Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[jerry33]

AThe author’s boldly note in the abstract of the study that the “news media and some pro-environmental have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.”

Just as if the science denying media doesn't have a tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate their claims. Sheesh. The point is that we haven't had "news media" since the 1950s when news was a public service. Today it's more properly called "Entertainment based loosely on current events". And because there are only six companies that control the entire media...

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

I am afraid, I simply can not engage with you if you are going to use pejoratives like "Denier". I am happy if you come up with something not quite so loaded. But we both know that "denier" is used to for a specific reason, which truly is beneath a scientist. There is no such thing, in science as a "denier", there is a fellow scientist looking for data. [My underline.]

This is the haystack where you are looking for your needle:

But there’s of course a problem! In this case you’re not going to find your needle... Because there isn’t one! Of the 24 papers rejecting AGW, NONE offered an alternative explanation for the global warming that is occurring!

Source: Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog

And thanks to nwdiver who introduced this pie chart in post #1367 above!

 

[RichardC]

I am afraid, I simply can not engage with you if you are going to use pejoratives like "Denier". I am happy if you come up with something not quite so loaded. But we both know that "denier" is used to for a specific reason, which truly is beneath a scientist. There is no such thing, in science as a "denier", there is a fellow scientist looking for data.

When applied to those who willfully advance, often for commercial gain, disinformation about manmade climate change with a view to blocking appropriate legislative action, in my view, the term "denier" is appropriate. In fact the US Secretary of State has recently referred to climate change as "another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction" which serves to highlight the extreme seriousness of the harm we are facing and the implications of those who seek to confuse the public as the existence or the seriousness of the problem. The rapidly changing climate is causing the first manmade extinction event, and is causing flooding, drought and other extreme climate events.

The alternative term of "sceptic" is appropriate when applied to those who are diligently inquiring into the facts and the science of climate change, and engaging with the science on its merits, characteristics which are universally absent among deniers. Among the broader climate science community (which is professionally sceptical) there are virtually no deniers, and among the deniers there are virtually no qualified, recognized sceptical scientists, thus scepticism and denial are, as a general rule, mutually exclusive categories.

 

[tigerade]

I am afraid, I simply can not engage with you if you are going to use pejoratives like "Denier". I am happy if you come up with something not quite so loaded. But we both know that "denier" is used to for a specific reason, which truly is beneath a scientist. There is no such thing, in science as a "denier", there is a fellow scientist looking for data.

You were correct when you admitted that you do not know much about the subject of climate change. The problem arises when you make that argument that just because you don't know anything about climate science, that no one else on planet knows either. I see this all the time, like when Creationists think their arguments hold equal weight in the face of modern biology. No, no, no, just NO. Just because you are making random guesses, emotional arguments, gut feelings, and "I think this sounds like a great argument! Time to embarrass myself in public!" about climate change does NOT mean that everyone else is too. This the psychological phenomenon called projection.

Here is what you need to do to actually make a scientific discussion worthwhile:
1. Actually KNOW the scientific evidence that you are disputing. If you don't even know what you are arguing against, how can you possibly argue against it?
2. Present contrary evidence with proper citations on how the research was conducted, the credibility of the organization making the claim, and the robustness of the theory in the face of any contrary evidence.

Because that's all there is to it, you simply won't be able to convince a single person here without evidence. I really can't stress this enough, without evidence... all those arguments you might possibly think you have that you think are really super clever and interesting, just aren't.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Because that's all there is to it, you simply won't be able to convince a single person here without evidence. I really can't stress this enough, without evidence... all those arguments you might possibly think you have that you think are really super clever and interesting, just aren't.

+ 1

 

[Norbert]

I have no answer for you, I think, that answer will show itself given enough time and distance.

I don't know when you started looking into the matter, but the thing is:

There already has been enough time and distance, and the answer has already shown itself.

There are a few articles that try to create the illusion that there is equal data on both sides, or even that the "real" data would be on the other side. But that really is not the case.

There is in fact enough data, some just don't see the forest because of all the trees, or purposefully look the other way. Or not at all.

The tragic is that currently there is a period of time (as there have been before, several times), where the fluctuations in weather (and sunspot activity, for example) are hiding the long-term rise of global temperature. However that long-term rise will become visible again, and these fluctuations do not disprove the science behind it. Nor the logic that the human influence is very strong.

 

[artsci]

Having read as much of the science I can get my hands on, I'm persuaded that we humans have set the planet on an irreversible path to a sixth mass extinction than will rival the Permian–Triassic extinction event, which wiped out 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of all terrestrial vertebrate species. The question is no longer if, but when. I betting less than 100 years.

The release of methane hydrates in the Arctic -- already rising at an alarming rate -- the acidification of the oceans and the consequent production of methane-prodcucing microbes is what will do us in. And we will deserve everything we get. Some other life forms will emerge on the other side, but it won't be us.

I'm not a pessimist, just a realist. But it's a reality that understandably puts many of us in denial. It's just too terrifying to acknowledge.

 

[nwdiver]

Having read as much of the science I can get my hands on, I'm persuaded that we humans have set the planet on an irreversible path to a sixth mass extinction than will rival the Permian–Triassic extinction event, which wiped out 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of all terrestrial vertebrate species. The question is no longer if, but when. I betting less than 100 years.

The release of methane hydrates in the Arctic -- already rising at an alarming rate -- the acidification of the oceans and the consequent production of methane-prodcucing microbes is what will do us in. And we will deserve everything we get. Some other life forms will emerge on the other side, but it won't be us.

I'm not a pessimist, just a realist. But it's a reality that understandably puts many of us in denial. It's just too terrifying to acknowledge.

The situation is certainly bleak... even if we take CO2 emissions to zero tomorrow we're still locked into centuries of warming and the planet is almost certainly going to lose a significant percentage of biodiversity. This will undoubtedly go down as the sixth mass extinction. First time a multi-cellular organism is to blame for a mass extinction... kinda makes you proud don't it?

However, things can get much worse and after the Titanic has struck an iceberg and is sinking is not the time to keep parroting denial and refusing to believe the ship will sink.

 

[RichardC]

Having read as much of the science I can get my hands on, I'm persuaded that we humans have set the planet on an irreversible path to a sixth mass extinction than will rival the Permian–Triassic extinction event, which wiped out 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of all terrestrial vertebrate species. The question is no longer if, but when. I betting less than 100 years.

The release of methane hydrates in the Arctic -- already rising at an alarming rate -- the acidification of the oceans and the consequent production of methane-prodcucing microbes is what will do us in. And we will deserve everything we get. Some other life forms will emerge on the other side, but it won't be us.

I'm not a pessimist, just a realist. But it's a reality that understandably puts many of us in denial. It's just too terrifying to acknowledge.

I don't disagree. Unfortunately. But I am deeply saddened, for our children and grandchildren. However, I remain somewhat optimistic that we may be at a tipping point with respect to renewable energy and may, through a concerted adoption of green technologies, and perhaps some geo-engineering, be able to pull civilization out of the fire.

All of these problems and harm are so completely unnecessary. If we had implemented intelligent public policy in the 1980's when this problem, and the policy solutions were becoming clear, we would today be living in a post carbon world. This issue would be in the past and we would all be living, as a matter of course, with the technologies such as cheap solar, electric cars and heat pumps (which are only now becoming widely available), such that fossil fuel use would, by this time, be dwindling to absolute insignificance. That said, we must continue to push for good policy (as advocated by James Hansen and the Citizens Climate Lobby) to be implemented as soon as possible.

 

[nwdiver]

The time for half-measures and talk is over... WE MUST ACT.

 

[wmarcy]

This is the problem when talking with religious zealots, they are blinded by dogma. One can not convince a zealot of the err of their ways, one must simply move on.

 

[nwdiver]

This is the problem when talking with religious zealots, they are blinded by dogma. One can not convince a zealot of the err of their ways, one must simply move on.

Calling science a religion is like calling baldness a hair color...

 

[JRP3]

wmarcy, it's quite obvious you have no data to support your position, so you simply try to denigrate those who disagree with you. It's probably time for you to take your own advice and move on, and maybe contemplate your own zealotry that has no supporting reality.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

This is the problem when talking with religious zealots, they are blinded by dogma. One can not convince a zealot of the err of their ways, one must simply move on.

Umm... instead of hurling back name tags (I know you may be still smarting from being termed a "denier"), can you please respond point-by-point to the excellent points raised above? You can put yourself above our level and approach it in a 'scientific' way?!

 

[Raffy.Roma]

wmarcy, it's quite obvious you have no data to support your position, so you simply try to denigrate those who disagree with you. It's probably time for you to take your own advice and move on, and maybe contemplate your own zealotry that has no supporting reality.

Agree 100%

- - - Updated - - -

Umm... instead of hurling back name tags (I know you may be still smarting from being termed a "denier"), can you please respond point-by-point to the excellent points raised above? You can put yourself above our level and approach it in a 'scientific' way?!

Agree 100%

- - - Updated - - -

[to moderator: request of moderation for posts containing thesis not supported by any scientific data and arguments]

 

[tigerade]

This is the problem when talking with religious zealots, they are blinded by dogma. One can not convince a zealot of the err of their ways, one must simply move on.

I'm really appreciative of your posting here because your underscore a point that I've been trying to make very well. If you were alone, I wouldn't give much your opinions much thought. Unfortunately, there are millions of people out there who think, or don't think just like you, I call it the cult of ignorance. Your side has achieved the critical mass necessary to where this willful ignorance could literally bring down human civilization. Which is a really bitter irony of human existence, that after billions of years of the evolution of complex life, our planet finally had a species that was capable of inventing the scientific method, the best idea humans ever had. And our ironic downfall maybe that we gave too much power and credence to people who had no intention of using it. Pretty sad really, but kind of funny if you look at it that way.

 

[wcalvin]

Well said.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

Well said, tigerade. When in a less optimistic mood, I tend to ascribe this behavior to the logical progression of "evolution" in the same way we are "evolving" to be able to eventually clone ourselves. We'll wipe ourselves out and Planet Earth will move on and hopefully, come up with a better version of us.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

.../ One can not convince a zealot of the err of their ways, one must simply move on.

Wrong. A zealot is simply someone who has been brainwashed, and is being kept in place by others around them. Given enough time and resources converting a zealot to a critically thinking human being is a piece of cake provided that the zealot in question has a normally functioning brain. And most zealots have a normally functioning brain.

You know you are dead wrong. You just can’t admit it. That is normal human behavior. It’s often difficult for grown up humans to admit that they are dead wrong. Especially with regards to something with such vast consequences as Man Made Global Warming.

 

[RichardC]

I'm really appreciative of your posting here because your underscore a point that I've been trying to make very well. If you were alone, I wouldn't give much your opinions much thought. Unfortunately, there are millions of people out there who think, or don't think just like you, I call it the cult of ignorance. Your side has achieved the critical mass necessary to where this willful ignorance could literally bring down human civilization. Which is a really bitter irony of human existence, that after billions of years of the evolution of complex life, our planet finally had a species that was capable of inventing the scientific method, the best idea humans ever had. And our ironic downfall maybe that we gave too much power and credence to people who had no intention of using it. Pretty sad really, but kind of funny if you look at it that way.

Well put Tiger.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the problem when talking with religious zealots, they are blinded by dogma. One can not convince a zealot of the err of their ways, one must simply move on.

wmarcy, I agree with this sentiment, recognize that some of my earlier posts had become more strident than intended (for which I apologize) and have toned them down. We need to figure out how to move forward together if we are to solve this problem.

Can you tell us what information or evidence would serve to satisfy your scepticism? There are a large number of very knowledgeable people on this thread and I would hope that we could, collectively, address your doubts and questions.