Customize

Climate change - a retard’s perspective

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

  1. The Internet Member

    Please go educate yourself about tu quoque. It is cheating and you do it all the time, making you a cheater.
  2. The Internet Member

    Except the US and Canadian governments are and have been solidly on the side of Saudi Arabia and Koch Industries. Scientists are muzzled and threatened and the only way they are able to let us know as much as they do now is due to the fact that the evidence backing their words is fucking overwhelming.
  3. No Ruler Member

    That is your democratically elected government you're complaining about. I'll cover my ears.

    Who is muzzling the scientists?
  4. The Internet Member

    I’m not saying the government is great. I’m saying the military industrial complex, which includes Koch Industries, has matured. We are in danger of losing our democracy if we can’t recover financial transparency and accountability to the people. Sadly, the libertarians seem willing to hand our government to Koch and related corporate machines, thinking this will result in greater personal liberty. This is obviously not true, as the Kochs are major funders of well orchestrated disinformation campaigns.
  5. No Ruler Member

    The military industrial complex is another word for fascism. As I've said many times, this is the world as designed by government

    So you counter lies with more lies of your own,

    Damn, that's chutzpah
    The government engages in far more disinformation campaigns than the Kochs can ever do, but I suppose that's another tuque.

    I have not ever noticed the Koch bros until the Citizen ruling. if, as you claim, they have been lying to me then it went right over my head. However, the lies of my government have directly adversely affected my life.

    So, you want me to worry about people who have never directly affected me, while ignoring the lies my government uses to control me.

    The ONLY place I ever hear about the Kochs is from you. So if you quit talking about them, about my exposure to them would vanish. That would be a good thing.
  6. The Internet Member

  7. Asheera Member

    Methane has over 30 times the heat trapping capacity of carbon dioxide, but has a much shorter atmospheric lifespan and is present in concentrations an order of magnitude lower than carbon dioxide. Iirc it accounts for a radiative forcing that is a little smaller than a third of what CO2 contributes, but I'd need to double check that.
    It strongly depends on the context and the particular aspect being examined. For example, Milankovitch cycles (where the distance of the sun varies from the earth) have been shown to coincide with massive swings in the paleoclimatic record. In other cases sun activity varied little when drastic swings occurred. The point I'm trying to make is that your comment may be true for certain circumstances in terms of scientific consensus, but cannot be said to hold generally - the particular context in which the comment is made matters a great deal.
    Generally true, but there is a lot more to the story than that. The effect of volcanic emissions on atmospheric chemistry is a bit of a hodge-podge, with contributions that both increase radiative forcing (eg: greenhouse gases) and reduce it (eg: formation of sulphate aerosols). It is possible, depending on the particular chemical composition of an eruption, for one volcano to have a net increase while another has a net decrease.

    Overall the calculated net effect is one of reduction, but iit is far from simple given the wider impact the resulting atmospheric changes have on other radiative forcings - hence why your suggestion of the USfags drilling a hole, while likely in jest, isn't really sound given the knock-on effects on other sources of warming.

    The fundamental point about the ice keeping the oceans in check from the perspective of energy transfer is true, but way less than you imply here. Ice is, afaicr, less than 3% of the total volume of water, with the oceans over 97%. Factor in ice expansion and, in terms of energy transfer, the ice isn't much of a restriction in the grand scheme of things. You also have oddities involving localised currents and climatic systems where ice never gets in contact with temperature increases, but that's a whole other discussion.

    There is another way reduced ice will accelerate warming, but for very different reasons. Ice sheets act largely as reflectors of heat, and as the surface area reduces the area capable of heat absorption increases. This sort of feedback loop has been an important driver in climatic changes in the paleoclimatic record.

    Small note, the 400ppm isn't a problem in and of itself. It is more that if you increase the radiative forcing (which more CO2 will do) then you will get more energy in the climate system and correspondingly more warming. The particular metric used is rather arbitrary, but the important part is the actual impact that will result.
    Then why have your contributions to this thread avoided fostering this worth goal, and have instead stank of shallow evidence-free talking points? Your own postings ITT conflict with this noble goal.
    This post is pure evidence-free denialist sophistry. There is no attempt to foster debate, no attempt to seek information, no attempt to ask pertinent questions, no attempt to seek clarification, no attempt to seek out the facts - just a content-free post forwarding evidence-free talking points. Posts such as that stand in complete contradiction to the noble goal you elucidate above. Tbh, all you have done is piss in this thread and then tried to pretend that it's raining.

    If a Scientologist used the same talking points you have you won't have an issue spotting the problem. Consider these:
    - The term cult is deliberately provocative and discourages robust debate.
    - The under-examined or under published to the mainstream aspects of Scientology that would prove to me once and for all that there are problems to be solved within the organisaton.
    - I remain deeply suspicious and mostly disgusted at the plethora of activist and deprogrammer profiteers that have sprung up in the last few years.

    That really is the level of contribution you have brought to this thread. Whether you will continue pissing in the thread or drop the sophistry remains to be seen.
    Then, frankly, I'm not going to waste an hour on it. Pick her top three points that you feel can be substantiated and present them. If you are unable (or unwilling) to do that then...well...

    The bottom line is that I have a limited amount of time in my day, and I try to keep time spent on debunking to a minimum. Time spent debunking climate change bollocks is time not spent exposing Scientology (the only reason I'm on WWP). So if you really feel she has some valid points then articulate them. Help me to participate.
    If you know nothing about the women then how do you know if the RationalWiki page is inaccurate or not...????

    Tbh I don't give a monkeys if she is saint or a sinner - if she has something of merit or piece of evidence then please present such.
    What 'research'? She published loads of peer-reviewed papers, but none of them back the climate change denialist claims. So.....????
    The part in red is highly illuminating - do you not see the issue with this??? To state in what should be a scientific discussion that your objections have nothing to do with science is just baffling. In a later post you state "The consensus in science is about the least important part. The actual science is what matters. You look at the politics far too much.". The cognitive dissonance therein is strong and mighty.

    I was just calling a spade a spade. Skeptics don't forward evidence-free talking points that avoid robust debate, or complain about 'unanswered questions' while never articulating what those questions are or attempting to seek answers to such, or any number of things I've called out previously ITT.
    Does it not bother you that everyone from creationists to geocentrists to flat-Earthers use practically the same argumentation you are using....? Think about it.
    The vast majority of proposed schemes are watered-down junk with loopholes so large a blue whale could swim through them. Kyoto was intended to be a start, and it was a reasonable approach, but you only need to look at how attempts to take it further have been sabotaged to see the issues. When you have spokesholes complaining that Kyoto isn't sufficient (which it was never intended to be, it was supposed to be a stepping stone for further action) and then using that complaint to derail Kyoto successors then it becomes clear that many of the stakeholders are not honest brokers.

    IF you accept then red above THEN the blue is achievable with existing technology and follows from the same science used to deduce the red. Use of more energy-efficient technology, renewable sources of energy, more nuclear, drastic reduction in oil/coal/gas, etc. can reduce CO2 output significantly. The same calculations showing the red also hold for the blue. The issue is that any scientifically-sound proposals that would achieve significant impact will be derailed by industry, misrepresented by the ignorant, misunderstood by the legislators, etc. etc. etc. A 'free market solution' is a myth due to the short-term nature of economic planning. Whenever long-term planning is needed (eg: constructing a port or performing a massive port upgrade, such as US East Coast ports in readying for Panama expansion) it always falls to governments to take the needed action. The very same businesses who welcome government action when it suits them (how many businesses in East US are complaining about the port upgrades?) will fight tooth and nail and scaremonger to high heaven when it doesn't suit.

    In terms of raw science the problem is solvable. It terms of politics and economics it's a clusterfuck. The US and the EU taking action isn't going to achieve the needed reforms if China, India, Brazil, Africa, etc., aren't participating. Patenting of necessary technologies is also a problem, and there are loads of Western companies lining up to screw over entire nations for profit on the green scene. Many developing countries (rightly) feel that developed nations are using the concept of 'sustainable development' to be misnomer that only leads to colonialism through legislation and technology.

    There are two issues. The first is the science. The second is the clusterfuck that is politics and economic interests, and how to get that clusterfuck to do something sensible. Fun times.
    Evidence for the red?
    If you think liberalisation was what lead to their take off, then I respectfully suggest you need to do more research of the history of that period. Central planning, investing huge resources into 'Special Economic Zones', the fact that a majority of industry was state-owned, etc. were more important than the supposed liberalisation, and this can be seen in the various five-year-plans that accompanied the economic take-off. China didn't need to wait for marketing solutions, the government decided on a policy and any market gaps were simply plugged with the state-enterprises. The Special Economic Zones (which, as an aside, were ripped-off from Ireland's Shannon Development Zone) were the beating heart of the system, with the government giving all sorts of dispensations to get foreign companies trading with them. Shenzhen, the first such zone, is restricted to those with a university qualification - this was the type of measures that the government enacted to make such zones a success. The result has been that the coastline regions have boomed, while the inland regions have practically stagnated.

    When a port facility was needed the government built that facility. When financing was needed the state-owned bank gave the finance. When resource and development was needed the resources, personnel and finances were immediately allocated. To try and give a sense of the scale involved, ZPMC is the largest crane manufacturer in the world and it is state owned. CIMC is the largest manufacturer of TEU/2TEU containers in the world and it is state owned. That is the level of resources that the Chinese government has at its disposal in fostering their continued economic success, and the record shows they have been more than willing to put the resources where needed.

    In short, if you think that liberalisation was the key (or even important) in the growth of the Chinese economy then you don't know what you're talking about.

    What % of the US believe in creationism, to take just a single example? Your own comment regarding China is another counter-example showing that people are quite willing to swallow BS.


    ------------------------------

    So...not much contributions in terms of science in this thread is there....? No wonder people are largely misinformed when what should be the central issue, the science, is hardly an afterthought for most people.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. No Ruler Member

    There are many players, with only one constant player in ALL those games.

    The whole point about limited government is so this can not happen, there is no glittering prize to be had, no brass ring to grab. It is because government controls so much money (that is not theirs in any moral sense) that people lobby them. Take away the incentive and those people have to work for a living.

    SOmeone in the AnCap thread mentioned 'impartial government' as if that can ever exist. People are never impartial, so it will be personality, not science, morals or virtue, that will gain the most power.

    OTOH of that equation, if someone with guns is telling you what you must and must not do, then you can bet a fortune that those being controlled will use all their tools to have as much say in the process as possible. That is only good sense. That makes Big Government the mutual aid tool of those with the power, money and influence to gain access.

    That excludes you and me. It makes it impossible to gain access without a power base of some sort. That excludes people who just want to live their lives.

    So, while I don't dispute the Kochs might not be doing what is in the best interests of the country (but that is not their job, either) they are lobbying the government because governments have the power, not the other way around.

    As Willie Sutton said "The banks are where the money is" and for the Kochs and other players "The Government is where the money is."
  9. The Internet Member

    I feel like I’m talking to a battered woman who thinks her vicious boyfriend really loves her.

    Honey, that free market talk is just talk. The guys promoting those pretty words want freedom for themselves, not you. They’re trying to con you into disarming the government just a little more so they can get a lock on it. Once that happens it will be bad for you and a lot of people. They ain’t gonna make any government they control smaller.
  10. No Ruler Member

    I said
    You sure are passionate about this.

    I don't understand why you are upset about what I said. It was perfectly clear in context. I have repeatedly said I accept the science of the issues, but I object to the policies offered to fix the alleged problem.

    I think that your passion overrides your good judgement and reading skills.
  11. The Internet Member

    You say you accept the science regarding global warming, but your comments up until recently have challenged the fact that a scientific consensus exists regarding global warming. I have some trouble understanding that contradiction myself, but chalk it up to your apparent confusion over the meaning of “consensus.” A scientific consensus is based upon the available evidence in the peer reviewed scientific literature. This not the same as an opinion poll.
  12. No Ruler Member

    I want less of the agency that is abusing me, and you call that battered wife.
    nigga please.
    Someone already has a lock on government. This is invisible to you because of your ideology.

    I'm not sure if you are saying the free market is not effective, or if you are saying "The Kochs will not allow it after they take over."

    And I love how you are such a good mind reader, always knowing the exact intentions of people you've never met. Would you teach me that skill? Please? I'd pay a dollar for it.
  13. The Internet Member

    Anyone who runs sophisticated disinformation campaigns for decades, and now with greater traction than ever before, is no friend to freedom.
  14. Asheera Member

    I see no evidence in your postings that this is the case, and moreover I see no evidence that anything you are saying has been informed by the science. You whole sorry attempt to object to TI (and apparent inability to grasp what scientific consensus is) is littered with examples of you rejecting the science and/or utilising talking points that seem only serve the purpose of avoiding discussing the science.

    Throwing out a link to an hour-long talk doesn't cut it when, in your posts, NONE of the issues are covered. If you accept the science then why isn't it central to your argumentation????
  15. We dutch are going to profit well from all this building you structures to keep you all safe

    excellent-frog.jpg
    • Like Like x 1
  16. No Ruler Member

    Do you know where this consensus came from? What was the question asked? What are are the statistical data, how many scientists were asked, how many responded, that sort of thing.
  17. No Ruler Member

    Public schools are nothing but disinformation campaigns.
    Look into the history of public school, you'll be distressed to learn it was all about controlling the person to be a good little cog in the machine.
  18. The Internet Member



    Holy Christ. I just told you the consensus is a summary of the published peer reviewed evidence. Nobody was asked any questions.
  19. The Internet Member

    OMG you can’t stop yourself from tu quoque.
  20. No Ruler Member

  21. No Ruler Member

    I am pointing out much more pervasive examples of what you fear. I wonder why you fear the mild and ignore the wild lies
  22. The Internet Member


    Tu quoque must be one of those debate tech things they teach in those Tea Party bootcamps. Cuz you sure are sticking to it even after it has been pointed out to you more than once that it is cheating.

    Go start a thread on disinformation in public schools if it pleases you. This thread concerns the global warming debate. The Koch think tanks promoting disinformation is a relevant concern here.
  23. No Ruler Member

    So what exactly is the consensus of? There has to be a statement that is the consensus, something like "Human produced CO2 is responsible for global warming" or something.

    And that statement must come from the paper or poll that was done. So again, please produce the paper or poll that produced your claim.
  24. The Internet Member

  25. No Ruler Member

    When you say "There is a scientific consensus of 97%" then someone calculated that number.
    If you say "There is a scientific consensus" there still has to be someone making that claim based on numbers.
    I want that person's name. I want the number of papers they consulted, how they worded the consensus, how they calculated that number,
  26. The Internet Member

    You accuse me of not reading stuff. But you failed to read three specific studies I posted in this thread concerning the consensus of evidence. You act just like a paid enturbulator phoning it in. When all else fails, hit the reset button. The appearance of debate conveys uncertainty to casual readers.

    Funny how just yesterday you agreed that the consensus of evidence in the peer reviewed literature supported the claim that human CO2 production was a significant factor in global warming.

    If I were a mod I’d probably ban you for repeated bad faith moves.
  27. The Internet Member

  28. No Ruler Member

    That article linked to one of the studies you presented as evidence. It showed that only a tiny fraction of those polled responded, so of <10K polls sent, 3000 returned and only 77 were 'climate scientists.'
    75 agreed.
    That seems to be the source of the 97% agreement. I looked at another survey, and the methodology looked a bit arbitrary.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/W

    So, we have warming. What, if anything do we do? Since this is a wicked problem, the likely result of intervention is likely to make matters worse.
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Anonylemmi Member

    We have warming. Do we have catastrophic warming? Dunno, and I don't think anyone else does either.
  30. The Internet Member

    A poll doesn’t require evidence. A review of the scientific literature is a review of the evidence. Huge difference. Apples to oranges to try to compare an opinion poll to a literature review.

    Here are some details about the methodology of the first literature review I cited back on page 2 of this thread:

    climatedenial_published.gif.CROP.original-original-2.gif
    Introduction

    The first thing anyone who wishes to do a literature review like mine needs to do is to decide what question they wish to answer. Many people seem to assume that my question was, “What percentage of scientists accept anthropogenic global warming [AGW]?” But that was not my question. Rather it was, “What fraction of peer-reviewed scientific papers, and what fraction of authors, reject AGW?” To answer that question, I needed to find peer-reviewed papers about global warming and review them. One could go to the library and start reading journals, but that way would take many human lifetimes. Instead, I turned to the online Web of Science, a compendium of the peer-reviewed literature in all subjects. The WoS allows you to search articles by title, topic, author, date, journal, etc. in any combination.

    To find articles about global warming, one naturally uses the search term “global warming.” Some articles might be under the topic “global climate change,” so I also used that as a search term. Of course, some might be under “climate change,” but using that topic results in over 60,000 articles, an impossible number for anyone to deal with. Thus from the get-go I do not claim that I have found every article on global warming. I probably have not found every article that rejects global warming. What I have found is the proportion of articles with topics “global warming” or “global climate change” that reject AGW as I define reject. It turns out to be a very small proportion. If I combine my original and my new study, I have found 16208 articles of which 25 reject AGW. That is 0.15%, or about 1 in 650. The proportion of authors is 34 of 33734, 0.101%, or about 1 in 1000.

    To reiterate, I do not claim that X% of scientists accept AGW. I say that of peer-reviewed articles under the topics “global warming and “global climate change,” only a tiny percentage reject AGW.

    One thing we know with certainty is that if there were substantial evidence against AGW, it would surely have been published by now. One would not have to hunt for it. Thus I conclude that there is no convincing evidence against AGW.

    http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

    ***********************
    The other two studies I mentioned used similar, but not identical, methods.

    I don’t know what you mean when you say one of the studies I mentioned was discussed in that craptastic article.
  31. No Ruler Member

    But I thought you were a mod. You sure remind me of one guy before he became a mod...
    Oh well, not important.

    CO2 is still a greenhouse gas. But after the research I've been doing these last few days as to what it means, or if it is important enough to worry about, I just don't know. I don't have the absolute certainty you seem to have. How is that a bad thing?
    And you've already admitted that you don't know what to do about this knowledge. So it is all pretty theoretical at this point, isn't it?
    You sure do worry about what other people think. A debate means that free speech is happening. Even if you don't like the terms or what the other side is saying, you are not the arbiter of anyone.

    What is about people dissenting from the opinion you consider acceptable that makes you want to stop them from talking? They have every right to speech.

    Our friend Godwin (who I just learned is a contributing editor at reason mag) said
    That means all sides get to have their say.
  32. The Internet Member

    Right now we have a bigger problem than global warming: a sinister group of well funded lying sacks of shit are lying to America in a fucking huge fucking way through TV, radio, magazines, newspapers, astroturfing, and pseudo-education projects. This is going to make working together impossible.

    Without widespread shared understanding of the facts, we cannot do anything.
  33. The Internet Member

    But not free facts. Free opinions, but not free facts.

    It is a fact that the published, peer reviewed scientific evidence comes down hard on one side of the question. End of story. No debate necessary over that point.

    Why then is this simple fact not widely understood?

    If you put your keys in your pocket and they hit the ground, you pick up your keys. Hey cool, you have your keys, right? Still, you should take a minute to figure out why they did not stay in your pocket, eh?

    If a simple fact is not well understood after a decade of “debate” in the US, that needs some explaining.
  34. The Internet Member

    Your article, No Ruler, illustrates how the liars pull a fast one.

    Questions of fact, like, “Is the global climate getting warmer?” are settled by adding up all the relevant evidence in the scientific literature. Sometimes this adding process is complicated and sometimes is easy. With respect to global warming, it is a no-brainer.

    Remember, dear humans, we want to know the weight of the scientific evidence for or against some conclusion. Stay on target; stay focused. The bad guys will try to shift the question to something similar but not quite that. And if you don’t notice the shift, you will be scammed.

    Notice how Senator Inhofe plays the game below:
    If you had Senator Inhofe in front of you, you would have a duty as an American to hold his feet to the fire, to ask him, “Senator, but what does the published scientific evidence show us?"

    Inhofe’s misdirection is but one of several in that article and others like it from that guy Watts. Comparing a literature review summarized as a percentage of papers for global warming, to a survey of TV weathermen kind enough to fill out some form ---fucking scammer stuff.
  35. The Internet Member

    It occurs to me that Inhofe has the same delusion as Senator Tom Harkin: scientists can be divided acording to the hypotheses that they favor most, and those who get funding will turn their hypotheses into reality!

    If things worked the way these Senators imagine, then I would want to fund scientists who believe that unicorns are real and heaven is real and filled with cherry cheesecake and kittens.
  36. Anonylemmi Member

    Pissed off TI is pissed off. Often enough and severely enough to make me wonder just how rational he is.
  37. The Internet Member

    Thank you for illustrating another thing the bad guys sometimes do. They lie and cheat and make their opponents mad, and then they say that their opponents cannot be believed because they are mad.

    Still, you should ask, how does the evidence in the scientific literature stack up?

    I’m an irrational retard and yet even I can see that a scientific consensus is a real thing, derp.

    The Scientologists also use the, “LOL u mad?” technique with long-time critics. They steal their trash, play pranks, threaten their jobs, and make them emotionally fragile. Then they say, “Look at that guy he’s upset. Therefore Scientology is true and he is an SP."
  38. Anonylemmi Member

    Just don't go all Sweeny on us. Projecting anger does not help convince anyone, but I know sometimes one can't help but blow off steam.
    And know that just because you are correct does not mean that you will win the war. The bad guys win frequently. You have to prepare for the possibility and not let it eat you alive.
  39. The Internet Member

    I’m counting on you lot convincing America of the facts. I’m not good at that sort of thing. I’m more the blow of steam type. Also, I like to play in the snow.
    • Like Like x 1

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