Spinning off climate change discussion

[Northeast Stinger]

The government would want you to use paragraphs.

Seriously though, two things:
1) climate scientists are also an "interest group" seeking to control the discussion

2) the facts, as I've seen them, don't match the predictions in terms of global temperatures or major storms

So, please show me the science, not the theories and hand waving, but the predictive models from the last decade which match our current situation.



Every post you make confirms my initial post.

The problem I see is that whereas we used to take seriously the scientific community when there was this much consensus on an issue, now we refer to it as "hand waving." Where does that come from? Also, why is that people who are thoughtful about life and remain life long learners suddenly find that when they read the literature on climate change they first get called names and then they are asked to prove something, as if all the onus is on them. It reminds me of my youth when the tobacco company was attacking doctors for suggesting that cigarettes cause cancer. Or later in life when there was no evidence for nuclear weapons in Iraq yet those opposing the war were now asked to prove they did not exist. I honestly do not understand how these kinds of arguments take shape but the pattern seems to be to ridicule the position, then say there is no evidence for that position (even thought that is where the majority of the evidence lies) and then to suggest it is some kind of giant conspiracy that causes anybody to believes this.

 

[AE 87]

The problem I see is that whereas we used to take seriously the scientific community when there was this much consensus on an issue, now we refer to it as "hand waving." Where does that come from? Also, why is that people who are thoughtful about life and remain life long learners suddenly find that when they read the literature on climate change they first get called names and then they are asked to prove something, as if all the onus is on them. It reminds me of my youth when the tobacco company was attacking doctors for suggesting that cigarettes cause cancer. Or later in life when there was no evidence for nuclear weapons in Iraq yet those opposing the war were now asked to prove they did not exist. I honestly do not understand how these kinds of arguments take shape but the pattern seems to be to ridicule the position, then say there is no evidence for that position (even thought that is where the majority of the evidence lies) and then to suggest it is some kind of giant conspiracy that causes anybody to believes this.

Dude, you threw the first punch mocking others. I responded and cited data which did not match the predictions of "scientists." I did not simply reject and ridicule.

Now, even though you won't respond to my question, I'll respond to yours. When have people who claim to have the answers of science been asked to support it with evidence? Forever. Every definition of science includes the expectation of justification. That's what science is.

The bottom line is that you clearly threw the first punch by mocking others when, for you, climate change is faith position.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Dude, you threw the first punch mocking others. I responded and cited data which did not match the predictions of "scientists." I did not simply reject and ridicule.

Now, even though you won't respond to my question, I'll respond to yours. When have people who claim to have the answers of science been asked to support it with evidence? Forever. Every definition of science includes the expectation of justification. That's what science is.

The bottom line is that you clearly threw the first punch by mocking others when, for you, climate change is faith position.

Maybe I over reacted but I saw someone start an argument about polar ice and I thought, "Oh my lord here we go again." Then I saw name calling and conspiracy charges. I would not mind having a serious conversation about climate change. I have done so in the past. A young man that I mentored when he was in high school now works for the National Weather Service. He was extremely skeptical about global warming for years. He has now come around to the consensus opinion but even when he was on the other side I never saw him / heard him call anyone names or suggest that people were being duped by some nefarious group.

 

[AE 87]

Maybe I over reacted but I saw someone start an argument about polar ice and I thought, "Oh my lord here we go again." Then I saw name calling and conspiracy charges. I would not mind having a serious conversation about climate change. I have done so in the past. A young man that I mentored when he was in high school now works for the National Weather Service. He was extremely skeptical about global warming for years. He has now come around to the consensus opinion but even when he was on the other side I never saw him / heard him call anyone names or suggest that people were being duped by some nefarious group.

People change their minds for all kinds of reasons.

For yourself, you should be aware of positions you've taken by faith and those you've taken because you actually understand the arguments on both sides.

Our country has problems, imo, because people lack the humility and honesty to address disputed questions this way. Some people you mock may actually know the science better than you.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The government would want you to use paragraphs.

Seriously though, two things:
1) climate scientists are also an "interest group" seeking to control the discussion

2) the facts, as I've seen them, don't match the predictions in terms of global temperatures or major storms

So, please show me the science, not the theories and hand waving, but the predictive models from the last decade which match our current situation.



Every post you make confirms my initial post.

Oh come on, even you can admit that video was hilarious.

 

[AE 87]

Oh come on, even you can admit that video was hilarious.

Smh. It's funny in how it mocks you, but you don't get it.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

 

[GTNavyNuke]

In our system of government people work together to solve larger issues that cannot be solved by individuals or private interest groups. Much of the prosperity we enjoy today is a result of this kind of government work. I do not think of the government as some kind of group of "others." I think of the government as you and me working together. Climate change presents a considerable challenge to our nation, much like challenges we have faced as a nation in previous generations that government ended up solving. Heck, we are having this conversation on the internet, something that would not have happened apart from the government. This is not a good time to completely distrust government (you and me working together) and throw around words like totalitarian and government take over. Climate change research is advancing at a rapid pace as more and more data is coming in. I understand that there are certain economic interests, especially coal, that have a vested interest in discrediting research that has overwhelming agreement in the scientific community, but that sounds to me like letting a particular interest group control a discussion that all of us should be involved in. Just last week I heard an interview with the former head of Shell Oil company. He was clear in his mind that global warming is real and that humans contribute. He also was somewhat fatalistic about the current state of government ever being able to change the course we are on.

Great post, I wish I had your optimism about what Government is concerning the part I bolded. The only solace I take is that the older generation always seems to think the younger generation won't able to handle the change that is needed. But somehow we muddle through.

Global warming is real IMHO but not the end of the world as @pinglett said. Yes it will result in realigning many economic interests and causing many people / countries to have to move / adapt. The emerging scarcity of resources for some will result in more wars. But that is the history of humanity.

The hope I have is that the carbon cycle in the world's economy will be broken by more cost effective technology at some point. Either solar as @DTGT said or thermoelectrics harvesting geothermal temperature differences. Both technologies are becoming more cost effective with solar in the lead.

 

[AE 87]

@dressedcheeseside from the beginning I've said you and others have put your faith in scientists not science. Showing me a video of a scientist waving his hands about the consensus of scientists proves my point. He doesn't engage the arguments of dissenting scientists. He dismisses them.

You have faith in what "everybody" says just like religious bigots before you. Once again, you make a post that proves my point. Thanks.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

@dressedcheeseside from the beginning I've said you and others have put your faith in scientists not science. Showing me a video of a scientist waving his hands about the consensus of scientists proves my point. He doesn't engage the arguments of dissenting scientists. He dismisses them.

You have faith in what "everybody" says just like religious bigots before you. Once again, you make a post that proves my point. Thanks.

Here's a guy engaging the top ten arguments of dissenting scientists and he's says it's pretty easy.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ten-global-warming-skeptic-arguments-debunked

 

[AE 87]

Here's a guy engaging the top ten arguments of dissenting scientists and he's says it's pretty easy.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ten-global-warming-skeptic-arguments-debunked

I read the first point where he cites a scientist who created a model to correct the insufficiency of measured data. He didn't provide data to understand the new model. Again, true because scientists.

I get it. You have religious faith in scientists.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I read the first point where he cites a scientist who created a model to correct the insufficiency of measured data. He didn't provide data to understand the new model. Again, true because scientists.

I get it. You have religious faith in scientists.

http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html

 

[AE 87]

I know it's not a true believer website like @dressedcheeseside likes, but there's this:

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Data was unexpected and needs explanation. That's all I've been saying. When you're argument relies on thinking Nature is conspiritorially anti-science, well may bill nye bless you.

 

[DTGT]

I know it's not a true believer website like @dressedcheeseside likes, but there's this:

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Data was unexpected and needs explanation. That's all I've been saying. When you're argument relies on thinking Nature is conspiritorially anti-science, well may bill nye bless you.

We know where the damn heat went. We can measure this ****.

 

[Animal02]

The problem I see is that whereas we used to take seriously the scientific community when there was this much consensus on an issue, now we refer to it as "hand waving." Where does that come from? Also, why is that people who are thoughtful about life and remain life long learners suddenly find that when they read the literature on climate change they first get called names and then they are asked to prove something, as if all the onus is on them. It reminds me of my youth when the tobacco company was attacking doctors for suggesting that cigarettes cause cancer. Or later in life when there was no evidence for nuclear weapons in Iraq yet those opposing the war were now asked to prove they did not exist. I honestly do not understand how these kinds of arguments take shape but the pattern seems to be to ridicule the position, then say there is no evidence for that position (even thought that is where the majority of the evidence lies) and then to suggest it is some kind of giant conspiracy that causes anybody to believes this.

Global Warming Science in a nutshell...............

Identifying pseudoscience
1.Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
2.Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
3.Lack of openness to testing by other experts
4.Absence of progress
5.Personalization of issues
6.Use of misleading language

 

[AE 87]

We know where the damn heat went. We can measure this ****.

You just reacted emotionally and dismissively to an article from Nature. That's a pretty big clue that it's no longer an issue of science but faith for you.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I know it's not a true believer website like @dressedcheeseside likes, but there's this:

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Data was unexpected and needs explanation. That's all I've been saying. When you're argument relies on thinking Nature is conspiritorially anti-science, well may bill nye bless you.

Snarkiness doesn't give you extra credibility, in fact, it has the opposite affect. It works the same on football topics, too, where we usually agree down the line.

 

[AE 87]

Snarkiness doesn't give you extra credibility, in fact, it has the opposite affect. It works the same on football topics, too, where we usually agree down the line.

Dude, you've been mocking me this whole time and now complain about my snarkiness? Smh. Grow up.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Dude, you've been mocking me this whole time and now complain about my snarkiness? Smh. Grow up.

If you want to poke fun at me for what I'm actually saying instead of making stuff up and then mocking that, then go for it. You're the epitome of the strawman, "dude". Shake your head all you want and save your advice about growing up for someone who appreciates your condescension.

Here's some of your own medicine: Go back to your Flat Earth Society meeting and tell them the earth is only 6,000 years old and that man lived with the dinosaurs. Oh, and have fun surfing "dude".

 

[DTGT]

You just reacted emotionally and dismissively to an article from Nature. That's a pretty big clue that it's no longer an issue of science but faith for you.

The article failed to look at total global temperatures. It talked exclusively about land surface temperatures and the Pacific ocean. You can't talk about the system as a whole and only consider part of the system.

The total global energy balance is a simple energy balance equation
ΔEnergy = Energy in - Energy out
http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~jean/paleo/Lectures/Lecture_2.pdf

Humans are reducing the Energy Out term by flooding the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. This causes the temperature to rise until Energy in = Energy out. The problem is that we hit mass extinction #6 long before we hit energy balance. And the positive feedback loops of melting poles (the most reflective surface is replaced by the most absorptive) is not good. The system is at a place good for us, but can rapidly shift to a climate hostile to life as we know it.