Climate change apathy Ragnarok thread - The Bear and Badger

Yossarian

Well done Dyno, Barry Moore is an economist, leaping to a conclusion from a statement from a physicist which is not supported by what was originally said, and trying to argue against a climatologist whom he disagrees with. An economist, FFS.

Why not try this, as you're so sure that the 97% claim is inflated, where are the actual climatologists who support your position? Not economists, not biogeographers, but people who actually study the climate for a living? There must be loads of them seeing as this issue is so far from settled, right?

Vela

dynamiteReady wrote:

Seriously... My line is that a synthetic cause for global warming is certainly plausible, but if this idea is going to be rammed down our collective throats, then at least drop the pretty, green pathos and spend the money on educating us.

Take CO2 gases, for example.

What's the greatest single source CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere?

The oceans are the biggest source. But thats irrelevant. The important question is flux and how quickly the extra co2 is absorbed elsewhere.

The problem is that we are producing too much and it is accumulating at a level dangerously above the limits current species and ecosystems are adapted for.

Yossarian

BTW, Dyno, back to that Forbes article, they found about 5 scientists unhappy with the way that their articles were classified. The original survey looked at 12,000 articles.

I'd say that's well within the margin of error.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

monkey

We all take for granted that tobacco causes cancer. But does it? I spoke to a drunk idiot outside a pub a few years ago who said it was 'all bollocks' and he was smoking at the time. If anyone would know, he would.

cockbeard

Tobacco doesn't cause cancer, burning and inhaling tobacco introduces higher levels of carcinogens into the body. If we're mocking people for pedantry and skepticism, at least do it correctly

Vela

Thats enough reason for doubt. Light up, everyone.

monkey

What about chewing tobacco?

Anyway, DR is less displaying skepticism which is healthy and required in sciences, and just displaying contrarianism, which is pointless.

cockbeard

Countries where chewing tobacco and snuff or snus are popular show lower levels of tobacco related cancer than countries where they aren't. Figures likely skewed by the fact that general fitness levels are higher in Scandinavia

I'm not saying climate change doesn't exist, I'm saying that we want people to check their consumption, we want people to dispose less. Whether we convince people to do it by telling them that a big guy in the sky won't let them go to his party, or by using measurements that have only been taken for the last 100 years and trying to apply them on a geological scale. It's like observing a bear in the winter for a few thousandths of a second and surmising that it must be dead

You do realise that big business is really in favour of environmental fear, you hear a million and one things about alternative energy sources, very fucking little about actually using less shit, oh yeah, because of we consume less, we're worth less to big business

Brooks

Aye, the power of major resource firms alone is reason to raise a holler of doubt.

Vela

cockbeard wrote:

... or by using measurements that have only been taken for the last 100 years and trying to apply them on a geological scale. It's like observing a bear in the winter for a few thousandths of a second and surmising that it must be dead

That's really giving little to no credit to the researchers that have made great studies into the comparative data sets through history.

Carbon isotope ratios have given us lots of great info even so far back as to events like the Permian - Triassic extinction event.

It's nothing like observing a bear per your scenario. It's more like observing conditions in which life has thrived and struggled and noting that changes we are driving are comparable to some pretty significant geological events.

Yossarian

cockbeard wrote:

I'm not saying climate change doesn't exist, I'm saying that we want people to check their consumption, we want people to dispose less. Whether we convince people to do it by telling them that a big guy in the sky won't let them go to his party, or by using measurements that have only been taken for the last 100 years and trying to apply them on a geological scale. It's like observing a bear in the winter for a few thousandths of a second and surmising that it must be dead

I'm pretty sure that with the right tools (thermal imaging camera, CO2 detector, an accurate movement sensor) this would be entirely possible.

dynamiteReady

monkey wrote:

We all take for granted that tobacco causes cancer. But does it? I spoke to a drunk idiot outside a pub a few years ago who said it was 'all bollocks' and he was smoking at the time. If anyone would know, he would.

http://www.climate4you.com/

Highlight?

NCDC%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif

monkey

I don't have any problem with the dead bear analogy but it applies to both sides. If you don't know whether the bear is alive or not, don't act in a way where things might go very wrong for you if it is a threat.

monkey

DR - that data is well known and not disputed.

dynamiteReady

So yeah.

This link - http://www.climate4you.com/ - ?

An impartial, detailed, and widely recognised source, of world climate change data.
The scientists we cite use these figures too.

You'll surely find evidence to support whatever 'side' of the argument you take.

Fill your boots...

dynamiteReady

monkey wrote:

DR - that data is well known and not disputed.

Care to explain it to me?

I'm mean, I know fuck all here, and am really keen on gathering information from a wide variety of sources...

Nah' mean'?

Yossarian

Climate4you is run by a well-known denialist, Dr Ole Humlum. It is not impartial. It took me all of five seconds of googling to discover that.

Yossarian

Incidentally, he's a geologist.

I'm still waiting for those dissenting climatologists.

Facewon

cockbeard wrote:

You do realise that big business is really in favour of environmental fear, you hear a million and one things about alternative energy sources, very fucking little about actually using less shit, oh yeah, because of we consume less, we're worth less to big business

To general a statement. If we're going to talk big business then we need to be clear about which big businesses.

Oil companies are too obviously behind a lot of the anti warming stuff. Arguing the reverse is a lot harder.

This debate also suffers from its complexity & two part nature. (are we causing it/what do we do then.) because we all rely on experts to an extent, far too much time is spent looking at credentials.

If I read one more thing about the IPCC I'll scream. Proving that a group with lots of different national interests competing is struggling with getting stuff done & deciding who pays for it etc, doesn't refute the fact we're causing it and something needs to be done.

dynamiteReady

Yossarian wrote:

Climate4you is run by a well-known denialist, Dr Ole Humlum. It is not impartial. It took me all of five seconds of googling to discover that.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/crux-of-a-core3.html

And 'apparently' skepticalscience.com is also run by an alleged fanatic for the opposing side...
Do you see why I'm trying to balance sources now?

Facewon

Are you thinking if you end up in the middle you must be right?

Vela

Facewon wrote:

Are you thinking if you end up in the middle you must be right?

The fallacy of balance.

Vela

Aka some people believe in creationism, some believe evolution is the better explanation.

Obviously God must have made half the animals and the rest evolved. Balance achieved. QED.

Vela

Dibs on dinosaurs.

dynamiteReady

Facewon wrote:

Are you thinking if you end up in the middle you must be right?

No.

I think that we can only accept a fact when it's indisputable.

Usually, when someone comes up with something that's truly utile (theory, product, system, whatever), they'll accept challenges to their ideas, and acknowledge the flaws in them.

When I read the views of 'denialists', what I generally find is a weighty body of facts, some key questions, and a summary that accepts the plausibility of contrary claims.

What I need to see, are similarly weighted arguments from the side establishing a case in favour of human driven climate change.

The sensationalism in and around this subject, is unlike that surrounding any other branch of science.

In medicine, for example, if someone tried to push a drug out onto the market in the face of a similar body of evidence under which the case for human driven climate change is currently subject to, then that drug would not, and quite possibly never, make it to market, because fuck... who wants that albatross round their necks?...

This practice has served medical science quite well for quite some time now.

What I want to see, is some evidence of that kind of gravity in this scientific field.

Yossarian

dynamiteReady wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Climate4you is run by a well-known denialist, Dr Ole Humlum. It is not impartial. It took me all of five seconds of googling to discover that.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/crux-of-a-core3.html

And 'apparently' skepticalscience.com is also run by an alleged fanatic for the opposing side...
Do you see why I'm trying to balance sources now?

Because you've been taken in by oil industry propaganda.

I mean, seriously, since when has arguing on the side of the overwhelming majority of of scientific evidence ever been considered fanatical? If you were arguing that Einstein's theory of relativity was wrong and I was pointing out the flaws in your argument, no one would consider me a fanatic. It's only this issue where things like this happen, because of a large, orchestrated disinformation campaign by the oil industry, which you've become an unwitting pawn of.

Yossarian

Jesus, Dyno, are you deliberately ignoring the huge quantities of evidence on this fact? That 97% figure looked at 12,000 papers. Twelve thousand. All you've been able to offer for the other side are 5 academics who feel that their papers were misrepresented in that stack of twelve thousand, and the opinions of a geologist, a biogeologist and an economist. How on earth can you claim that there's an argument here aside from wilful ignorance?

dynamiteReady

Yossarian wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Climate4you is run by a well-known denialist, Dr Ole Humlum. It is not impartial. It took me all of five seconds of googling to discover that.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/crux-of-a-core3.html And 'apparently' skepticalscience.com is also run by an alleged fanatic for the opposing side... Do you see why I'm trying to balance sources now?

Because you've been taken in by oil industry propaganda. I mean, seriously, since when has arguing on the side of the overwhelming majority of of scientific evidence ever been considered fanatical? If you were arguing that Einstein's theory of relativity was wrong and I was pointing out the flaws in your argument, no one would consider me a fanatic. It's only this issue where things like this happen, because of a large, orchestrated disinformation campaign by the oil industry, which you've become an unwitting pawn of.

Now you're just pulling my plums...

Yossarian

No, I mean every word. You've been suckered by big oil.

Brooks

Isn't it weird that 'conservative' doesn't actually have a whole lot of interest in conservation.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories