Customize

Climate change - a retard’s perspective

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by The Internet, Jan 17, 2014.

  1. No Ruler Member


    Is that your only thought? Not, is she doing good research? What I'm taking from this is the actual science wouldn't matter to you, only who funds it. That's pretty weird.
    As usual, I think you don't understand my objections to the issue. They have never been about the science.
    Again with 'consensus' as if that has anything to do with my objections to the issues.

    You can read things. You can read the areas the scientists themselves say are confounds, and you can read people who don't agree with you and weigh the evidence as evidence, rather than filter it through your ideological filters.If someone is funded by Koch, that is in no way indicative of the quality of the research. I know that is hard (impossible) for you to understand.
    In that interview Curry termed this a wicked problem, meaning it has no easy or knowable solutions. It comes under the precautionary principle, namely, First, do no harm.
    If there are such people, who cares? They can hold any opinion they want. That's what we mean when we say “It's a free country.” People can be wrong and perverse, and not agree with what is as plain as the nose on your face.
    Again, so what? They don't hurt anyone. And don't tell me they will confuse things. You do not have a lock on the truth.
    Are you suggesting we ban people for lying on TV? Really. I want it. Then apply it to politicians. BAM, no more having to watch them lie on TV.

    Hey, we agree on something
  2. The Internet Member

    People are entitled to their opinions. But they are not entitled to their own facts.

    If all the deniers are coming from one social circle that receives funding from the Kochs, that means we want to see any results replicated by an independent party. So far, the couple of papers I saw from the deniers side were funded by the Koch think tanks.

    The strength of the scientific consensus, meaning evidential consensus because we’re not talking about opinions but peer reviewed published papers, is important.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. No Ruler Member

    So now you are the arbiter of facts? Wow, TI, I had no idea you were so senior in the hierarchy. I will show more deference from now on.
    There's that term again. If I believe that temperatures are rising but that every idea about what to do about it stupid, silly, dangerous, arrogant and or full of hubris, does that make me a denier?

    How many papers have you read by believers? How many by deniers?

    Wait, you said you didn't understand the science but now you're claiming you've read some Koch backed papers. I haz a confuse
    Except until is isn't. The consensus in science is about the least important part. The actual science is what matters. You look at the politics far too much.

    Climate change is to progressives what the war of terror is to government, a non falsifiable way to keep the money flowing.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. White Tara Global Moderator

    Yes, i'm afraid it does make you a denier, because Asheera says it does.
  5. The Internet Member

    I have shared three articles in this thread showing that the scientific literature is overwhelmingly on the side of global warming, with human CO2 production a significant factor. So lucky for you, you need not rely upon my personal opinion.

    I’m afraid you don’t understand what people mean by scientific consensus. If you look at the three papers I mentioned, you will see that the consensus involved summing up the evidence published in the peer reviewed literature.

    A skeptic is someone who asks for evidence while a denier pretends there is no evidence. With respect to the question, “is there a scientific consensus”? I have given three significant pieces of evidence all confirming the same thing. So if you deny that evidence, you are a denier of the fact that a consensus exists.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. No Ruler Member

    I'd like you for that but I can't. How do I get that ability?
  7. The Internet Member

    Once your posting history hits a certain point, there’s an automated thing that will grant you “like” abilities.

    I’m not yet sure if you are a denier of the fact that a scientific consensus exists, or if you just don’t get the concept. If you think weighing all the published evidence doesn’t matter, pretty sure you don’t get the concept.

    Systematic reviews actually do more than the three studies I referenced, which largely accepted all abstracts as valid. In a systematic review, each paper is weighed in a more nuanced way. So a good review may take several years to complete.
  8. White Tara Global Moderator

    PROTIP: Be careful in this thread not to clarify your position as a skeptic, apparently that makes you more of a denier than any other lesser denier. just go with the flow ;)
  9. The Internet Member

    Cat fite!

    Don’t worry White Tara, I know you are saying you are a skeptic, meaning you are open to changing your views if someone presents evidence. Asheera was mad I guess, because people get mad. Hope u guys work this out.

    Anyway, if you want me to use a different word to describe people who deny that evidence exists when it actually does exist, then tell me what that word is you like better.
  10. No Ruler Member

    Uh, OK. Again, consensus has no bearing on truth. I accept that the consensus in the field is what you say it is.
    What you may not get is that the scientific consensus has no bearing at all on the science. None, So to use that as a reason for accepting the conclusions is to show profound ignorance at what the scientific methods is and what part skepticism plays. You are not the arbiter of facts, nor are the scientists.
    IN SCIENCE, THE CONSENSUS MUST ALWAYS BE CHALLENGED.
    I'll turn the volume down, but that thought just exploded in my brain.
    Lol, that is more of your circular reasoning. If I deny it exists, I'm a denier. Totally ignoring the connotations of the term.
    as I said, it is not the facts, it is what they mean. So much of this is based on statistics, and one of the most basic facts about stats is they don't create a theory on their own, they have to be interpreted by us faulty humans.

    What I want to know, TI, is what, exactly, you think should be done about the issue? Do we wait and see? Are we proactive? If so, what, precisely do we do?
  11. No Ruler Member

    My position is well known. What ever it is, I'm agin it :p
    and get offa my lawn. punk
    • Like Like x 1
  12. The Internet Member


    I don’t know what we should do and I don’t know how to judge the details of the scientific work. But I do see clearly that the evidence as published in the peer reviewed literature supports the hypothesis that the planet is warming and CO2 is a factor.

    Maybe try replacing “consensus,” which often represents survey results as used by people not talking about a scientific consensus or a consensus of the evidence, with “evidence.” Maybe that will help.
  13. White Tara Global Moderator

    Nah no catfite :) Denier is a word that has undeniable affiliation with the much bandied phrase 'Holocaust denier'. I am afraid the horse is already bolted as far as a new term for it.

    People recoil from open conversation when labelled a 'Holocaust denier' because it would be a shameful thing to be. The use of the word climate change denier sadly here to stay, does indeed have its place, but strictly for those that deny the existence of consensus, or that the globe is indeed in a period of warming. Carry on :)

    Edit: I. have seen enough eveidence to confirm to me that the world is warming, now courtesy of this thread I have seen enough evidence that there is consensus amongst the scientific community and that its likely produced by mankinds actions. Now i would love to see some evidence that the proposed carbon reduction schemes and carbon trading is going to slow, stop or even effect what is occuring.
  14. The Internet Member

    If someone says, show me the evidence for the Holocaust, they are a skeptic. But if that person is shown the evidence and they raise spurious objections, or they promote the idea that there was no Holocaust in spite of the evidence to the contrary, that makes them a denier.

    There has to be a willful disregard for evidence that is pretty blatant to be a labeled a denier. I usually also save the term for those who mislead the public about the nature of the evidence. For example, in that last article I shared where the author compared apples to oranges deceptively --that makes him a denier. Deception is not cool.

    Eh, I can see that it is a fighting word because nobody wants to be called a liar. I suppose the problem comes in when people are misinformed and then people call them liars. That’s not fair.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. No Ruler Member

    I can't agree that it has any validity. It has no place in a debate about science. None. It is a purely political term.

    If people don't accept the facts in evidence, there's no need to label them. If they are indeed wrong, time will tell. And if they had it right, by not labeling them there won't be reason later to feel really bad for being a dick.

    Take the high road, the view's better
    • Like Like x 1
  16. White Tara Global Moderator

    in a perfect world my friend. :)
  17. The Internet Member

    But you can’t have a talk about a scientific issue with someone who pretends facts don’t matter, that what is true for you is true for you.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. No Ruler Member

    As I understand it, even if we were to stop all man made CO2 emissions, it'd be 50 or 100 years to show any effect.

    I aslo see the earth as being self regulating, not in any conscience Gaia manner, but in the manner that a system is in a dynamic equilibrium, and we do not know the extant of that variation.

    There also seem to be certain assumptions, the big one being that warmer weather is unrelievedly bad.

    But I've never heard of anyone (except skiers, perhaps) retiring to colder climes.

