Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[durbster]

mondeoman said:

Thanks for showing that consensus is not = science.

Who claimed it was science?

The consensus is only presented as a way to illustrate to the public that the scientific basis of AGW is no longer contested because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Speaking of weight of opinion, I was having a look at Reddit's Change My View forum recently, which is where people present an assertion and invite others to present a counter argument to change their mind. It's not the usual online free-for-all, it's deliberately designed to be a structured debate and works well.

The reason I mention it is that I really struggled to find anyone that held views as extreme as those in this thread, and considering how massive Reddit is, it illustrates just how far out the views of some of the most vocal members are here. I think it's important that anyone reading this thread is aware of that.

If anyone reading is actually interested in the topic, it's well worth having a look here as they often have people who actually study the topic involved:
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/

[anonymous-user]

durbster said:

mondeoman said:

Thanks for showing that consensus is not = science.

Who claimed it was science?

The consensus is only presented as a way to illustrate to the public that the scientific basis of AGW is no longer contested because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Speaking of weight of opinion, I was having a look at Reddit's Change My View forum recently, which is where people present an assertion and invite others to present a counter argument to change their mind. It's not the usual online free-for-all, it's deliberately designed to be a structured debate and works well.

The reason I mention it is that I really struggled to find anyone that held views as extreme as those in this thread, and considering how massive Reddit is, it illustrates just how far out the views of some of the most vocal members are here. I think it's important that anyone reading this thread is aware of that.

If anyone reading is actually interested in the topic, it's well worth having a look here as they often have people who actually study the topic involved:
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/

That’s an interesting link, I quite like the AMA threads where real experts come on and people ask them stuff. I didn’t know there was a change my view Reddit.

Reddit is great, it’s full of optimism and positivity and people that love technology and art, it’s pretty much the opposite of this thread though. People who bang on loads just get downvoted and you get a much more even representation of views. If the boorish posters on here refuse to believe actual scientists and instead form what looks like a rather depressing and miserable cult on a car forum to get their world view, they will never have their opinions changed by a website like reddit.

It will simply be dismissed as part of the liberal agenda, much like the BBC or the British Antarctic survey or NASA or any of the other Mainstream media outlets. Whilst they continue to get their facts and science from each other and fringe websites.

[dickymint]

durbster said:

mondeoman said:

Thanks for showing that consensus is not = science.

Who claimed it was science?

The consensus is only presented as a way to illustrate to the public that the scientific basis of AGW is no longer contested because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Speaking of weight of opinion, I was having a look at Reddit's Change My View forum recently, which is where people present an assertion and invite others to present a counter argument to change their mind. It's not the usual online free-for-all, it's deliberately designed to be a structured debate and works well.

The reason I mention it is that I really struggled to find anyone that held views as extreme as those in this thread, and considering how massive Reddit is, it illustrates just how far out the views of some of the most vocal members are here. I think it's important that anyone reading this thread is aware of that.

If anyone reading is actually interested in the topic, it's well worth having a look here as they often have people who actually study the topic involved:
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/

You wouldn't last a weekend in there..........


Rule 2 of Reddit

"Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid."

Would you walk into a hospital and slap the patients because they're sick? Would you enter an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting and call everyone a worthless drunk? Would you enter a barber shop, point at the line of customers waiting for a haircut, and call them dirty long-haired hippies?
Imagine if there was a place, somewhere, that a person with an unpopular view could go to learn about the other side of issue, to try and understand different perspectives, and do so without fear of being shamed. This subreddit is intended to be that place. If you think that a person's opinion is vile, and you're insulting them in Change My View, then you're being unproductive. This is meant to be a place where even the most unpopular views can come to work it out. (Here's some more info on controversial threads).
A lot of people who post here are doing so in the confidence that people will treat them with respect, approach the topic politely and comment in a mature manner. Being rude and hostile can scare them off, or worst of all, make them retaliate. Don't like the view? Want to change it? What do you think is more likely to do that - being polite and civil, or rude and hostile? If anything, rudeness breeds rudeness, not changed views.
The CMV moderators do not remove posts or comments for advocating or criticizing any view or opinion, no matter how political or controversial. If your comment was removed for a Rule 2 violation, it's because you were "attacking the person", not because you were "attacking the argument". Some examples of this are known as ad hominem, however, to be precise, you're not allowed to be rude or hostile to a user even if your hostility is also addressed to their argument.
"They started it" is not an excuse to break Rule 2. If someone is being rude/hostile to you, report the comment. Retaliatory comments (i.e. being rude/hostile to another user because they were rude/hostile to you first) will be removed and the violating user will receive a warning. No exceptions.
"But it was true" isn't an excuse either. We prohibit insults even if you think they're accurate. Insulting other users does not lead to views being changed and just results in unproductive arguments.
Attacks on public figures/institutions/categories of people are fair game and you can use whatever language you wish (this is not a G-rated sub), but other users and public figures who are participating as users in this sub are off limits.
While irony is an important persuasive tool, your comment may be removed if is sufficiently sarcastic to also constitute an attack on the user."

[Diderot]

zygalski said:

You boys still arguing the toss about consensus?
Tee hee hee!

Some questions for you:

1. Do you believe that if you stopped breathing out (and indeed farting and using computers to troll on car fourms) that you would be helping to 'save the planet'?

2. Do you believe human beings can predict/project/see into the future?

3. Do you believe that human beings have the power to limit any warming to 2 degrees?

[mybrainhurts]

durbster said:

The consensus is only presented as a way to illustrate to the public that the scientific basis of AGW is no longer contested because the evidence zealotry is so overwhelming.

There you go, reintroduced reality for you.

While I'm at it, I must knock another of your misconceptions on the head.....I'm not staking you, it's just that I keep having to go away and every time I return, you're still here, spending your life banging on like a thing possessed.

I know I've asked before, and I know you take pride in ignoring me, but I'll ask again....what drives you to spend so much time and effort here, instead of simply dismissing something with which you disagree, and enjoying life soewhere else, just like any rational person would do?

[LongQ]

durbster said:

mondeoman said:

Thanks for showing that consensus is not = science.

Who claimed it was science?

The consensus is only presented as a way to illustrate to the public that the scientific basis of AGW is no longer contested because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Speaking of weight of opinion, I was having a look at Reddit's Change My View forum recently, which is where people present an assertion and invite others to present a counter argument to change their mind. It's not the usual online free-for-all, it's deliberately designed to be a structured debate and works well.

The reason I mention it is that I really struggled to find anyone that held views as extreme as those in this thread, and considering how massive Reddit is, it illustrates just how far out the views of some of the most vocal members are here. I think it's important that anyone reading this thread is aware of that.

If anyone reading is actually interested in the topic, it's well worth having a look here as they often have people who actually study the topic involved:
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/

So what you are saying is that you don't find it possible to successfully discuss anything on line unless you are posting in a highly controlled environment and feel obliged to stay within its rules, whatever they may be?

Or, to consider tr you recommendation from a different angle, that the "massive" Reddit presence has all of the same issues that PH and many other mass participation "forums" suffer from - to the extent that there needs to be a special part of it that is, according to its rules guidance, more forcefully moderated than the rest just to try to maintain some sort of attempt to stop things getting out of control .... or perhaps more importantly to the success of the concept, to allow a reasonable discussion about mismatched opinions.

And you like that?

So why is it a problem for you to achieve that here in this tiny and insignificant backwater of the internet?

Would it work for you here if the same rules were to be applied?

Would it help if this particular thread only accepted posts that had a clear connection of some sort to politics and political decisions and their consequences? Should it be constrained to its topic for a while? Maybe we could try that.

Reddit CMV rules?

[HairyPoppins]

mybrainhurts said:

There you go, reintroduced reality for you.

While I'm at it, I must knock another of your misconceptions on the head.....I'm not staking you, it's just that I keep having to go away and every time I return, you're still here, spending your life banging on like a thing possessed.

I know I've asked before, and I know you take pride in ignoring me, but I'll ask again....what drives you to spend so much time and effort here, instead of simply dismissing something with which you disagree, and enjoying life soewhere else, just like any rational person would do?

Couldn’t the same be said for almost everyone who posts on here?

[durbster]

El stovey said:

That’s an interesting link, I quite like the AMA threads where real experts come on and people ask them stuff. I didn’t know there was a change my view Reddit.

Reddit is great, it’s full of optimism and positivity and people that love technology and art, it’s pretty much the opposite of this thread though. People who bang on loads just get downvoted and you get a much more even representation of views. If the boorish posters on here refuse to believe actual scientists and instead form what looks like a rather depressing and miserable cult on a car forum to get their world view, they will never have their opinions changed by a website like reddit.

Yeah I've always found its presentation makes it a bit awkward to read but the ideas they have are spot on. I heard Tim Berners Lee has endorsed the CMV format as being in the spirit of the WWW he envisioned so that's about as good an endorsement as you can get.

There have been a few AMAs with climate scientists but I haven't found any that represent the huge number of them who apparently reject AGW, if this thread is to be believed. I can't imagine why.

[powerstroke]

Well I'm just hoping this AGW thingy is better than the other things I bought ,
hey don't buy any magic beans !!! or emperor's new clothes.... just saying !!!

[dickymint]

durbster said:

If anyone reading is actually interested in the topic, it's well worth having a look here as they often have people who actually study the topic involved:
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/

Feel free to post a link to a thread/post that you particularly like.

Oh and from memory didn't you once state on here that you were not actually interested in CC apart from the psychology of it all?

No need to answer as I know you did and that was the moment I knew you were trolling.

[LongQ]

HairyPoppins said:

mybrainhurts said:

There you go, reintroduced reality for you.

While I'm at it, I must knock another of your misconceptions on the head.....I'm not staking you, it's just that I keep having to go away and every time I return, you're still here, spending your life banging on like a thing possessed.

I know I've asked before, and I know you take pride in ignoring me, but I'll ask again....what drives you to spend so much time and effort here, instead of simply dismissing something with which you disagree, and enjoying life soewhere else, just like any rational person would do?

Couldn’t the same be said for almost everyone who posts on here?

You could share your reason for being here.

For me I would like to to be an interesting place to see news and other information that people have spotted and discuss the implications from a political point of view. Power and policy decisions and why people in authority seem to be so keen to accept worst case scenarios to the probable detriment of the populations they govern.

The psychological angle is interesting too.

Why do so many people living ostentatious lives that are, according to their own statements on the subject, highly "polluting", feel the need to denigrate those they seem to view as lesser mortals.

Do people really NEED to holiday on luxury yachts while spouting on about "driving a Prius"? Are they aver there to drive it? Is it the only means of road transport they have? If not, why not?

Do they need multiple homes, and multiple toys to enjoy at those homes?

Do the homes, so often empty, really need to be as large as they are?

Does anyone, especially those espousing the absolute certainty of human induced climate influences that will only ever be detrimental to future humans, really need multiple vehicles, expensive watches, several holidays each year involving considerable air travel, etc.? If so, why? I'm quite ready to be convinced but it will need to be a good argument to avoid the impression that hypocrisy is a normal state and delivers moral inertia.

Does it really make sense for personal transport manufacturers to make ever more powerful and expensive "supercars" for no obviously useful purpose when, apparently, the last thing the world needs is ever more expensive mobile pollution plants?

As this is nominally a car forum web site I'll stick with car related examples although other toys could raise similar questions.

Why do manufacturers seem to thing there is a need to put really quite powerful engines in vehicles whose use will be constrained by dreadful traffic flow conditions for most of their lives? How do they persuade people to buy cars that cost more than the average wage to people who mostly only use them to go to the nearest supermarket and are happy to stick to 8k miles per annum on a personal lease deal?

We could drift away from cars and come up with many more seemingly contradictory actions that fail to match words ... but this is probably enough for now to make the point I wish to make.

[mybrainhurts]

dickymint said:

durbster said:

If anyone reading is actually interested in the topic, it's well worth having a look here as they often have people who actually study the topic involved:
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/

Feel free to post a link to a thread/post that you particularly like.

Oh and from memory didn't you once state on here that you were not actually interested in CC apart from the psychology of it all?

No need to answer as I know you did and that was the moment I knew you were trolling.

Aye, and he ignored me again. You are, of course, right....

[robinessex]

And still we have no idea if a slightly warmer planet is bad. Unbelievable that all this CC nonsense is being pursued, when we have no idea if there is a problem to solve in the first place. As for Durbster's rant, that the Science is settled, just Google ‘Was Einstein correct ?’ Fly on a plane for your holidays Durbster? I have some shocking news for you. Aerodynamicists don’t know how airplanes actually fly !! Engineers don’t exactly know why ball bearings work. I could go on, but maybe you might the message now. Used to have a poster in the office. It said ‘The closer you study something, the less you understand it?

[CarreraLightweightRacing]

Zygalski I rarely post here and fall into neither category that appear offering such opposing views in this thread. I'd love to be convinced one way or the other but I find it difficult to navigate my way through the vast array of info on this subject, in any concise way. My main stumbling block in joining the 97%ers is this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs

I'd be very appreciative if you could watch this video and explain to me why I should then be convinced of the 97% view?

Please bear in mind, it is highly unlikely this White House Senate debate is conducted by people who hang out in the darker corners of the PH sub forums. I would genuinely like to hear your considered view on this video.

[durbster]

mybrainhurts said:

While I'm at it, I must knock another of your misconceptions on the head.....I'm not staking you, it's just that I keep having to go away and every time I return, you're still here, spending your life banging on like a thing possessed.

You're not an obsessive stalker but you're only interested in my motivation and not anyone else?

mybrainhurts said:

I know I've asked before, and I know you take pride in ignoring me,

You misunderstand. I don't ignore you as a matter of principle, I ignore you because you don't post anything worth making an effort to reply to. Can you show a single example of where you've articulated a coherent argument of your own that deserved a response?

mybrainhurts said:

but I'll ask again....what drives you to spend so much time and effort here, instead of simply dismissing something with which you disagree, and enjoying life soewhere else, just like any rational person would do?

You have over 88,000 posts.

[zygalski]

CarreraLightweightRacing said:

Zygalski I rarely post here and fall into neither category that appear offering such opposing views in this thread. I'd love to be convinced one way or the other but I find it difficult to navigate my way through the vast array of info on this subject, in any concise way. My main stumbling block in joining the 97%ers is this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs

I'd be very appreciative if you could watch this video and explain to me why I should then be convinced of the 97% view?

Please bear in mind, it is highly unlikely this White House Senate debate is conducted by people who hang out in the darker corners of the PH sub forums. I would genuinely like to hear your considered view on this video.

Hi.
An interesting series of articles about how Easterbrook cherry-picked and misrepresented the IPCC data to fit his agenda:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-h...

[durbster]

CarreraLightweightRacing said:

Zygalski I rarely post here and fall into neither category that appear offering such opposing views in this thread. I'd love to be convinced one way or the other but I find it difficult to navigate my way through the vast array of info on this subject, in any concise way. My main stumbling block in joining the 97%ers is this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs

I'd be very appreciative if you could watch this video and explain to me why I should then be convinced of the 97% view?

Please bear in mind, it is highly unlikely this White House Senate debate is conducted by people who hang out in the darker corners of the PH sub forums. I would genuinely like to hear your considered view on this video.

He claims there has been no global warming since 1998. That is not true.

That year is chosen because it was an El Nino year so there was a spike in temperature, and they're measuring from the tip of that spike. You don't measure the height of a mountain by starting at the peak of another mountain.

This man said we would see global cooling over the 20 years since 1998. This has been proven wrong.

You can view the temperature data yourself as it's all in the public domain e.g.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagn...

You can see the 1998 spike and the subsequent warming.

It's also worth noting he is linked to an organisation called the Heartland Institute (you will find almost everyone who is lobbying the US Governement to reject AGW is linked to Heartland). It's the same organisation that was behind the campaigns of disinformation about the science behind smoking so make of that what you will:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Instit...

[robinessex]

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” -- Mark Twain

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” -- Mark Twain

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” -- H L Mencken

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/h_l_mencken_101...

[wc98]

durbster said:

You believe the 97% thing is not accurate. OK.

If you really believe there are a vast number of climate scientists out there who reject AGW, where the hell are they?

For example, why do you think there are no stories in New Scientist about this great debate that's apparently still raging?

And before the inevitable repetitive turbowaffle about the consensus being meaningless; the point of putting a figure on the scientific consensus was only to address the public misconception that AGW was still unproven. That clearly wasn't true ten years ago and absolutely isn't now, since the evidence has only grown.

what was the consensus on the cause of stomach ulcers ,97% ? a far less complex system than the atmosphere in a far more well developed field than climate science yet the consensus was wrong.

there is no misconception agw is unproven. it is unproven and even a 100% consensus won't prove otherwise.