AGW denial is anti-science
Discussion
Sambucket said:
An old friend of mine, works in international development, and her fulltime, 5 days a week job, is dealing with impact of climate change on (mostly poor coastal) communities.
You can argue the evidence is contentious, sure. But you can't argue there is no evidence at all.
I live in a coastal town, how does your "friend" explain the impacts of climate change, I'm interested if it correlates to my experience.You can argue the evidence is contentious, sure. But you can't argue there is no evidence at all.
thatsprettyshady said:
I live in a coastal town, how does your "friend" explain the impacts of climate change, I'm interested if it correlates to my experience.
Unless you live somewhere like Burma or Africa, it's unlikely to impact you at all. UK is very temperate and unlikely to be impacted be climate change directly for a long time. Though reasons we budget for international aid are not entirely selfless. Problems elsewhere impact us indirectly. Sambucket said:
Unless you live somewhere like Burma or Africa, it's unlikely to impact you at all. UK is very temperate and unlikely to be impacted be climate change directly for a long time. Though reasons we budget for international aid are not entirely selfless. Problems elsewhere impact us indirectly.
would you be able to provide the evidence regarding CCs effect on Africa/SE Asia, I would love to read.Sambucket said:
An old friend of mine, works in international development, and her fulltime, 5 days a week job, is dealing with impact of climate change on (mostly poor farming and coastal) communities.
You can argue the evidence is contentious, sure. But you can't argue there is no evidence at all.
She doesn't own a car!
Local environmental impacts are not caused by a slight change in the global average temperature. Land use/war/miss-management of resources are the probabe cause not a 2 degrees increases at the poles. Sea level rise is pretty much linear and local issues are likely a subsidence and post ice age plate issue (again not Climate change (tm)). Their "local climate" may be changing but the roots are likely local and not in anyway liked to "climate change" (tm).You can argue the evidence is contentious, sure. But you can't argue there is no evidence at all.
She doesn't own a car!
Sambucket said:
Kawasicki said:
But no one is pontificating on how human activities don’t impact the climate. Do you understand that?
Are those activities having catastrophic outcomes? No, the evidence from the past two centuries would suggest not.
An old friend of mine, works in international development, and her fulltime, 5 days a week job, is dealing with impact of climate change on (mostly poor farming and coastal) communities. Are those activities having catastrophic outcomes? No, the evidence from the past two centuries would suggest not.
You can argue the evidence is contentious, sure. But you can't argue there is no evidence at all.
She doesn't own a car!
Bussolini said:
Precisely. Without delving into the rights and wrongs of your views, why do we not have people that are pro-EU but anti-climate change, or vice versa? Why does there seem to be such a stark division between 'liberal' and 'conservative'?
There are no rights and wrongs with my views. They are my views. There are plenty of people who are pro EU and anti climate change.
Why are you trying to put all of us in one basket? Does it help with calling us 'deniers, or those who are anti EU people, Nazi?
It's clear that your goal is to try to shame anyone who has a differing point of view.
Esceptico said:
Staggeringly silly comment.
Science is about developing theories that allow us to predict what will happen. If you are about to jump off a high building I can tell you that the force of gravity will cause you to fall and accelerate at roughly ten metres per second per second (less because of air resistance). And that you would suffer a massive decelerating force when you hit the ground. According to you it wouldn’t be science unless you actually jumped off and proved the prediction.
The science behind greenhouse gases is very simple and proved in the laboratory ie that greenhouse gases absorb radiation and then remit it. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will result in an increase in temperature unless there is negative feedback. Climate modelling is all about trying to figure out the positive and negative feedback. That is serious science. Pontificating on how human activities don’t impact the climate is just opinion.
In your bathtub analogy you made the assumption that the outflow would be linearly proportional to the volume of water in the bath, it isn't. Science is about developing theories that allow us to predict what will happen. If you are about to jump off a high building I can tell you that the force of gravity will cause you to fall and accelerate at roughly ten metres per second per second (less because of air resistance). And that you would suffer a massive decelerating force when you hit the ground. According to you it wouldn’t be science unless you actually jumped off and proved the prediction.
The science behind greenhouse gases is very simple and proved in the laboratory ie that greenhouse gases absorb radiation and then remit it. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will result in an increase in temperature unless there is negative feedback. Climate modelling is all about trying to figure out the positive and negative feedback. That is serious science. Pontificating on how human activities don’t impact the climate is just opinion.
In a green house it is the glass preventing loss of infra-red radiation that causes the temperature rise. The gases get much warmer because the energy cannot be radiated away.
Yes, humans affect the environment on a large scale and have been since we cleared forests to make room for agriculture. It isn't impossible that we are affecting the climate, however that is just a small part of what we are doing and making it too important distracts from the greater issues.
stew-STR160 said:
Bussolini said:
Precisely. Without delving into the rights and wrongs of your views, why do we not have people that are pro-EU but anti-climate change, or vice versa? Why does there seem to be such a stark division between 'liberal' and 'conservative'?
There are no rights and wrongs with my views. They are my views. There are plenty of people who are pro EU and anti climate change.
Why are you trying to put all of us in one basket? Does it help with calling us 'deniers, or those who are anti EU people, Nazi?
It's clear that your goal is to try to shame anyone who has a differing point of view.
It's merely an observation that the regular posters on the pro-Brexit threads are also regularly posting against climate change, against vegans, against socialism, against things like gender pay etc.
I have seen no poster that is anti-Brexit and anti-climate change on this thread - there may be a few, but it hasn't become apparent to me.
Oh - and your views can be factually wrong.
Bussolini said:
stew-STR160 said:
Bussolini said:
Precisely. Without delving into the rights and wrongs of your views, why do we not have people that are pro-EU but anti-climate change, or vice versa? Why does there seem to be such a stark division between 'liberal' and 'conservative'?
There are no rights and wrongs with my views. They are my views. There are plenty of people who are pro EU and anti climate change.
Why are you trying to put all of us in one basket? Does it help with calling us 'deniers, or those who are anti EU people, Nazi?
It's clear that your goal is to try to shame anyone who has a differing point of view.
It's merely an observation that the regular posters on the pro-Brexit threads are also regularly posting against climate change, against vegans, against socialism, against things like gender pay etc.
I have seen no poster that is anti-Brexit and anti-climate change on this thread - there may be a few, but it hasn't become apparent to me.
Oh - and your views can be factually wrong.
Personally, I think if socialism were to truly take hold in the UK, we'd all be up S**t creek without a paddle.
Toltec said:
Esceptico said:
Staggeringly silly comment.
Science is about developing theories that allow us to predict what will happen. If you are about to jump off a high building I can tell you that the force of gravity will cause you to fall and accelerate at roughly ten metres per second per second (less because of air resistance). And that you would suffer a massive decelerating force when you hit the ground. According to you it wouldn’t be science unless you actually jumped off and proved the prediction.
The science behind greenhouse gases is very simple and proved in the laboratory ie that greenhouse gases absorb radiation and then remit it. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will result in an increase in temperature unless there is negative feedback. Climate modelling is all about trying to figure out the positive and negative feedback. That is serious science. Pontificating on how human activities don’t impact the climate is just opinion.
In your bathtub analogy you made the assumption that the outflow would be linearly proportional to the volume of water in the bath, it isn't. Science is about developing theories that allow us to predict what will happen. If you are about to jump off a high building I can tell you that the force of gravity will cause you to fall and accelerate at roughly ten metres per second per second (less because of air resistance). And that you would suffer a massive decelerating force when you hit the ground. According to you it wouldn’t be science unless you actually jumped off and proved the prediction.
The science behind greenhouse gases is very simple and proved in the laboratory ie that greenhouse gases absorb radiation and then remit it. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will result in an increase in temperature unless there is negative feedback. Climate modelling is all about trying to figure out the positive and negative feedback. That is serious science. Pontificating on how human activities don’t impact the climate is just opinion.
In a green house it is the glass preventing loss of infra-red radiation that causes the temperature rise. The gases get much warmer because the energy cannot be radiated away.
Yes, humans affect the environment on a large scale and have been since we cleared forests to make room for agriculture. It isn't impossible that we are affecting the climate, however that is just a small part of what we are doing and making it too important distracts from the greater issues.
I'm a bit of an "environmentalist" in that I love nature, I'm probably more aware of the wildlife around me than others around me in most circumstances.
All this focus on CO2 and "climate change" detracts from the damage we definitely do inflict on nature and what we should be doing about it.
To take Esceptico's analogy about jumping off a building, it's pointless, that experiment has been done, we can see the effects by dropping something ourselves, it is a pointless analogy.
As far as "science" is concerned, with the definition of "science" and the actual scientific method. AGW is just a theory at present, it hasn't been proven, the models can't prove it unless they're significantly improved themselves and the data used is properly available for all to replicate. Until such times as that happens (it never will in our lifetimes without a massive increase in computing power and a huge labour cost to put all the different types of data into such a model, the climate is too complex) we will need to wait for real warming to happen and to be sustained for a long period of time.
PS, there's a very long thread discussing the science of this, you may want to start there Esceptico.
Sambucket said:
So unless a poster can back up why they don't trust the IPCC, then I'm not sure it's worth finishing reading the post.
Then go back to IPCC AR5 (ignore the summary for policy makers as that is all politics and not science) and read up on the probable impacts and likely timelines. Nothing bad until 2100 at the earliest - that is the science (and most of that in the possible category).The IPCC also only reviews the papers (and grey material unfortunately) that look at manmade impacts - no review of the natural climate change papers so isn't a proper meta-study but irrespective of that, the CAGW isn't proven and is barely supported outside of medium to low confidence levels.
AshVX220 said:
AGW is just a theory at present, it hasn't been proven, the models can't prove it unless they're significantly improved themselves and the data used is properly available for all to replicate.
Even with huge accurate data sets and advanced computer modelling - you are up against a near impossible task of trying to model a chaotic system that has chaotic feed back loops and chaotic reactionary systems. Some which may not yet be realised or discovered.I think its arrogance to the extreme [of the pro-MMGW camp] to say that [we] can accurately prediction the long term future, even the short term has not been accurate as global temps and sea level rise has not been anywhere near as 'bad' as Al Gore and his ilk were prophesying back in the early 2000's.
Unfortunately for the pro-MMGW theorists, unless the earth starts to behave as they wish and it goes off on a catastrophic tangent in to a run away rapid warming phase - the theory will only live inside of the computer models. Because to date, the climate observation is simply changing very much within the boundaries of natural variance.
(Putting cherry picking and hockey sticks aside of course)
Edited by V10leptoquark on Thursday 31st October 13:52
Observations do not support CAGW science.
Nothing catastrophic has occurred... and the increasing CO2 experiment has been run for hundreds of years.
For me to change my mind would take a series of otherwise unexplainable catastrophic climatic events well outside what humans have experienced in the past few thousand years.
Science is the best!
Nothing catastrophic has occurred... and the increasing CO2 experiment has been run for hundreds of years.
For me to change my mind would take a series of otherwise unexplainable catastrophic climatic events well outside what humans have experienced in the past few thousand years.
Science is the best!
Bussolini said:
Ha.
It's merely an observation that the regular posters on the pro-Brexit threads are also regularly posting against climate change, against vegans, against socialism, against things like gender pay etc.
I have seen no poster that is anti-Brexit and anti-climate change on this thread - there may be a few, but it hasn't become apparent to me.
Oh - and your views can be factually wrong.
I'm pro Remain, socialist, pro religious/gender/race and sexuality equality, stand up for the little guy and lets all pay more tax, and am an active conservationist. I'm "right on" as fIt's merely an observation that the regular posters on the pro-Brexit threads are also regularly posting against climate change, against vegans, against socialism, against things like gender pay etc.
I have seen no poster that is anti-Brexit and anti-climate change on this thread - there may be a few, but it hasn't become apparent to me.
Oh - and your views can be factually wrong.
k 
and totally on message with all you 
folk. I also have a degree in Engineering so am not a complete Luddite and did a masters in Meteorology because it was my favourite subject at flight school. But I'm very dubious about MMGW particularly terms of global average temperature measurement, the modelling techniques employed and corrections used, and the overall extent of man's affect on something so nebulous and capricious as global climate.
Pleased to meet you
Kawasicki said:
Observations do not support CAGW science.
Nothing catastrophic has occurred... and the increasing CO2 experiment has been run for hundreds of years.
For me to change my mind would take a series of otherwise unexplainable catastrophic climatic events well outside what humans have experienced in the past few thousand years.
Science is the best!
You keep repeating that claim but catastrophic impacts have not been predicted to happen. Nothing catastrophic has occurred... and the increasing CO2 experiment has been run for hundreds of years.
For me to change my mind would take a series of otherwise unexplainable catastrophic climatic events well outside what humans have experienced in the past few thousand years.
Science is the best!
Jinx said:
Sambucket said:
So unless a poster can back up why they don't trust the IPCC, then I'm not sure it's worth finishing reading the post.
Then go back to IPCC AR5 (ignore the summary for policy makers as that is all politics and not science) and read up on the probable impacts and likely timelines. Nothing bad until 2100 at the earliest - that is the science (and most of that in the possible category).The IPCC also only reviews the papers (and grey material unfortunately) that look at manmade impacts - no review of the natural climate change papers so isn't a proper meta-study but irrespective of that, the CAGW isn't proven and is barely supported outside of medium to low confidence levels.
The point is that to prevent something bad happening at the end of the century we would need to change now. Of course that isn’t happening.
Esceptico said:
Jinx said:
Sambucket said:
So unless a poster can back up why they don't trust the IPCC, then I'm not sure it's worth finishing reading the post.
Then go back to IPCC AR5 (ignore the summary for policy makers as that is all politics and not science) and read up on the probable impacts and likely timelines. Nothing bad until 2100 at the earliest - that is the science (and most of that in the possible category).The IPCC also only reviews the papers (and grey material unfortunately) that look at manmade impacts - no review of the natural climate change papers so isn't a proper meta-study but irrespective of that, the CAGW isn't proven and is barely supported outside of medium to low confidence levels.
The point is that to prevent something bad happening at the end of the century we would need to change now. Of course that isn’t happening.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The predictions for severe negative consequences are for the future. Which is why Greta and young people are pissed off as deniers like Trump will be long dead before the st hits the fan. And because any hope of avoiding it requires action today. If we wait until the effects are severe it would be too late to do anything about it. Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff