AGW denial is anti-science
Discussion
Esceptico said:
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.
Do you seriously think we have a "problem" in the next 10 years? 50? 100? 200? Has it ever been so hot recently (say the last million years) that humans could not survive? Why do you think (if you do) that whatever happens will threaten human life itself?TX.
Terminator X said:
Do you seriously think we have a "problem" in the next 10 years? 50? 100? 200? Has it ever been so hot recently (say the last million years) that humans could not survive? Why do you think (if you do) that whatever happens will threaten human life itself?
TX.
A few points. TX.
Accepting that AGW is happening does not mean you have to accept the predictions of what is going to happen in the future nor what we should do about it. The latter is definitely up for discussion.
I don’t agree with the eco warriors on most points. However, having looked at the evidence available I find it impossible to deny that AGW is most likely true.
I don’t think AGW presents a threat to humans surviving. I do think it represents a major threat to our standard of living. If you have visited the third world (as we used to call it) you realise how good our lives are in the west. I don’t think the peace and prosperity most people in Europe or the US have experienced in the past 50 years should be taken for granted.
I do fear that changes in the climate, together with population growth, will result in humanitarian disasters in countries closer to the equator and mass migration north towards cooler areas. I don’t think that bodes well for Europe. That is rather a selfish view I agree. I can’t help it. I am just human. I put my family and my close circle of friends first.
I used to think that climate change wouldn’t have much of an impact in my life time but I am worried that previous predictions have been too optimistic and that change is happening much faster than anticipated (more accurately one should say the changes are within the range of forecast outcomes but at the top of the range, rather than in the middle).
Accepting that AGW is happening doesn’t put me in a privileged position when trying to figure out what could be done. Personally I think there are probably technical solutions to AGW but none of them are remotely possible from a political perspective.
Esceptico said:
....
What is most frustrating about deniers .......
Yawn....What is most frustrating about deniers .......
The problem is more or less summed up in the quoted line from your post.
Labelling people whilst being totally entrenched in your own belief - on a matter of what should be science.
To accept what science is one must accept that theories are are a model of observation - which are up for scrutiny in order they can be improved or shot down for being wrong.
Your position on the matter is quite clear, you see MMGW as a 'fact' which can not be scrutinised under the process of accepted methods of science. Therefore you have a religion - something that becomes blasphemy if challenged.
Your choice of words in your post makes this quite clear. And at the same time very tiresome because as with all religions, they will refuse to accept any reality outside of their world belief.
V10leptoquark said:
Esceptico said:
....
What is most frustrating about deniers .......
Yawn....What is most frustrating about deniers .......
The problem is more or less summed up in the quoted line from your post.
Labelling people whilst being totally entrenched in your own belief - on a matter of what should be science.
To accept what science is one must accept that theories are are a model of observation - which are up for scrutiny in order they can be improved or shot down for being wrong.
Your position on the matter is quite clear, you see MMGW as a 'fact' which can not be scrutinised under the process of accepted methods of science. Therefore you have a religion - something that becomes blasphemy if challenged.
Your choice of words in your post makes this quite clear. And at the same time very tiresome because as with all religions, they will refuse to accept an alternative reality.
I don’t want AGW to be true. Quite the opposite. I would be very happy to see climate scientists proved wrong.
Esceptico said:
A few points.
Accepting that AGW is happening does not mean you have to accept the predictions of what is going to happen in the future nor what we should do about it. The latter is definitely up for discussion.
I don’t agree with the eco warriors on most points. However, having looked at the evidence available I find it impossible to deny that AGW is most likely true.
I don’t think AGW presents a threat to humans surviving. I do think it represents a major threat to our standard of living. If you have visited the third world (as we used to call it) you realise how good our lives are in the west. I don’t think the peace and prosperity most people in Europe or the US have experienced in the past 50 years should be taken for granted.
I do fear that changes in the climate, together with population growth, will result in humanitarian disasters in countries closer to the equator and mass migration north towards cooler areas. I don’t think that bodes well for Europe. That is rather a selfish view I agree. I can’t help it. I am just human. I put my family and my close circle of friends first.
I used to think that climate change wouldn’t have much of an impact in my life time but I am worried that previous predictions have been too optimistic and that change is happening much faster than anticipated (more accurately one should say the changes are within the range of forecast outcomes but at the top of the range, rather than in the middle).
Accepting that AGW is happening doesn’t put me in a privileged position when trying to figure out what could be done. Personally I think there are probably technical solutions to AGW but none of them are remotely possible from a political perspective.
The clues were there all along. We're arguing with someone's AI project.Accepting that AGW is happening does not mean you have to accept the predictions of what is going to happen in the future nor what we should do about it. The latter is definitely up for discussion.
I don’t agree with the eco warriors on most points. However, having looked at the evidence available I find it impossible to deny that AGW is most likely true.
I don’t think AGW presents a threat to humans surviving. I do think it represents a major threat to our standard of living. If you have visited the third world (as we used to call it) you realise how good our lives are in the west. I don’t think the peace and prosperity most people in Europe or the US have experienced in the past 50 years should be taken for granted.
I do fear that changes in the climate, together with population growth, will result in humanitarian disasters in countries closer to the equator and mass migration north towards cooler areas. I don’t think that bodes well for Europe. That is rather a selfish view I agree. I can’t help it. I am just human. I put my family and my close circle of friends first.
I used to think that climate change wouldn’t have much of an impact in my life time but I am worried that previous predictions have been too optimistic and that change is happening much faster than anticipated (more accurately one should say the changes are within the range of forecast outcomes but at the top of the range, rather than in the middle).
Accepting that AGW is happening doesn’t put me in a privileged position when trying to figure out what could be done. Personally I think there are probably technical solutions to AGW but none of them are remotely possible from a political perspective.
Esceptico said:
A few points.
Accepting that AGW is happening does not mean you have to accept the predictions of what is going to happen in the future nor what we should do about it. The latter is definitely up for discussion.
I don’t agree with the eco warriors on most points. However, having looked at the evidence available I find it impossible to deny that AGW is most likely true
I don’t think AGW presents a threat to humans surviving. I do think it represents a major threat to our standard of living. If you have visited the third world (as we used to call it) you realise how good our lives are in the west. I don’t think the peace and prosperity most people in Europe or the US have experienced in the past 50 years should be taken for granted.
I do fear that changes in the climate, together with population growth, will result in humanitarian disasters in countries closer to the equator and mass migration north towards cooler areas. I don’t think that bodes well for Europe. That is rather a selfish view I agree. I can’t help it. I am just human. I put my family and my close circle of friends first.
I used to think that climate change wouldn’t have much of an impact in my life time but I am worried that previous predictions have been too optimistic and that change is happening much faster than anticipated (more accurately one should say the changes are within the range of forecast outcomes but at the top of the range, rather than in the middle).
Accepting that AGW is happening doesn’t put me in a privileged position when trying to figure out what could be done. Personally I think there are probably technical solutions to AGW but none of them are remotely possible from a political perspective.
For someone who merely considers that AGW is most likely true you do go on a lot. Accepting that AGW is happening does not mean you have to accept the predictions of what is going to happen in the future nor what we should do about it. The latter is definitely up for discussion.
I don’t agree with the eco warriors on most points. However, having looked at the evidence available I find it impossible to deny that AGW is most likely true
I don’t think AGW presents a threat to humans surviving. I do think it represents a major threat to our standard of living. If you have visited the third world (as we used to call it) you realise how good our lives are in the west. I don’t think the peace and prosperity most people in Europe or the US have experienced in the past 50 years should be taken for granted.
I do fear that changes in the climate, together with population growth, will result in humanitarian disasters in countries closer to the equator and mass migration north towards cooler areas. I don’t think that bodes well for Europe. That is rather a selfish view I agree. I can’t help it. I am just human. I put my family and my close circle of friends first.
I used to think that climate change wouldn’t have much of an impact in my life time but I am worried that previous predictions have been too optimistic and that change is happening much faster than anticipated (more accurately one should say the changes are within the range of forecast outcomes but at the top of the range, rather than in the middle).
Accepting that AGW is happening doesn’t put me in a privileged position when trying to figure out what could be done. Personally I think there are probably technical solutions to AGW but none of them are remotely possible from a political perspective.
I shudder to think what you would be like if you knew it to be true.
Esceptico said:
I don’t want AGW to be true. Quite the opposite. I would be very happy to see climate scientists proved wrong.
What do you mean by AGW? Do you mean CAGW?Do humans have an influence on the temperature of the planet? Of course. Is it dwarfed by natural processes?
If you don’t want CAGW to be true can you point me to the scientific evidence that backs up that point of view?
Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 29th October 20:03
JuniorD said:
For someone who merely considers that AGW is most likely true you do go on a lot.
I shudder to think what you would be like if you knew it to be true.
The climate change science and politics threads - mainly populated by frothing at the mouth deniers - have been going on for years, using the same debunked arguments. Yet I post on here for about a week and I’m the one that is droning on? Suggest you lot look in the mirror.I shudder to think what you would be like if you knew it to be true.
Esceptico said:
JuniorD said:
For someone who merely considers that AGW is most likely true you do go on a lot.
I shudder to think what you would be like if you knew it to be true.
The climate change science and politics threads - mainly populated by frothing at the mouth deniers - have been going on for years, using the same debunked arguments. Yet I post on here for about a week and I’m the one that is droning on? Suggest you lot look in the mirror.I shudder to think what you would be like if you knew it to be true.
Personally I'm still stuck at how past and pressnt average global temperatures are determined
Esceptico, I admire your persistence but you're on a hiding to nothing with this lot. It's a peculiar mindset they have, where scientific evidence means nothing (and yet they are the open-minded ones), the whole world is being taken in by a leftist cabal of politicians and ecological scientists (why?), actually the world has largely limitless resources that we don't need to bother conserving, and pollution is something that happens to other people.
As you have observed, it is notable that the same names come up as being anti-AGW, pro-Brexit, pro-vigilante justice, and anti-welfare state. Almost like it's a political and ideological viewpoint they are pushing rather than facts and science.
As you have observed, it is notable that the same names come up as being anti-AGW, pro-Brexit, pro-vigilante justice, and anti-welfare state. Almost like it's a political and ideological viewpoint they are pushing rather than facts and science.
Esceptico said:
The climate change science and politics threads - mainly populated by frothing at the mouth deniers - have been going on for years, using the same debunked arguments. Yet I post on here for about a week and I’m the one that is droning on? Suggest you lot look in the mirror.
"you lot"Sorry, lads. He's on to us. Somehow he knows we sit around together devising strategies to demolish his arguments. Let's call it a night.
JuniorD said:
Sorry I'm not a collective. I speak for myself on the subject, as do you. A lot. Almost frothingly. With somewhat mixed up conviction.
Personally I'm still stuck at how past and pressnt average global temperatures are determined
Not to mention if they actually mean anything useful. I read a paper about determining how much additional heat/energy was being retained in the oceans which seems like a much better measure. Personally I'm still stuck at how past and pressnt average global temperatures are determined
deckster said:
Esceptico, I admire your persistence but you're on a hiding to nothing with this lot. It's a peculiar mindset they have, where scientific evidence means nothing (and yet they are the open-minded ones), the whole world is being taken in by a leftist cabal of politicians and ecological scientists (why?), actually the world has largely limitless resources that we don't need to bother conserving, and pollution is something that happens to other people.
As you have observed, it is notable that the same names come up as being anti-AGW, pro-Brexit, pro-vigilante justice, and anti-welfare state. Almost like it's a political and ideological viewpoint they are pushing rather than facts and science.
Irony levels reach new highs daily around here.As you have observed, it is notable that the same names come up as being anti-AGW, pro-Brexit, pro-vigilante justice, and anti-welfare state. Almost like it's a political and ideological viewpoint they are pushing rather than facts and science.
And ignorance, let's not forget about that one.
ETA- I think this topic should be moved to a different forum. Although I'm not sure PH has a religion sub forum.
Edited by stew-STR160 on Wednesday 30th October 07:44
deckster said:
Esceptico, I admire your persistence but you're on a hiding to nothing with this lot. It's a peculiar mindset they have, where scientific evidence means nothing (and yet they are the open-minded ones), the whole world is being taken in by a leftist cabal of politicians and ecological scientists (why?), actually the world has largely limitless resources that we don't need to bother conserving, and pollution is something that happens to other people.
As you have observed, it is notable that the same names come up as being anti-AGW, pro-Brexit, pro-vigilante justice, and anti-welfare state. Almost like it's a political and ideological viewpoint they are pushing rather than facts and science.
Thats quite patronising once again. Show a balanced view of taking the ‘evidence’ with a pinch of salt and people get pushed into certain idealogical ‘camps’.As you have observed, it is notable that the same names come up as being anti-AGW, pro-Brexit, pro-vigilante justice, and anti-welfare state. Almost like it's a political and ideological viewpoint they are pushing rather than facts and science.
The evidence you endorse has, historically, come from some dubious and money driven sources. Is it any surprise that people are sceptical?
I am wholly in favour of cleaning the planet up, frankly its a mess but I am not one to deal in absolutes. That’s for the zealots.
And what a surprise that ’Brexit’ rears it’s head...
Whilst humans are having an impact on the environment; do we know the level at which previous dominant species impacted the environment to understand correlations?
Obviously changes in the earths atmosphere have always been present and a feature in the timeline of the earths history, are we now noticing them because we lacked the technology in the past, have the changes always been happening?
Would the earth naturally be going through a period of temperature increase / decrease excluding human interference?
There has been huge changes in the earths atmosphere over time scales we cannot comprehend, what is to say that it isn’t simply the earths own development as a planet, I.e. Oxygen made up appx 5% of the atmosphere 1B years ago Vs 20% today.
Obviously changes in the earths atmosphere have always been present and a feature in the timeline of the earths history, are we now noticing them because we lacked the technology in the past, have the changes always been happening?
Would the earth naturally be going through a period of temperature increase / decrease excluding human interference?
There has been huge changes in the earths atmosphere over time scales we cannot comprehend, what is to say that it isn’t simply the earths own development as a planet, I.e. Oxygen made up appx 5% of the atmosphere 1B years ago Vs 20% today.
Mankind has had a seriously devastating effect on our planet's environment however to think that we can affect the temperature at every spot on the earth to a degree that is more significant than what mother nature and/or the sun are capable of is an illusory correlation as a result of our own deluded sense of importance.
JuniorD said:
Mankind has had a seriously devastating effect on our planet's environment however to think that we can affect the temperature at every spot on the earth to a degree that is more significant than what mother nature and/or the sun are capable of is an illusory correlation as a result of our own deluded sense of importance.
The next recycled creationist argument: the appeal to incredulity. In their case: how could something as complex as an eye evolve? For deniers: how could human activity have such an impact? A simple analogy to illustrate reality. Fill a bath with water. Pull the plug but keep the tap running. Adjust the tap until is matches the loss of water from the plug. Although lots of water is being added to the bath the level of the bath will not go up or down, because the system is in a dynamic equilibrium. Now open the tap very slightly. Water entering will now slightly exceed water exiting the system and the water level will slowly rise, even though the rate of flow has hardly changed (and it would continue to rise until the rate of flow out of the bath increased enough to reach a new equilibrium, at which point the bath level would stop rising but it would be at a higher level than before).
Changes made by human activity are not large compared to the total flow of energy to the earth from the sun nor the total flow of energy from the earth back into space but like the bath analogy, by increasing slightly the amount of energy retained the overall energy (and therefore temperature) will increase until a new equilibrium is attained.
Esceptico said:
JuniorD said:
Mankind has had a seriously devastating effect on our planet's environment however to think that we can affect the temperature at every spot on the earth to a degree that is more significant than what mother nature and/or the sun are capable of is an illusory correlation as a result of our own deluded sense of importance.
The next recycled creationist argument: the appeal to incredulity. In their case: how could something as complex as an eye evolve? For deniers: how could human activity have such an impact? A simple analogy to illustrate reality. Fill a bath with water. Pull the plug but keep the tap running. Adjust the tap until is matches the loss of water from the plug. Although lots of water is being added to the bath the level of the bath will not go up or down, because the system is in a dynamic equilibrium. Now open the tap very slightly. Water entering will now slightly exceed water exiting the system and the water level will slowly rise, even though the rate of flow has hardly changed (and it would continue to rise until the rate of flow out of the bath increased enough to reach a new equilibrium, at which point the bath level would stop rising but it would be at a higher level than before).
Changes made by human activity are not large compared to the total flow of energy to the earth from the sun nor the total flow of energy from the earth back into space but like the bath analogy, by increasing slightly the amount of energy retained the overall energy (and therefore temperature) will increase until a new equilibrium is attained.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff