil companies instead, I'm saying you shouldn't trust any organization 100%, especially when they haven't exactly proven they CAN be trusted. If anyone is ad hominem toward you, it's because you deserve it.
Case in point: look at what you just did. You claimed that the IPCC go ad hominem "whenever anyone so much as suggests that maybe they don't know everything". But of course they are the first to underline that they don't know everything. As scientists, their profession requires them to admit that they don't know everything. That is why they constantly throw out models and try new ones. That is why they constantly revise and update their work. That is why they say they're 95% certain rather than 100% certain.
Next you assert, without any supporting argument, that research funded by Greenpeace and the WWF can't be relied on. Unless you're some anti-environment fanatic, why would you judge a paper merely by its association to these organizations? If there's some untrustworthy piece of reasoning that the IPCC has based their study on, then let's hear what it is. Let's not hear an argument that the IPCC is untrustworthy because they referred to research that was funded by Greenpeace and the WWF.
|
On September 29 2013 02:38 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 01:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere? As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict. Again, the IPCC can't be trusted either. They've proven that. Look at the Ad Hominem style of "debate" they use whenever anyone so much as suggests that maybe they don't know everything. Look at the papers they cited as evidence that actually came from Greenpeace and the WWF. I'm not saying you should trust the oil companies instead, I'm saying you shouldn't trust any organization 100%, especially when they haven't exactly proven they CAN be trusted.
It's not ad hominem to dismiss somebody for being dumb when they are in fact being dumb. If somebody suggests scientists are wrong and the reason is <insert tired idea already disproven/can be disproven with 10 minutes research, eg we haven't warmed in last 15 years, etc> they deserve to be shot down. It's not a "debate" just because two sides share different opinions. The nonsense and lack of accountability shown by the denier crowd in their form of argument is pretty inexcusable by this point, and would not be tolerated for a moment in an actual scientific setting. Little wonder so few of the people against the scientific consensus actually engage in real science.
|
Oh please save us IPCC! Save us big government! Increase our taxes, do whatever it takes! We have been frightened into total unquestioning submission to our omnipotent, benevolent and infallible scientist overlords! More government! More government! More government!
User was warned for this post
|
On September 29 2013 05:10 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Oh please save us IPCC! Save us big government! Increase our taxes, do whatever it takes! We have been frightened into total unquestioning submission to our omnipotent, benevolent and infallible scientist overlords! More government! More government! More government!
You do seem rather scared, but it'll all be ok. Tall buildings can be scary if you look straight up or down.
|
On September 29 2013 04:05 Aiello wrote:
"OMG but in 100 million years from now there's going to be another ice age!! why are we even worrying about climate change at all?"
Where did anyone make this argument here? Hmm.
This is literally the dumbest argument of all time. Yeah, a billion years ago the Earth was covered in lava. Clearly the Earth was able to make it through that so surely it'll be-able to handle a few degrees C, right? Well the difference is now there are 7 billion people living on Earth, and this number is just going to get bigger.
With 7 billion people on earth it is inevitable that planetary events and changes are going to adversely effect SOME people right? Are we supposed to be able to protect 7 billion people simultaneously?
Based on even the most uncontroversial and modest predictions, an increase of just a few (man made) degrees C over the next 100-200 years will have absolutely catastrophic outcomes for human civilization. Sure, a few degrees C is completely trivial on a geological timescale, but unless you think civilization should be reduced to 50,000 hunter gatherers scattered throughout the world, it poses an enormous threat.
Wait, does the temperature increase being (man made) actually make a difference? So like, if it wasn't (man made) it would be ok? Please explain. Your assertions remain totally unsubstantiated.
Strong and decisive action is needed to be taken in order to ensure that civilization survives these next few centuries. By this time, advances in technology will have been so great that none of this will even matter anymore. We'll just be-able to terraform our own atmosphere to make sure that the climate always stays perfect.
This is idealistic thinking. Do you really believe all of humanity is going to see the benefits of such technology? You are a peasant and so am I and so is everyone else on this website. We aren't all going to be saved by technology only very few will. The "strong and decisive action" you speak of will be bigger government, higher taxes and a lower quality of living for you and the rest of the peasant class.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise.
|
literally the dumbest argument of all time.
literally the dumbest claim of all time.
|
On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise.
Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans.
With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius.
As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature.
|
On September 29 2013 05:31 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
"OMG but in 100 million years from now there's going to be another ice age!! why are we even worrying about climate change at all?"
Where did anyone make this argument here? Hmm.
A lot of people were making this very same argument. They say that since the Earth has undergone huge climatic shifts over a timescale of millions of years, short term man made climate change is nothing is be scared of.
On September 29 2013 05:31 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
This is literally the dumbest argument of all time. Yeah, a billion years ago the Earth was covered in lava. Clearly the Earth was able to make it through that so surely it'll be-able to handle a few degrees C, right? Well the difference is now there are 7 billion people living on Earth, and this number is just going to get bigger.
With 7 billion people on earth it is inevitable that planetary events and changes are going to adversely effect SOME people right? Are we supposed to be able to protect 7 billion people simultaneously?
No, but we do have a responsibility to keep the Earth habitable as it does not belong to us. If you're just minding your own business and then all of a sudden someone comes along and dumps a ton of toxic waste into your backyard you'd be pretty fucking pissed right?
On September 29 2013 05:31 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Based on even the most uncontroversial and modest predictions, an increase of just a few (man made) degrees C over the next 100-200 years will have absolutely catastrophic outcomes for human civilization. Sure, a few degrees C is completely trivial on a geological timescale, but unless you think civilization should be reduced to 50,000 hunter gatherers scattered throughout the world, it poses an enormous threat.
Wait, does the temperature increase being (man made) actually make a difference? So like, if it wasn't (man made) it would be ok? Please explain. Your assertions remain totally unsubstantiated.
but it is man made as all of the evidence demonstrates. The average temperature of the Earth does fluctuate over periods of millions of years, but at this specific time the average temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate due to human activity. This rapid increase in temperature will make life on earth for a 7 billion people global civilization very difficult and unpleasant in the near future
On September 29 2013 05:31 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Strong and decisive action is needed to be taken in order to ensure that civilization survives these next few centuries. By this time, advances in technology will have been so great that none of this will even matter anymore. We'll just be-able to terraform our own atmosphere to make sure that the climate always stays perfect.
This is idealistic thinking. Do you really believe all of humanity is going to see the benefits of such technology? You are a peasant and so am I and so is everyone else on this website. We aren't all going to be saved by technology only very few will. The "strong and decisive action" you speak of will be bigger government, higher taxes and a lower quality of living for you and the rest of the peasant class.
Well that's better than not doing anything and letting all of civilization fall in to war as we fight over ever diminishing resources and habitable land, food, and water and eventually become extinct. Just look at the wars we have already fought in the last decade over resources. Now multiple that by 100. Technological advances no doubt help the very rich the most, but in this case that's okay, because we are all in the same boat when it comes to climate change. No matter how much money you have you won't be-able to send your child to a school with a better climate than a poor person.
On September 29 2013 06:16 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:literally the dumbest claim of all time.
literally
|
On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature.
Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts".
It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is.
|
On September 29 2013 04:59 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 02:38 Millitron wrote:On September 29 2013 01:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere? As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict. Again, the IPCC can't be trusted either. They've proven that. Look at the Ad Hominem style of "debate" they use whenever anyone so much as suggests that maybe they don't know everything. Look at the papers they cited as evidence that actually came from Greenpeace and the WWF. I'm not saying you should trust the oil companies instead, I'm saying you shouldn't trust any organization 100%, especially when they haven't exactly proven they CAN be trusted. If anyone is ad hominem toward you, it's because you deserve it. Case in point: look at what you just did. You claimed that the IPCC go ad hominem "whenever anyone so much as suggests that maybe they don't know everything". But of course they are the first to underline that they don't know everything. As scientists, their profession requires them to admit that they don't know everything. That is why they constantly throw out models and try new ones. That is why they constantly revise and update their work. That is why they say they're 95% certain rather than 100% certain. Next you assert, without any supporting argument, that research funded by Greenpeace and the WWF can't be relied on. Unless you're some anti-environment fanatic, why would you judge a paper merely by its association to these organizations? If there's some untrustworthy piece of reasoning that the IPCC has based their study on, then let's hear what it is. Let's not hear an argument that the IPCC is untrustworthy because they referred to research that was funded by Greenpeace and the WWF.
I believe global warming is a thing, and I believe we're probably responsible. I'm not so sure we should care, but that's neither here nor there. In any case I think you need to take any organization, especially one as large as the IPCC and environmental community, with a grain of salt.
Greenpeace and WWF do not publish peer reviewed articles. Using their papers as fact is misleading since they aren't peer reviewed. And nobody is more biased on that side of the issue than Greenpeace. It's just as bad as climate change deniers citing data from Shell.
|
On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature.
How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate."
In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie.
|
On September 29 2013 00:15 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 00:13 FluffyBinLaden wrote:On September 29 2013 00:02 -VapidSlug- wrote:
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them. It doesn't help that they've replaced 65% of the previous scientists they had working on these reports. It just makes a lot of this look too damn fishy, like they're distracting or trying to get something else done. Then there's the whole "Weather does/does not equal climate" thing that we appear to have changed our minds on 3 or 4 times recently. All I know is that it's really cold in Michigan right now. If you lack the intellectual skills to come up with a better analysis than this, why even have an opinion?
Thanks man, that's a really astute and inspiring explanation of the real thing going on. You've addressed my skepticism perfectly.
It's not the first time people have used the media to promote an agenda, even if it's a just one. I'm not a climatologist, or a meteorologist, or a scientist of any kind, but I'm not a moron, thanks. If my concerns are completely invalid, then EXPLAIN to me why, please. I'd like to be wrong.
|
On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie.
![[image loading]](http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif)
So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion.
I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur.
|
On September 29 2013 09:43 FluffyBinLaden wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 00:15 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 29 2013 00:13 FluffyBinLaden wrote:On September 29 2013 00:02 -VapidSlug- wrote:
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them. It doesn't help that they've replaced 65% of the previous scientists they had working on these reports. It just makes a lot of this look too damn fishy, like they're distracting or trying to get something else done. Then there's the whole "Weather does/does not equal climate" thing that we appear to have changed our minds on 3 or 4 times recently. All I know is that it's really cold in Michigan right now. If you lack the intellectual skills to come up with a better analysis than this, why even have an opinion? Thanks man, that's a really astute and inspiring explanation of the real thing going on. You've addressed my skepticism perfectly. It's not the first time people have used the media to promote an agenda, even if it's a just one. I'm not a climatologist, or a meteorologist, or a scientist of any kind, but I'm not a moron, thanks. If my concerns are completely invalid, then EXPLAIN to me why, please. I'd like to be wrong. How about you start by reading the report and explaining what exactly you find so "damn fishy"? As in a page number and claim. My guess is you wouldn't be able to. It's easy to vaguely discredit something using using weasel words. It's harder to make a substantive critique.
|
On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature.
Literally everything you've written is completely unsubstantiated or downright false, and you obviously have no idea whatsoever about what you are talking about.
Your claim that temperature was 2 degrees warmer during the medieval period is a complete invention, as is your claim that the medieval period was a golden period for humans.
The idea that we can easily deal with a +/- 5 degrees increase easily is obviously something you came up with yourself, and all the data we have shows that an increase of +/- 3 degrees would be completely anormal.
Additionally, its totally untrue that we've had cooling in the past decade; the top 10 warmest years on record, have all been in the last 15.
As to human contribution being 0.1% or less, this figure is completely unsupported by scientific evidence, and you are completely deluded is you think the alignment of the planets is what is causing climate change.
|
On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie. So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur.
Oh, this is just WAY too easy that I have to needle on this one.
So, you're apparently a paid scientist and yet you linked a.... Trough to Peak graph without confidence intervals. I'm not sure if I should be so cruel as to toss a "Irreducibility!" at you or not, but if you wonder why the responses to these types of reports went from everyone going all Chicken Little to "Eh, no one cares" (which is about how this one went, actually), that's a good reason why.
Now, Trough to Peak is a great way to sell Stocks, Bonds or get Investor funding, but it's a terrible way to make an argument. And you know better.
I was going to type something up in response to others, but I'll just sum up the point here. The Data sets are still terrible, the models are all over the place, the scientists have encouraged the Media to use "Climate Change" as a boogeyman more than any possible reality, and the ideas that are pushed for are something right out of Soviet Central Planning from 1935. This is why the next report might not even make the news, because no one is even going to care.
This isn't the first time it's happened in Science and it won't be the last. Yet there are still massive problems, world wide, that need to be addressed and this doesn't help those one bit. But, hey, a few people got to hold a press conference, right?
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
You have a community whose job it is to find out the truth, guided by a tradition that safeguards intellectual integrity, pitted against businessmen who are thoroughly immersed in a culture of greed and lies and deception.
This statement makes me cringe, it's quite disturbing how people think that scientists are near-immune to the 'greed' and 'deception' imputed to other people. I say this as someone that does research (however my hypotheses are generally falsifiable, likely the climate science crowd would disapprove ~) and has a passing familiarity with the process of writing grant applications / renewals. Political concerns are often linked to likelihood of funding, and scientists are rational people that respond to incentives.
anyways I find it interesting that the following statement from the June 7 final draft of AR5 is missing from the most recent version*:
Models do not generally
reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years. There is medium
confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by
unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic,
and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing
greenhouse-gas forcing.
The validity of the models is predicated on an understanding of climate sensitivity which is the crux of what this IPCC report is trying to establish, no?
*interestingly, in the June 7 draft, heading the section where that paragraph is contained, there's the statement
There is very high confidence that climate models reproduce the observed large-scale patterns and multi-decadal trends in surface temperature, especially since the mid-20th century
if the 'reduction in surface warming' persists for another 5 years, that would make it a multi-decadal trend. The released version changes this to:
Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades
I wonder why they changed the phrasing that way ~
|
On September 29 2013 09:57 calgar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:43 FluffyBinLaden wrote:On September 29 2013 00:15 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 29 2013 00:13 FluffyBinLaden wrote:On September 29 2013 00:02 -VapidSlug- wrote:
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them. It doesn't help that they've replaced 65% of the previous scientists they had working on these reports. It just makes a lot of this look too damn fishy, like they're distracting or trying to get something else done. Then there's the whole "Weather does/does not equal climate" thing that we appear to have changed our minds on 3 or 4 times recently. All I know is that it's really cold in Michigan right now. If you lack the intellectual skills to come up with a better analysis than this, why even have an opinion? Thanks man, that's a really astute and inspiring explanation of the real thing going on. You've addressed my skepticism perfectly. It's not the first time people have used the media to promote an agenda, even if it's a just one. I'm not a climatologist, or a meteorologist, or a scientist of any kind, but I'm not a moron, thanks. If my concerns are completely invalid, then EXPLAIN to me why, please. I'd like to be wrong. How about you start by reading the report and explaining what exactly you find so "damn fishy"? As in a page number and claim. My guess is you wouldn't be able to. It's easy to vaguely discredit something using using weasel words. It's harder to make a substantive critique.
See, I'd read the actual report, but apparently I'm only allowed access to a summary.
|
On September 29 2013 10:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie. So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur. Oh, this is just WAY too easy that I have to needle on this one. So, you're apparently a paid scientist and yet you linked a.... Trough to Peak graph without confidence intervals. I'm not sure if I should be so cruel as to toss a "Irreducibility!" at you or not, but if you wonder why the responses to these types of reports went from everyone going all Chicken Little to "Eh, no one cares" (which is about how this one went, actually), that's a good reason why. Now, Trough to Peak is a great way to sell Stocks, Bonds or get Investor funding, but it's a terrible way to make an argument. And you know better. I was going to type something up in response to others, but I'll just sum up the point here. The Data sets are still terrible, the models are all over the place, the scientists have encouraged the Media to use "Climate Change" as a boogeyman more than any possible reality, and the ideas that are pushed for are something right out of Soviet Central Planning from 1935. This is why the next report might not even make the news, because no one is even going to care. This isn't the first time it's happened in Science and it won't be the last. Yet there are still massive problems, world wide, that need to be addressed and this doesn't help those one bit. But, hey, a few people got to hold a press conference, right?
I have to admit not being sure on this (and I had to google trough and peak) but could that graph be considered a through to peak graph as you call it? You could probably take any starting year since the 19th century and the main difference would be that you would not have such a good-looking linear regression.
The reference to Soviet and 1935 is quite silly. But, hey, yeah...
@Fluffy: Reading the summary is probably a good start. According to their page the final draft will be release tomorrow.
"The accepted Final Draft of the full Working Group I report, comprising the Technical Summary, 14 Chapters and three Annexes, will be released online in unedited form on Monday 30 September."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
