Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
gavsdavs said:
There are people (like me) who believe humans are causing this and are sceptical of people trying to provide evidence that we aren't responsible.
There are people who believe humans *aren't* responsible for the reduction in polar ice mass/global warming (whatever you'd like to call it) and are always going to be sceptical of people providing evidence that we *are* the cause.
Scepticism is an important part the scientific method and it should be on at all times, not just tuned in a certain direction to protect your beliefs. It's the only way to avoid succumbing to confirmation bias. It's not easy and I'm not great at it either but I'm aware of my bias which is a start.There are people who believe humans *aren't* responsible for the reduction in polar ice mass/global warming (whatever you'd like to call it) and are always going to be sceptical of people providing evidence that we *are* the cause.
The life choices thing was just a crass joke btw.
Anyway back on topic - I expect many if not most polar bears wind up looking like that at the end when injury, disease or old age strikes - that's life for a top-end predator.
wikipedia said:
Polar bears rarely live beyond 25 years.[128] The oldest wild bears on record died at age 32, whereas the oldest captive was a female who died in 1991, age 43.[129] The causes of death in wild adult polar bears are poorly understood, as carcasses are rarely found in the species's frigid habitat.[126] In the wild, old polar bears eventually become too weak to catch food, and gradually starve to death. Polar bears injured in fights or accidents may either die from their injuries or become unable to hunt effectively, leading to starvation
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 14th December 00:37
kerplunk said:
gavsdavs said:
There are people (like me) who believe humans are causing this and are sceptical of people trying to provide evidence that we aren't responsible.
There are people who believe humans *aren't* responsible for the reduction in polar ice mass/global warming (whatever you'd like to call it) and are always going to be sceptical of people providing evidence that we *are* the cause.
Scepticism is an important part the scientific method and it should be on at all times, not just tuned in a certain direction to protect your beliefs. It's the only way to avoid succumbing to confirmation bias. It's not easy and I'm not great at it either but I'm aware of my bias which is a start.There are people who believe humans *aren't* responsible for the reduction in polar ice mass/global warming (whatever you'd like to call it) and are always going to be sceptical of people providing evidence that we *are* the cause.
gavsdavs said:
Suggesting a polar bear "makes bad life choices" isn't exactly scientific reasoning, is it.
There are people (like me) who believe humans are causing this and are sceptical of people trying to provide evidence that we aren't responsible.
There are people who believe humans *aren't* responsible for the reduction in polar ice mass/global warming (whatever you'd like to call it) and are always going to be sceptical of people providing evidence that we *are* the cause.
We are almost all ideologically wedding to a particular side, and whatever the other side presents is not trusted. I don't know anyone who's switched belief, you may have different experience to me.
Furthermore, we all know where we stand on this, we believe humans are causing it, or we don't.
Your post read like you didn't believe in humans causing climate change.. If that was some form of subtle ironic language you were using to express something to someone else, then I apoloigise,
Polar bears making life choices, I ask you. What sort of evidence based argument is that ?
Gavs have a read here, https://polarbearscience.com/2017/12/09/one-starvi...There are people (like me) who believe humans are causing this and are sceptical of people trying to provide evidence that we aren't responsible.
There are people who believe humans *aren't* responsible for the reduction in polar ice mass/global warming (whatever you'd like to call it) and are always going to be sceptical of people providing evidence that we *are* the cause.
We are almost all ideologically wedding to a particular side, and whatever the other side presents is not trusted. I don't know anyone who's switched belief, you may have different experience to me.
Furthermore, we all know where we stand on this, we believe humans are causing it, or we don't.
Your post read like you didn't believe in humans causing climate change.. If that was some form of subtle ironic language you were using to express something to someone else, then I apoloigise,
Polar bears making life choices, I ask you. What sort of evidence based argument is that ?
Its written by someone who has studied Polar Bears her whole life.
“Starvation of independent young as well as very old animals must account for much of the natural mortality among polar bears… Also, age structure data show that subadults aged 2-5years survive at lower rates than adults (Amstrup 1995), probably because they are still learning hunting and survival skills.”
There's another one for the list - young bears who haven't learned the ropes.
I take back what I said about 'life choices' being a joke.
There's another one for the list - young bears who haven't learned the ropes.
I take back what I said about 'life choices' being a joke.
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 14th December 13:10
XM5ER said:
Gavs have a read here, https://polarbearscience.com/2017/12/09/one-starvi...
Its written by someone who has studied Polar Bears her whole life.
So many times the argument about climate change descends into bickering into the veracity of a particular piece of evidence - in this case whether a particular bear was on it's last legs (literally) due to the reduction in ice mass.Its written by someone who has studied Polar Bears her whole life.
Much of the time, it suits the sceptics side to do this - to pick on a particular incident and to debunk it, and keep the story in and around the debunking of it - because it keeps the narrative there, about the specific incident and about how badly informed climate change believers are.
Meanwhile, the main point - whether Man is causing warming/climate change through digging up and burning large amounts of carbon - is avoided by deniers on purpose because they don't like that narrative one bit.
it's a pretty common tactic and has been used by the oil firms for years. "never mind the damage to the environment, just look at how prosperous this (oil) town in the middle of nowhere is". Would Calgary be so rich and prosperous if it wasn't near massive tar sand sites ? No, it would be a frozen wasteland like much of the central american plains.
gavsdavs said:
XM5ER said:
Gavs have a read here, https://polarbearscience.com/2017/12/09/one-starvi...
Its written by someone who has studied Polar Bears her whole life.
So many times the argument about climate change descends into bickering into the veracity of a particular piece of evidence - in this case whether a particular bear was on it's last legs (literally) due to the reduction in ice mass.Its written by someone who has studied Polar Bears her whole life.
Much of the time, it suits the sceptics side to do this - to pick on a particular incident and to debunk it, and keep the story in and around the debunking of it - because it keeps the narrative there, about the specific incident and about how badly informed climate change believers are.
Meanwhile, the main point - whether Man is causing warming/climate change through digging up and burning large amounts of carbon - is avoided by deniers on purpose because they don't like that narrative one bit.
it's a pretty common tactic and has been used by the oil firms for years. "never mind the damage to the environment, just look at how prosperous this (oil) town in the middle of nowhere is". Would Calgary be so rich and prosperous if it wasn't near massive tar sand sites ? No, it would be a frozen wasteland like much of the central american plains.
gavsdavs said:
XM5ER said:
Gavs have a read here, https://polarbearscience.com/2017/12/09/one-starvi...
Its written by someone who has studied Polar Bears her whole life.
So many times the argument about climate change descends into bickering into the veracity of a particular piece of evidence - in this case whether a particular bear was on it's last legs (literally) due to the reduction in ice mass.Its written by someone who has studied Polar Bears her whole life.
Much of the time, it suits the sceptics side to do this - to pick on a particular incident and to debunk it, and keep the story in and around the debunking of it - because it keeps the narrative there, about the specific incident and about how badly informed climate change believers are.
Meanwhile, the main point - whether Man is causing warming/climate change through digging up and burning large amounts of carbon - is avoided by deniers on purpose because they don't like that narrative one bit.
it's a pretty common tactic and has been used by the oil firms for years. "never mind the damage to the environment, just look at how prosperous this (oil) town in the middle of nowhere is". Would Calgary be so rich and prosperous if it wasn't near massive tar sand sites ? No, it would be a frozen wasteland like much of the central american plains.
Sceptics/deniers don't usually deny that man is causing climate change by the way. We are just sceptical that the magnitude of that warming will be disastrous for mankind.
gavsdavs said:
So many times the argument about climate change descends into bickering into the veracity of a particular piece of evidence - in this case whether a particular bear was on it's last legs (literally) due to the reduction in ice mass.
Much of the time, it suits the sceptics side to do this - to pick on a particular incident and to debunk it, and keep the story in and around the debunking of it - because it keeps the narrative there, about the specific incident and about how badly informed climate change believers are.
Meanwhile, the main point - whether Man is causing warming/climate change through digging up and burning large amounts of carbon - is avoided by deniers on purpose because they don't like that narrative one bit.
it's a pretty common tactic and has been used by the oil firms for years. "never mind the damage to the environment, just look at how prosperous this (oil) town in the middle of nowhere is". Would Calgary be so rich and prosperous if it wasn't near massive tar sand sites ? No, it would be a frozen wasteland like much of the central american plains.
I think there is a certain level of crying wolf, rightly or wrongly all sources of climate/warming stories get lumped together and if enough of them are patently rubbish you stop listening to any of it. I have a personal bias against things that are used to raise taxes or create a nice gravy train for the rich and hangers on, and another against pseudo religious and illogical behaviours. There is only a certain amount of time in the day so once you believe you have found enough evidence to show something is a pile of rubbish you do not go and analyse the minutae of every new story.Much of the time, it suits the sceptics side to do this - to pick on a particular incident and to debunk it, and keep the story in and around the debunking of it - because it keeps the narrative there, about the specific incident and about how badly informed climate change believers are.
Meanwhile, the main point - whether Man is causing warming/climate change through digging up and burning large amounts of carbon - is avoided by deniers on purpose because they don't like that narrative one bit.
it's a pretty common tactic and has been used by the oil firms for years. "never mind the damage to the environment, just look at how prosperous this (oil) town in the middle of nowhere is". Would Calgary be so rich and prosperous if it wasn't near massive tar sand sites ? No, it would be a frozen wasteland like much of the central american plains.
A small tip, calling everyone that does not subscribe to your particular view of reality a denier, aka heretic, only makes you sound more of a nutter. It is understandable, after all it is only you applying your pre-learnt bias. The problem is this creates a strong us and them division which is difficult for humans to back out, I'm normally in the third group which doesn't trust either of the extremes
Should we be digging up and burning carbon compounds, hell no, or at least we should be phasing it out. The problem is at the same time we need to be lifting a lot of the world's population out of poverty and that means we need more power generation to support this. At the same time, assuming sea levels rise, there is going to be a problem with population and infrastructure displacement, this is going to need still more power to facilitate the production and transport of building materials. Build in economic pressure and the problem may be intractable.
Kawasicki said:
Sceptics/deniers don't usually deny that man is causing climate change by the way. We are just sceptical that the magnitude of that warming will be disastrous for mankind.
Interesting - so deniers accept that Humans are almost certainly causing it, but don't think the changes that are occurring are significant enough to worry about ?So.....you agree, but you don't care
??Toltec said:
A small tip, calling everyone that does not subscribe to your particular view of reality a denier, aka heretic, only makes you sound more of a nutter. It is understandable, after all it is only you applying your pre-learnt bias. The problem is this creates a strong us and them division which is difficult for humans to back out, I'm normally in the third group which doesn't trust either of the extremes
Ok - i've not called 'everyone' who "does not subscribe to my particular view of reality" a denier. You are aware that there are sceptics/deniers in their world, and I've told you I consider most of those people to be in varying degrees of selfish denial about it. I refer you back to my post on Wednesday - people try to absolve themselves of personal responsibility (see my quote above). It's just a sign of the times and what people do these days.If it suits to you call me, someone who believes humans ARE the cause of accelerated, probably unrecoverable climate change - a heretic - then you're simply attacking me - not really what I'm saying.
"Attack the messenger, not the message" is what that is.
gavsdavs said:
Kawasicki said:
Sceptics/deniers don't usually deny that man is causing climate change by the way. We are just sceptical that the magnitude of that warming will be disastrous for mankind.
Interesting - so deniers accept that Humans are almost certainly causing it, but don't think the changes that are occurring are significant enough to worry about ?So.....you agree, but you don't care
??Periods of warming and cooling are normal. We don't know if the true current warming is remarkable in any way.
gavsdavs said:
Ok - i've not called 'everyone' who "does not subscribe to my particular view of reality" a denier. You are aware that there are sceptics/deniers in their world, and I've told you I consider most of those people to be in varying degrees of selfish denial about it. I refer you back to my post on Wednesday - people try to absolve themselves of personal responsibility (see my quote above). It's just a sign of the times and what people do these days.
If it suits to you call me, someone who believes humans ARE the cause of accelerated, probably unrecoverable climate change - a heretic - then you're simply attacking me - not really what I'm saying.
"Attack the messenger, not the message" is what that is.
There was a certain amount of irony in my post, I was comparing the term denier with heretic not calling you a heretic btw.If it suits to you call me, someone who believes humans ARE the cause of accelerated, probably unrecoverable climate change - a heretic - then you're simply attacking me - not really what I'm saying.
"Attack the messenger, not the message" is what that is.
That there appears to be an unusually rapid change in global temperature that correlates with the rise in human population then I'm more convinced than not at the moment. I also think that the rate of change is likely to be more of a problem than the amount of change, particularly for wildlife, humans are adaptable so it will be more of an inconvenience to us as a species. Quite whether it is driven entirely by human release of CO2 or not is less clear and to some extent does not matter. That we can control the climate in any predictable way I sincerely doubt.
I completely believe that humans need to stop s
tting on their own doorstep, I just don't think the Climate Change followers methods and message are the right way to do it, far too small a viewpoint. If anything I see most CC supporters to be the ones denying reality and their responsibility for what is happening, granted there are some that truely try to practice a lower impact lifestyle, but most want something to be done without affecting their foreign holidays, new leased cars, shiny electronic gadgets and coffee shop lifestyle. Things change, adapt and improve or die.
Toltec said:
There was a certain amount of irony in my post, I was comparing the term denier with heretic not calling you a heretic btw.
That there appears to be an unusually rapid change in global temperature that correlates with the rise in human population then I'm more convinced than not at the moment. I also think that the rate of change is likely to be more of a problem than the amount of change, particularly for wildlife, humans are adaptable so it will be more of an inconvenience to us as a species. Quite whether it is driven entirely by human release of CO2 or not is less clear and to some extent does not matter. That we can control the climate in any predictable way I sincerely doubt.
I completely believe that humans need to stop stting on their own doorstep, I just don't think the Climate Change followers methods and message are the right way to do it, far too small a viewpoint. If anything I see most CC supporters to be the ones denying reality and their responsibility for what is happening, granted there are some that truely try to practice a lower impact lifestyle, but most want something to be done without affecting their foreign holidays, new leased cars, shiny electronic gadgets and coffee shop lifestyle.
Things change, adapt and improve or die.
Good post. There is no difference in lifestyle between sceptics and believers as far as I can see. Cognitive dissonance hurts.That there appears to be an unusually rapid change in global temperature that correlates with the rise in human population then I'm more convinced than not at the moment. I also think that the rate of change is likely to be more of a problem than the amount of change, particularly for wildlife, humans are adaptable so it will be more of an inconvenience to us as a species. Quite whether it is driven entirely by human release of CO2 or not is less clear and to some extent does not matter. That we can control the climate in any predictable way I sincerely doubt.
I completely believe that humans need to stop s
tting on their own doorstep, I just don't think the Climate Change followers methods and message are the right way to do it, far too small a viewpoint. If anything I see most CC supporters to be the ones denying reality and their responsibility for what is happening, granted there are some that truely try to practice a lower impact lifestyle, but most want something to be done without affecting their foreign holidays, new leased cars, shiny electronic gadgets and coffee shop lifestyle. Things change, adapt and improve or die.
Kawasicki said:
Terminator X said:
What has happened to all the science in this thread 
TX.
It started off strong, then starved to death.TX.
1. The Earth's climate was changing for millions of years before humans existed, and will continue to change for millions of years after we have gone. Therefore, there is no scientific need to use humans in explaining climate change.
2. There is no credible evidence that mankind has had a significant impact on this process.
3. Some people came up with a theory about man-made global warming (AGW).
4. The optimum scientific method for proving a theory, the statistically significant "double-blind" test, is not available, as we can only use this one Earth.
5. The next best method is to make predictions from the theory, then test the predictions. If the predictions are wrong, the theory is not correct.
6. The predictions have been wrong. Therefore, scientifically speaking, the AGW theory is not correct. And, referring back to point 1, scientifically speaking, we do not need an AGW theory. There may be other (non-scientific) reasons why this theory is useful, of course.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff