Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Author
Discussion

gadgetmac

4,030 posts

45 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
dickymint said:
durbster said:
Jinx said:
Where's the data? Those are conclusions with graphics. Pretty sure the methodologies for these "survey" based "studies" have already been ripped apart, for example: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/lewandowsky-shows...

And remember - correlation is not causation - this applies to sociology as well.
scratchchin

You run to an advocacy blog rather than going to look into it yourself? That is absolutely not what I would expect from somebody who apparently works with data (and I work with data analysts).

The sources and further explanations are all in the thread, as I said.
You doubt the mans integrity? Surprise surpriserolleyes
This, from Dicky “Report Button” Mint laugh

gadgetmac

4,030 posts

45 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
durbster said:
Jinx said:
Where's the data? Those are conclusions with graphics. Pretty sure the methodologies for these "survey" based "studies" have already been ripped apart, for example: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/lewandowsky-shows...

And remember - correlation is not causation - this applies to sociology as well.
scratchchin

You run to an advocacy blog rather than going to look into it yourself? That is absolutely not what I would expect from somebody who apparently works with data (and I work with data analysts).

The sources and further explanations are all in the thread, as I said.
And this is the problem. So many deniers posting in a style (and with content) that belies there supposed employment status and/or education attainment.

deeps

4,512 posts

178 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
durbster said:
You might be interested in this Twitter thread. It's a collection of studies of the relationship between rejection of science and political leaning. It's based on the main topics where science is rejected: vaccines, climate change, GMOs etc.

https://twitter.com/ichiloe/status/108266320300229...

There's a consistent pattern:


Suggesting your view on this is likely to be ideological, not fact-based.

Sources are all in the thread.

This is your field, apparently, so what do you make of that?
"Rejection of science" ??? laugh

Will be funny to repost this in a few years time when the struggling AGW climate scam finally runs out of breath (but maybe not CO2) and is proven to be a false theory. How silly those Liberals will look.

(Cue DEG with SID).

El stovey

24,482 posts

200 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
deeps said:
"Rejection of science" ??? laugh

Will be funny to repost this in a few years time when the struggling AGW climate scam finally runs out of breath (but maybe not CO2) and is proven to be a false theory. How silly those Liberals will look.

(Cue DEG with SID).
Yes it will indeed be funny, how will it be proven to be a false theory?

If it isn’t then presumably you’ll be admitting you were completely wrong?

Bearing in mind these threads have been going for a few years and it’s still your cult of fake boffins against the scientific community and you haven’t managed to change the scientific consensus for some odd reason. hehe

Dindoit

1,458 posts

31 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
More conservatives believe in climate change than evolution. Christ! (or not)
Advertisement

NoNeed

11,697 posts

137 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Dindoit said:
More conservatives believe in climate change than evolution. Christ! (or not)
Do you have any proof of this?

dickymint

16,092 posts

195 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
Jinx said:
Where's the data? Those are conclusions with graphics. Pretty sure the methodologies for these "survey" based "studies" have already been ripped apart, for example: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/lewandowsky-shows...

And remember - correlation is not causation - this applies to sociology as well.
scratchchin

You run to an advocacy blog rather than going to look into it yourself? That is absolutely not what I would expect from somebody who apparently works with data (and I work with data analysts).

The sources and further explanations are all in the thread, as I said.
You doubt the mans integrity? Surprise surpriserolleyes
This, from Dicky “Report Button” Mint laugh
WTF are you on?

deeps

4,512 posts

178 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
And this is the problem. So many deniers posting in a style (and with content) that belies there supposed employment status and/or education attainment.
Oh dear! By the look of that post your own education attainment may not be so hot! laugh

I'm not the grammar police by any stretch, live and let live, but within such a condescending holier than thou post, the irony is worth pointing out!

deeps

4,512 posts

178 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
El stovey said:
deeps said:
"Rejection of science" ??? laugh

Will be funny to repost this in a few years time when the struggling AGW climate scam finally runs out of breath (but maybe not CO2) and is proven to be a false theory. How silly those Liberals will look.

(Cue DEG with SID).
Yes it will indeed be funny, how will it be proven to be a false theory?

If it isn’t then presumably you’ll be admitting you were completely wrong?

Bearing in mind these threads have been going for a few years and it’s still your cult of fake boffins against the scientific community and you haven’t managed to change the scientific consensus for some odd reason. hehe
Time will reveal all.

'The average Liberal Warmist of today does not believe in precisely the same imbecilities that the Greek of the Fourth Century before Christ believed in, but the things that he does believe in are often quite as idiotic.'

'The profoundest truths of the Middle Ages are now laughed at by school boys. The profoundest truths of MMGW theory will be laughed at, a few decades hence, even by school teachers.'

mondeoman

9,277 posts

203 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
El stovey said:
mondeoman said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
Has the apocalypse arrived? No.

That’s all the data I need to disprove the climate science community. It’s like their whole existence depends on them ignoring the plainly obvious.
All the data you need is a prediction from your imagination? A rather difficult position to counter, that one. biggrin

This is one of the laziest and most common strawman arguments; that climate scientists have been predicting an "apocalypse" that never came. They didn't, of course. Science doesn't really operate in that arena.

The reality is: they have predicted pretty much the rather mundane pattern of events that have happened for over half a century. Of course, in any projection you would have extremes of scenarios which is exclusively what the press report on. That's something that happens in all science reporting, sadly, but it's rarely real.

Er, unless you can point to a widely accepted, peer-reviewed paper that actually predicted "an apocalypse"...? smile
El Stovey gets it wrong, again.
Paper provided.
I'll wait for your apology.
Edited by mondeoman on Thursday 10th January 22:45


Edited by mondeoman on Thursday 10th January 22:46
I’m afraid you’ve completely misunderstood the argument.

I’ll try it like this for you,

Poster A - the apocalypse hasn’t arrived as predicted
Poster B - who said there would be an apocalypse by now?
You - look someone said last year, in a few hundred years the earth would be uninhabitable, I win.

They’re arguing about scientists saying the apocalypse would have arrived by now.

You’re arguing about papers predicting stuff hundreds of years in the future.
Point taken, apologies

robinessex

6,625 posts

118 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
Who cares about what might happen 100s of years in the future

PRTVR

4,440 posts

158 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
The thing with " hundreds of years in the future" is that the people who predict it will not be around to justify their statements.
Take some of the older predictions, the viability of the Alps as a ski resort is one that made me chuckle, a warming climate gives less snow, totally logical, untill you have record snowfall, the reason for the outlandish predictions is purely to reinforce the story line.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/climate-change-threat...

Yes this is weather not climate, but predictions made about weather caused by climate change should stand, the temperature is increasing at a steady rate the snow loss should be proportional to the increase,but clearly it's not leading to some to question their predictions.

LittleBigPlanet

711 posts

78 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Who cares about what might happen 100s of years in the future
Those who either own and/or manage assets (like railways, skyscrapers, power stations, bridges, ports etc.) might have a bit of an interest. Maybe.

Do you know how many skyscrapers (>150m) worldwide have had to be demolished? I'll let you do some research to find that out. Shouldn't be difficult given the expertise here.

We are building things that will be around for a long time, it helps to know what conditions these things should be designed for in the future.

turbobloke

83,667 posts

197 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
The thing with " hundreds of years in the future" is that the people who predict it will not be around to justify their statements.
There's another problem.

Coupled Non-linear Chaotic System - IPCC

IPCC said:
...therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

The climate is still a coupled non-linear chaotic system and long-term prediction of future climate states is still not, and never will be, possible. A side dish from this meal is that the notion of 'stabilising the climate' is unscientific twaddle. Attempting to do so by trying to manipulate the atmospheric carbon dioxide level via taxation is doubly nonsensical. Future generations will indeed look back and wonder what the faithful were smoking.

What we get at this point, as per evidence in this and other threads, is that somebody who thinks they know something but doesn't stabs a pointy finger at the 70+ climate models and claims that some sort of probabilistic distribution is conferring wisdom. While having a 70-sided coin is useful to tossers, as it may come down on something "more or less" to their liking (but not accurately so) the probability thing falls down flat because even with 70+ models, all possible outcomes are not included and therefore as the input is incomplete the outcome is unreal.

There is no skill present and no usefulness in pondering the gigo of poorly fed unpredictability.


NoNeed

11,697 posts

137 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
Dindoit said:
More conservatives believe in climate change than evolution. Christ! (or not)
Do you have any proof of this?
I take that as a no then

turbobloke

83,667 posts

197 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
NoNeed said:
Dindoit said:
More conservatives believe in climate change than evolution. Christ! (or not)
Do you have any proof of this?
I take that as a no then
Can't speak for Dindoit but it may refer to Republicans across the pond.

A survey is claimed to have shown that 42% believe in evolution whereas 49% believe in global warming. However, note the terms global warming/climage change and that the human influence issue isn't explicitly included.

As we know, personal viewpoints are freely available to all but offer nothing externally. Collections of these in surveys can achieve the pooling of ignorance quite easily.

Empirical observational data is where to look, otherwise...

Royal Society said:
Take Nobody's Word For It

kerplunk

3,435 posts

143 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
deeps said:
El stovey said:
deeps said:
"Rejection of science" ??? laugh

Will be funny to repost this in a few years time when the struggling AGW climate scam finally runs out of breath (but maybe not CO2) and is proven to be a false theory. How silly those Liberals will look.

(Cue DEG with SID).
Yes it will indeed be funny, how will it be proven to be a false theory?

If it isn’t then presumably you’ll be admitting you were completely wrong?

Bearing in mind these threads have been going for a few years and it’s still your cult of fake boffins against the scientific community and you haven’t managed to change the scientific consensus for some odd reason. hehe
Time will reveal all.

'The average Liberal Warmist of today does not believe in precisely the same imbecilities that the Greek of the Fourth Century before Christ believed in, but the things that he does believe in are often quite as idiotic.'

'The profoundest truths of the Middle Ages are now laughed at by school boys. The profoundest truths of MMGW theory will be laughed at, a few decades hence, even by school teachers.'
Interesting foresight of future scientific outcomes there. Looks like you don't need the proof to emerge - you just *know*

Time will reveal all - that part at least is true.





gadgetmac

4,030 posts

45 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
deeps said:
gadgetmac said:
And this is the problem. So many deniers posting in a style (and with content) that belies there supposed employment status and/or education attainment.
Oh dear! By the look of that post your own education attainment may not be so hot! laugh

I'm not the grammar police by any stretch, live and let live, but within such a condescending holier than thou post, the irony is worth pointing out!
Go on then Double D, Point out the grammatical errors. laugh

I can see a spelling mistake but maybe in your world that’s “grammar” laugh

And as you say, the irony is indeed worth pointing out...namely that you criticise something that is in fact correct.

And you entrench that irony by attacking a (supposed) grammar error and not the content in order to deflect away from the point.

Classic denier tactics.

gadgetmac

4,030 posts

45 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
dickymint said:
WTF are you on?
Not the report button trying to get people banned.

deeps

4,512 posts

178 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
Isn't it interesting when climate scientists retire and their grants run out, suddenly their tune often changes?

"Very often, when I talk to the public or the media about global warming (a low-frequency positive trend in global temperature in the last 120 years or so), they ask me the unfortunate question if I “believe” in global warming. And I say “unfortunate” because when we are dealing with a scientific problem “believing” has no place. In science, we either prove or disprove. We “believe” only when we cannot possibly prove a truth. For example, we may “believe” in reincarnation or an afterlife but we cannot prove either.

One may argue that when we are dealing with a scientific problem, such as global warming, for which we cannot obtain unquestionable experimental confirmation as to what is causing it (for the simple reason that we cannot repeat this experiment; we only have one realization of climate evolution), we may form an opinion based on the existing scientific evidence in hand, current knowledge, possible theories and hypotheses. But we should be skeptical of claims that the science of a complicated and unpredictable system is settled.

Nobody argues that the temperature of the planet is not increasing in the last 120 years or so. Yes, the temperature is increasing overall. But there are a lot of questions regarding why that is.

In the current state of affairs regarding global warming, opinion is divided into two major factions. A large portion of climate scientists argues that most, if not all, of the recent warming is due to anthropogenic effects, which originate largely from carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Another portion is on the other extreme: Those who argue that humans have nothing to do with global warming and that all this fuss is a conspiracy to bring the industrial world down.

The latter group calls the former group “the catastrophists” or “the alarmists,” whereas the former group calls the latter group “the deniers.” This childish division is complemented by another group, the “skeptics,” which includes those like me who question the extreme beliefs and try to look at all scientific evidence before we form an opinion (by the way, the former group also considers skeptics to be deniers).

In the realm of deniers, skeptics and believers, science has been compromised. I usually don’t bother with pseudo-scientists, media and ignorant people abusing the freedom of the Internet by writing and posting nonsense comments. But I have grown wary of what is going on with the debate on the overblown and misdirected issue of global warming — a case in point being “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd saying he will no longer give time to global warming “deniers” and also that the “science is settled.”

The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in the medieval times, when Galileo had to admit to something that he knew was wrong to save his life. Science is all about proving, not believing. In that regard, I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science.

All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change. Science would have never advanced if it were not for the skeptics. All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming despite the fact that carbon dioxide emissions kept on increasing. Science is never settled. If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.

My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.

Two final points. First, all the interactions of humans with the environment are part of our technological evolution. During this evolution, we could not go directly from living in the dark ages to a clean energy technology. There was no other way but to use fossil fuels and other pollution-producing agents. Is this enough to ruin the planet by altering the climate system, a system that has undergone major changes throughout the ages?

Second, while we should try our best to take care of our planet, global warming is not the only urgent planetary emergency. Overpopulation, poverty, infectious diseases and the effect of globalization in spreading them, the water crisis, energy and food availability and safety, political instability and terrorism, the global economy, even cyber security, are far more urgent problems with potentially catastrophic results for humanity."

Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books.