    Call me a skeptic (!?!), hell, call me a denier (it shows more about you than me) but I don't see it as something I have to worry about too much. The whole things reminds me of ZPG in my youth.
  19. White Tara Global Moderator

    If we are ever to get round to discussing the important matter of the veracity of fixes for warming, we best move on from debating the term. No matter how much I loathe the term, it is an accepted and permanent part of the dialogue around this topic.
  20. No Ruler Member

    I try
    Then don't talk with them about science. But don't demean and demonize them for being who they are. It isn't important in the grand scheme of things.
    • Like Like x 1
  21. No Ruler Member

    yep, more's the pity.
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Kaile Member

    But to be practical we must call that small but vocal minority something besides "those people who don't accept the facts in evidence."

    I vote for the elegant term "refuseniks" since "deniers" and "skeptics" carry a bad connotation. :p
    • Like Like x 1
  23. The Internet Member

    So do you agree that the published scientific evidence indicates that

    1. the atmosphere and oceans are warming
    2. human CO2 production is a significant factor?
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Anonylemmi Member

    I agree with #1
    I agree with #2 but with a caveat or two. Human CO2 production is likely the a significant factor.
    I cannot help but throw in the weasel-word "likely". But I also see us as more than "a" significant factor.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. No Ruler Member

    1) I know even less about the oceans than about the atmosphere, but for the sake of the argument, I will agree the data show the ocean temps are rising.

    2) yep, no problem with that. Not sure if 'significant' has a specific meaning but what I've read shows CO2 is at least 50% human caused and probably higher, maybe much higher.
    • Like Like x 2
  26. White Tara Global Moderator

    I liked above so i'm in :)
  27. The Internet Member

    I’m skimming the IPCC report right now. It has many parts but the bit I’m reading is missing all the pretty graphs and such.

    I did learn that Saudi Arabia and every other country like that gets to veto any sentence they don’t like, so every sentence has to be backed by evidence no oil producer could brush off.

  28. No Ruler Member

    • Like Like x 1
  29. Schwabe Member

    No, you are totally correct. GW / climate change is not an easily repeatable experiment where the uncertainty about a "fact" becomes very low with time.
    The question is always what risk do we tolerate. I tend to minimize the risk of damages by GW/CC by trying not to burn stuff lying in the ground. Why should I, when there are good alternatives? Why should I, when it smells all like an industry is there with a vital interest in burning stuff because they are digging for and seeling it?
    Same for nuclear power. As long as there is no guaranteed control over the waste for >> 50k years (chances a government is stable for such a long time is zero), I tend to protest against it.
  30. The Internet Member

    The rising sea levels, more heat waves, more forceful storms --humans will adapt. The bits that worry me the most are

    - acidifying the oceans and creating dead zones
    - unlocking the methane in the permafrost leading to runaway warming and an atmosphere incompatible with life.

    Yeah, that is basically it for me, the retard. I don’t see either happening in my lifetime. But I want the humans to still be here hundreds of years more.

    I’m not one of those people expecting Jesus in the near future, nor a better second life on Target 2.
  31. The Internet Member

    That copypasta above was from an intro part. Other parts:

    Ch Title PDF
    Technical Summary
    6.4MB
    1 Introduction
    2.8MB
    2 Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
    10.9MB
    3 Observations: Ocean
    18.9MB
    4 Observations: Cryosphere
    5.5MB
    5 Information from Paleoclimate Archives
    5.0MB
    6 Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
    9.4MB
    7 Clouds and Aerosols
    3.7MB
    8 Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
    3.0MB
    9 Evaluation of Climate Models
    7.2MB
    10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
    4.6MB
    11 Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
    5.7MB
    12 Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
    26.8MB
    13 Sea Level Change
    6.4MB
    14 Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
    8.1MB
    Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections
    38.3MB
    Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables
    0.9MB
    Annex III: Glossary
    0.6MB

    Complete Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment
    166MB


    Mostly above my head and tl;dr.
  32. No Ruler Member

    I can get behind that. Though if Hubbard comes back from Target 2 with a space ship, all bets are off.

    For me, it is the ability to innovate that will solve current problems. Innovations mean getting more from less, which is the essence of conservation.

    44 years ago I was advocating for ZPG. A few years later it was off my map, and now, after a lifetime, I see the problem was a Chicken Little problem. I don't know that the climate is that easy, but I honestly don't see it getting to the point you suggest. That is not to say it won't happen, but I see more 'give' in the system. And I don't see anything being done by governments that can help the problem.

    eg, to solve population problems China adopted a one child rule and devastated a generation. Yet, when they liberalized their markets in 1978, their economy took off. And time has shown that people constrain themselves in their breeding once they get to a certain income level. ie, no action needed, just time and freedom to innovate. China has a looooong way to go, but liberalizing their economy was a first step.

    This is a Wicked Problem, and any grand attempt to fix it is likely to cause more harm than good. Incremental innovation is a far more sustainable and proven method of dealing with problems.
  33. No Ruler Member

    Yep, I read through that last night. It was a spaceship going over my head, but the graphs were nice, I like pictures :D
  34. The Internet Member

    This may be the short version dumbed down a bit, cuz it has the word, “policymakers” in its title: Summary For Policymakers PDF - 33 pages - 9.2MB

    Oh hey I found some stuff on CO2 in the oceans:

    1.3.4.2 Ocean Acidification
    The observed decrease in ocean pH resulting from increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is another indicator of global change. As discussed in AR4, the ocean’s uptake of carbon dioxide is having a significant impact on the chemistry of sea water. The average pH of ocean surface waters has fallen by about 0.1 units, from about 8.2 to 8.1 (total scale) since 1765 (Section 3.8). Long time series from several ocean sites show ongoing declines in pH, consistent with results from repeated pH measurements on ship transects spanning much of the globe (Section 3.8; Section 6.4; Byrne et al., 2010; Midorikawa et al., 2010). Ocean time- series in the North Atlantic and North Pacific record a decrease in pH ranging between –0.0015 and –0.0024 per year (Section 3.8). Due to the increased storage of carbon by the ocean, ocean acidification will increase in the future (Chapter 6). In addition to other impacts of global climate change, ocean acidification poses potentially serious threats to the health of the world’s oceans ecosystems (see AR5 WGII assessment).

    The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4). {2.2, 3.8, 5.2, 6.2, 6.3}

    And permafrost:
    • There is high confidence that permafrost temperatures have increased in most regions since the early 1980s. Observed warming was up to 3°C in parts of Northern Alaska (early 1980s to mid-2000s) and up to 2°C in parts of the Russian European North (1971 to 2010). In the latter region, a considerable reduction in permafrost thickness and areal extent has been observed over the period 1975 to 2005 (medium confidence). {4.7}
    • Multiple lines of evidence support very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century.
    Some general points:
    • The atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) have all increased since 1750 due to human activity. In 2011 the concentrations of these greenhouse gases were 391 ppm11, 1803 ppb, and 324 ppb, and exceeded the pre-industrial levels by about 40%, 150%, and 20%, respectively. {2.2, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2}
    • Concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O now substantially exceed the highest concentrations recorded in ice cores during the past 800,000 years. The mean rates of increase in atmospheric concentrations over the past century are, with very high confidence, unprecedented in the last 22,000 years. {5.2, 6.1, 6.2}
    *************
    800,000 years ain’t no natural cycle. Even 22,000 years is no natural cycle involving the biosphere.
  35. The Internet Member

    But what you have is tremendous intervention on the part of companies like Koch Industries. We’re going to get fracking and shale mining whether that is wise or not. They might as well be our dictators because they’ve made Canada and the US their little bitches already.

    The public are misinformed about global warming, led to believe there is no scientific evidence solidly for or against the idea, thanks to the Kochs' well funded disinformation think tanks. Scientists are not allowed to speak openly with the public, thanks to the Kochs pressuring the Harper government to silence them.

    Yeah they run the place. And you seem to think that’s fine because they’re wise corporate leaders and not “the government."
  36. No Ruler Member

    I don't understand your hatred of them. Their influence is minor compared to what the government does.
    I don't especially like them, but I don't care if they use their money to try to affect policy. See below for details.
    This is just your opinion. You really don't know categorically that the public is misinformed. People are remarkably able to see past the BS, no matter where it comes from.

    Have you read Atlas Shrugged? There's a minor character who develops shale oil and causes a large drop in prices. Not a very Koch like character but I like that Rand recognized the importance of shale oil 55 years ago.

    You seem to have the idea that Big Business is unrelievedly bad for us, and yet fracking is causing a huge resurgence in production, meaning a drop in prices for us. That makes it sound good for that reason. As for how dangerous things are, pretty much everything humans do is dangerous in some way.
    Dang, my tin foil hat isn't thick enough, you're reading my mind

    I think the reason the Koch Brothers, and any other person with the influence, do what they do because the government is the glittering prize that can make competition go away. As I've said many times, businessmen are not free market oriented. It is hard to compete, it is easy to bribe government. And by bribe, I mean handing some candidate $100K or $1. I think it is a palpable bribe and is absurd that is it the norm. And don't get me started on the revolving door of congress to regulators to private equity. It's sick, and happens exactly because of the government and the allure of capturing a part of that cornucopia of unregulated baksheesh.

    So, my objection to the Koch bros is that they are targeting the government because the government can give them what they want, bypassing the market and competition.

    YOu have wondered several times about the corruption in science and government. I'd like to point out that it is intentional. or rather, built into the system, awaiting a sociopath to take full advantage of the opportunities.

    If government has the money and the power, then the very worst element of society will be attracted to it. That pesky human nature. Not working is more fun than working. If I can get you to do my job by convincing you it's the right thing to do, I win.

    We can be amazingly nice, and really evil. It depends on how the incentives are set up. Put a central prize of Power, Money and Influence, then those who care about such things will be attracted as a moth to a flame. If you don't want Power, Money (note the Capital-I mean avarice, not productive capacity) or Influence, then government is of no use, and can only prevent a person from following their bliss through mindless rules taht are not applicable.

    Scientists are no different in terms of wanting things, and prestige for publishing, and getting grants is a good thing for them. So if they see that all the government money is going to people who agree with the consensus, then they will tend that way. Not all, of course, but enough to skew the research.

    You can argue that science will redirect them to reality, but that glittering prize is alluring, and we all gotta eat, and he just finished a PhD that cost $100K in debts, so he's gotta have a job.
  37. The Internet Member


    I hate anyone who repeatedly misleads the American public. The public have only an illusion of freedom when they don’t know what the fuck is going on.

    Getting rid of government regulation is what the Kochs are all about. You think they are going to give you a bridge to total anarchy freedom with their libertarian propaganda? Why would people who lie like carpets do that?
  38. No Ruler Member

    Then you should be furious with Obama. Are you?

    Wow. Do you include yourself in that 'illusion of freedom?'
    The Kochs are about capturing government, not getting rid of it
    I don't want anything from them, so I don't expect to be given a bridge or anything else from them.

    Again, if you hate liars so much you should livid at Obama. In fact, every politician in Congress would qualify. So why direct your anger at only a few liars, why not direct it at hundreds of known liars who take your money and blow it all manner of pork?
  39. The Internet Member

    That is a shitty tu quoque, dude. Why do you keep trying to sucker me into some damn Obama chat? Why do i have to be your fantasy of an ebil librul? Fuck off.

    If you can’t stick to the topic and you have to do the “no u!” like that then just fuck off.
  40. No Ruler Member

    Well OK.
    Is there some reason you seem to not care about some major players who lie? It seems sort of partisan. All your hatred is directed at 'right wing' types, while ignoring some really nasty behavior of the left.

    Or why not comment on the inherent moral hazards created by the government in furtherance of Koch objectives? I just tried to talk about an important mechanism, but yet again, instead of engaging the topic you tell me to fuck off.

    Are you aware that this is your normal behavior? Once I don't come around to your way of thinking, you call me names. It's sort of fun to tro...no, I won't go there.

    Patterns.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins