AGW denial is anti-science
Discussion
DickyC said:
stew-STR160 said:
I spend the weekend away from the internet, only to come back and find we have another faith spouting troll to deal with.
Oh joy.
Be careful, he has a Thesaurus and he's not afraid to use it.Oh joy.
jet_noise said:
DickyC said:
stew-STR160 said:
I spend the weekend away from the internet, only to come back and find we have another faith spouting troll to deal with.
Oh joy.
Be careful, he has a Thesaurus and he's not afraid to use it.Oh joy.
Toltec said:
FredClogs said:
I'm not religious or a theist and have an engineering degree (it's like science but more useful) and I don't really swallow the whole Darwinian evolution natural selection theory. I think the punctuated equilibrian theory (long periods of homeostasis in species interspersed with short periods of very rapid change caused by changes in environment or random nutation) much more likely.
I had an argument about that with someone many years ago, the really interesting thing was that it turned out that we were both using Richard Dawkins' book as a reference. The relevance to this thread being that it is quite possible to follow the science around climate change without necessarily coming to the same conclusions. It is more than possible for two people to broadly agree that humans have affected the climate, but have different views as to the degree, ongoing predictions and best approach to dealing with it. All this denier stuff harms the discussion, all these attacks on the heretics by the true believers just forces a greater separation. Personally I think climate science has come a long way, but a too much of it still relies on spherical chickens in a vacuum to be taken as an accurate predictive model yet.
Edited by Toltec on Sunday 27th October 11:22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvpYIQI2K7g
Seems exactly to reflect my opinion on this, the models are nowhere near good enough to accurately come up with any conclusion worth using at present.
DickyC said:
When I was a child we had two hard winters and the next Ice Age was coming.
Yes I remember the 80's ice age warnings too.It seems that humans need a shadowy bogeyman to have a religious belief in, either old school Devil, or new school Man Made Climate Change (insert this weeks favoured branding here). There's a lot of vested interest ranging from selling newspapers, to taxing the proles, or just plain old fashioned power and control over the population.
FWIW the planet will still be here spinning after our sorry arses have gone, so doesn't need saving thanks. In the meantime to prolong our tenancy on this rock maybe it would good if we could all just be nice to each other eh?
drmotorsport said:
Yes I remember the 80's ice age warnings too.
It seems that humans need a shadowy bogeyman to have a religious belief in, either old school Devil, or new school Man Made Climate Change (insert this weeks favoured branding here). There's a lot of vested interest ranging from selling newspapers, to taxing the proles, or just plain old fashioned power and control over the population.
FWIW the planet will still be here spinning after our sorry arses have gone, so doesn't need saving thanks. In the meantime to prolong our tenancy on this rock maybe it would good if we could all just be nice to each other eh?
I'm always baffled by people who use 'vested interests' to explain concerns about AGW. Can you not see that there are clearly more people (and far more money) with vested interest in the other direction?It seems that humans need a shadowy bogeyman to have a religious belief in, either old school Devil, or new school Man Made Climate Change (insert this weeks favoured branding here). There's a lot of vested interest ranging from selling newspapers, to taxing the proles, or just plain old fashioned power and control over the population.
FWIW the planet will still be here spinning after our sorry arses have gone, so doesn't need saving thanks. In the meantime to prolong our tenancy on this rock maybe it would good if we could all just be nice to each other eh?
Ask yourselves this; are there any other scientific consensuses you do not agree with? If not, do you think it is a coincidence that the consensus you reject is one that paints something you're passionate about in a negative light and is leading restrictions of?
drmotorsport said:
Yes I remember the 80's ice age warnings too.
It seems that humans need a shadowy bogeyman to have a religious belief in, either old school Devil, or new school Man Made Climate Change (insert this weeks favoured branding here). There's a lot of vested interest ranging from selling newspapers, to taxing the proles, or just plain old fashioned power and control over the population.
FWIW the planet will still be here spinning after our sorry arses have gone, so doesn't need saving thanks. In the meantime to prolong our tenancy on this rock maybe it would good if we could all just be nice to each other eh?
The vast majority of people that accept and are concerned by AGW are not eco warriors worried about Mother Earth. Outside stupid fantasies about moving to Mars or some other god forsaken inhospitable rock, the only known place in the Universe that can support human life is Earth. We are not worried about the ability of Earth to support life in general. The vast majority of life is single cell and they will survive. We are worried about the ability to support human life as we know it now. I like living in a safe, relatively free society with lots of luxuries. Most societies across most of human history have not been so great. The vast majority of people alive today live in poverty and/or under repressive regimes. I’m not anxious to join them. It seems that humans need a shadowy bogeyman to have a religious belief in, either old school Devil, or new school Man Made Climate Change (insert this weeks favoured branding here). There's a lot of vested interest ranging from selling newspapers, to taxing the proles, or just plain old fashioned power and control over the population.
FWIW the planet will still be here spinning after our sorry arses have gone, so doesn't need saving thanks. In the meantime to prolong our tenancy on this rock maybe it would good if we could all just be nice to each other eh?
DickyC said:
drmotorsport said:
Yes I remember the 80's ice age warnings too.
The 60's in my case.
But the message is the same. We need something to worry about.
https://scienceline.org/2017/04/ice-age-never-happ...
Where was the equivalent of the IPCC reports on global cooling? Were there global summits on global cooling? International agreements? Did most (did any?) scientific organisations endorse it?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-clima...
This New Scientist article is quite old but depressingly if you go down the list of myths it seems that pretty much all the bulls
t claims that keep reappearing on this thread and others are on the list. Despite being debunked they don’t seem to be going away. Like an oversized turd in the toilet.
Esceptico said:
Pity it is a lie. The media grabbed hold of the idea of global cooling but there was never a majority of climate scientists that supported the idea. It just made great headlines in the US that was experiencing some cold weather.
https://scienceline.org/2017/04/ice-age-never-happ...
Where was the equivalent of the IPCC reports on global cooling? Were there global summits on global cooling? International agreements? Did most (did any?) scientific organisations endorse it?
There was no scientific evidence. It was a story in newspapers and on the television. A scare story. https://scienceline.org/2017/04/ice-age-never-happ...
Where was the equivalent of the IPCC reports on global cooling? Were there global summits on global cooling? International agreements? Did most (did any?) scientific organisations endorse it?
Sambucket said:
Opinions very rarely change based on evidence or argument. Most people who hold opinions on contentious issues such as AGW, form an opinion, then seek out the relevant evidence after.
Goes both ways of course.
If you have a desire to drive a high emission car, then your opinion will very strongly swing away from any opinion that conflicts with this primary desire.
There are obviously exceptions, but in general, vast majority of car fans will be anti AGW regardless of the evidence.
How strong the evidence is either way is of barely any consequence, which is fair enough. Unless you are a trained scientist or statistician, why should it?
Yes that's true of the debate about AGW but isn't science the antithesis of that? What is it if not a methodology for reducing the influence of bias and following the evidence to its conclusion? Goes both ways of course.
If you have a desire to drive a high emission car, then your opinion will very strongly swing away from any opinion that conflicts with this primary desire.
There are obviously exceptions, but in general, vast majority of car fans will be anti AGW regardless of the evidence.
How strong the evidence is either way is of barely any consequence, which is fair enough. Unless you are a trained scientist or statistician, why should it?
Whilst there is anti-scientific bias on clear display on both sides of the AGW debate (the Green Party support homeopathy* while banging on about climate science FFS) the science offers a clear consensus away from the politics and campaigning and pretending that's not the case because it goes against your bias is anti-science.
- This might not be true anymore, I can't be arsed to check
Edited by Dark85 on Monday 28th October 19:27
Edited by Dark85 on Monday 28th October 19:29
DickyC said:
Esceptico said:
Pity it is a lie. The media grabbed hold of the idea of global cooling but there was never a majority of climate scientists that supported the idea. It just made great headlines in the US that was experiencing some cold weather.
https://scienceline.org/2017/04/ice-age-never-happ...
Where was the equivalent of the IPCC reports on global cooling? Were there global summits on global cooling? International agreements? Did most (did any?) scientific organisations endorse it?
There was no scientific evidence. It was a story in newspapers and on the television. A scare story. https://scienceline.org/2017/04/ice-age-never-happ...
Where was the equivalent of the IPCC reports on global cooling? Were there global summits on global cooling? International agreements? Did most (did any?) scientific organisations endorse it?
DickyC said:
Esceptico said:
Pity it is a lie. The media grabbed hold of the idea of global cooling but there was never a majority of climate scientists that supported the idea. It just made great headlines in the US that was experiencing some cold weather.
https://scienceline.org/2017/04/ice-age-never-happ...
Where was the equivalent of the IPCC reports on global cooling? Were there global summits on global cooling? International agreements? Did most (did any?) scientific organisations endorse it?
There was no scientific evidence. It was a story in newspapers and on the television. A scare story. https://scienceline.org/2017/04/ice-age-never-happ...
Where was the equivalent of the IPCC reports on global cooling? Were there global summits on global cooling? International agreements? Did most (did any?) scientific organisations endorse it?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff