The Climate Change Thread - Page 3

Haha no worries

It snowed 21 inches at my house today so there is no man-made global warming. Sorry guys. I'm out.*

*Does anyone know the difference between climate and weather?

The great global warming collapse.

The Problem with Man-Made global warming science (which I beleive in) is that people saw an opportunity to make money off of regulations. Hybrids, Wind Plants, Nuclear Energy, increased grants for glacier research.

The problem is that the Oil Companies are even worse, but that unfortunately isn't an excuse for exagerrating shit inorder to get more money.

Yes, this is reasonable. The problem is that the other side isn't reasonable. They don't carefully tote up facts and weigh options; they already know what they want the science to say, so they wait for openings and then attack, using irrational methods. That's why scientists, who are supposed to be open-minded, circled the wagons in the first place. The global warming "skeptics", i.e. the people with vested interest in the status quo and their mouthpieces, politicized the debate to the extent that actual, honest skepticism can't be employed. If there had been a reasonable discussion about this, it wouldn't have been about "choosing sides" and an all-or-nothing attitude.

Reading Margaret Wente for science is like watching slasher flicks for aerobics.

If the woman was posting a case study or some sort of entry in a science journal you would have a point. She's stating a reasonable opinion based on some relatively curious events that have transpired.

Is anything she's saying wrong?

Maybe I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have when this whole mmgw thing first got some inertia behind it, but it seems like both sides dug their trenches at the same time. Although he's nowhere close to being a scientist, Al Gore obviously was the most outspoken proponent of these theories, yet he refused to even debate them from day 1, did he not?

I'm still trying to figure out which side's actions have been more embarrasing throughout this whole thing.

No Offense, Closer, but that arguement is like saying both The Truth.com and the Tobacco companies are both equal in their lying and overstating their cases. Sure the Truth.com made me want to smoke everytime I watched their hippy-ass commercials (payed for by the tobacco companies through the lawsuit settled by the states in the late 90's. Which was basically a form of extortion).

But The tobacco companies were the ones for years trying to suppress cancer data and keeping their deadly product from being regulated. They were ultimately the bad guys.

I see what you mean, but I would argue that your example is a tiny bit different in the sense that it's scientifically proven that tobacco causes cancer.

The whole rigmarole regarding global warming is determining how much of an impact, if any, man is responsible for.

She makes the same (deliberate) error of conflating the science and the actions and public statements of its practitioners and supporters.

If members of the IPCC acted like devious/opportunistic asshats that doesn't mean the science is disproven.

For example:
Note that at issue in the science is the greater than expected rate of melt, not that the glaciers are in trouble. The above quote implies that somehow the observations and subsequent theories are in dispute. They're not.

Also, note that the quote references Climategate as if it had exposed a fatal flaw in the science: again, it hasn't.

Im not suggesting that Climategate or this recent Himalayas debacle exposes a fatal flaw in the science. It does, however, obviously make one raise their eyebrows and wonder why these actions were taken if the science is so undebatable. Thats what I thought the whole point of the article was.

"These actions were taken" because it's a matter of vast importance that scientists can't be honking on about for precisely this reason. These findings need to be acted on, and science's need to remain impartial means that there have to be other people to carry the torch. Scientists have been indicating that global warming is an issue for at least 2 decades now, and action has been halfhearted at best. People don't react to dry, measured statistics, they react to people making their case passionately.

I mean, technically everything in science comes with room for error. That doesn't mean you should assume that the laws of physics are up for debate, and go marching off a cliff. But when science talks about uncertainities, people hear what they want to hear and assume it means no one knows. Practical action requires you to use forceful language and make assumptions.

Obviously this doesn't excuse lying, but there's a big difference between exaggerating the rate of glacial melting (which may not even have been intentional) and the flat-out confabulation and deliberate confusion being sold by some on the other side.

The IPCC took the word of the severe Himalayan glacier meltdown from a magazine, exagerrated it in their report, and called it a day. Is this the kind of evidence we are using to support Global Warming as an alarming situation and paying money for its support? Let's not pretend that bias doesn't exist within the scientific community, especially when you're really needing the grant money.

Well, no. They didn't call it a day, they corrected their error.

Let's also not pretend unfounded accusations of fraud are the same as any sort of evidence of fraud. Got any proof this happens, or are you just smearing climatologists because you don't like the results of their work?

Yes, righties, global warming is a massive grant-money scam. No, those arguing against it have nothing to gain, and are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

Of course there is plenty to be gained by arguing that the global warming is not man made. The status quo always has more to gain by remaining static rather than changing.

The central issue is the man who's become the central figurehead/prophet/ringmaster for the global warming movement has the charisma of a sapling.
Gore's credibility is shot because of his vested interest in getting more money in his pockets in this 'debate' over 'settled science.'

The thing that bothers me is the abject refusal of Climate Change's PT Barnum/Oz figure to allow everyone to see what's happening behind the curtain. At every turn the scientists' data and methodology is shown to be faulty. Data is erased or shown to be 'cooked' to fit into the theory of the scientist performing the work. That's bad science, no matter how you slice it.

"At every turn" is possibly the biggest exaggeration I've heard so far this year.

Please post the journals in which this is shown.

Here's a fun read for you....I've no doubt it's unacceptable for the Climate Change converts.

http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Semi...th-cooked-data

At this point, Climate Change debates should really be moved to the Religion Threads. No amount of evidence will convince either side that they're wrong.

For me, I think that there's climate change occurring, just as it has since the planet formed. I think man's influences on the climate are far more limited than the scientist/politicans with vested interests are claiming.

Then there's the problems with the developing economies of China and India not being interested in making changes as were sought in Copenhagen and Kyoto. What's to be done with that?

Except belief or lack thereof in God isn't melting the polar icecaps.

At least you're admitting your zealotry. Is that a word?

Haha, yeah. WE'RE biased.

No, I think that cyclic changes in both Earth's climate as well as solar activity are the source of much of what is happening.

And yes...we're all biased. That's what the word means. We all have our particular prejudices based upon our outlooks.

How much climate change will we turn back without the Chinese and Indian economies cooperating?

Those goddamn rich-ass scientists, driving around in their Lamborghinis and throwing grant money at strippers, pointing at us religious believers of human-influenced climate change and laughing maniacally!

don't you UNDERSTAND the JOURNALS are written and reviewed by SCIENTISTS you can't trust ANYONE

I don't know. Does that mean the rest of the world should stop tyring? Given that you don't believe in man-made global warming, I'm not sure why you're even bothering to ask, unless it's just to score points.

No, Al Gore's son drives a Prius. Hopefully it's brakes work.

And yeah, that's a party I want to join. There ain't no party like a scientist party!

I think I got that attitude from the Visitors from the first V mini-series.

Now, if the scientists could get Faye Grant to come to my house to convince me. Especially if she's wearing that hot white body stocking....

A fun read indeed. Here's the first line for the home audience.

I stopped here. This doesn't sound like a journal article at all. The 'other articles' window features the following stories:

"Climate-change movement pays homage to false god of global warming "

"Peddling global warming fears puts big money in pockets of climate researchers "


This is not a scientific journal, nor even an journalistic story about a scientific subject. It's just garbage. I don't trust opinion pieces to actually be honest about what the NOAA finds, or what it means. Not when they start off putting the word scientists in Quotes of Sarcasm. I don't believe the author any more than I believe you. Would you argue that waterboarding isn't torture using Rush Limbaugh as an authority that it's just a frat prank? Then why cite this guy?

And did you really think I'd mistake that for a scientific paper?

This is incorrect. Nothing will convince denialists they're wrong, because their opinion is based on political necessity and ideological belief. On the other hand, all you need to convince me I'm wrong is provide an alternative explanation for the current observed data. That's because I'm a man of science whereas denialists are, to put it charitably, not.

Maybe, but they have facts to back their claims up. Is there a reason you hold your personal opinion in higher regard than those of the people who actually examine the matter with great care? Because if you can support your opinion and show that it's true, you'll be possibly rich and at least a little famous.

That is a problem, yes, same as US and Canadian resistance is a problem. But it's a political and economic issue, and not relevant to your unfounded claims of fraud.

yeah, but if I'm not mistaken, wasn't this error corrected when it was found out by someone else? Were they just going to let it languish there without ever investigating the truthfullness of it?

Of course not. The scientific mags that are relying upon peer review have been compromised. Alternate opinions have been squashed, but I'm certain you won't believe me even with concrete proof.

For the record, I'm all for the greening of our economy. Tapping new technology could bring about all kind of wonderful things for the world. But the cap and trade idea is a scam the likes of which Barnum would applaud.

Let's support the growth and creation of new tech without restorting to things of this nature.

Aren't there already loads of studies that show stuff which disproved the other stuff?
See above. Suggesting that there is a shortage of data and plausible theories available that challenges th idea of the severity of the impact man has on the climate is extremely disingenuous.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if there's some data trump card that the "climate changists" have that pretty much vetos every theory the "denialists" (that word is hilarious, FYI) have put forth I would love to see it. I say that honestly as a non-republican with no ties to the oil companies or any other special interest that would have any reason to oppose changing the status quo.



That is a problem, yes, same as US and Canadian resistance is a problem. But it's a political and economic issue, and not relevant to your unfounded claims of fraud.[/QUOTE]

Then why post it?

You have no concrete proof. If you did, you would have posted it as I asked you to.

I don't know that it is, but that's another political issue that has nothing to do with your still unsubstantiated claims of scientific fraud.

True, but neither do you have proof that the climate change is caused by humans that can be verified by an indepenent and legitimate source.

Again, I recognize that climate change may be occurring, but there's no evidence it wouldn't be happening with or without our presence.

If Mars is undergoing climate change just as Earth is, I somehow doubt our factories are the root cause.

Everyone's drinking kool aid, I just prefer Hi C Ecto-Cooler while you prefer the cherry flavor.

Latest is, we're getting warmer by the year.

We aren't talking about differing predictions based on different circumstances, we're talking about shmucks saying "Nope, I can't wrap my head around it, the Earth's too big". That's an opinion that does not count.

Maybe, but "lying ignorant fucks" would have been rude.

No. It's the lying ignorant fucks who have to prove their claims, something I encourage at every turn. They don't just get to say "uh uh!" and pretend they're right because no one can be bothered to debate people so intellectually dishonest any more. The conclusions they don't understand have already been defended as part of the scientific publishing process.

The problem with a free society is that you have to allow the anti-global warming morons and the anti-vaccine morons to speak their minds. It's frustrating. It's also amazing that random dipshits with no scientific training believe that their opinions are as valid as those in peer-reviewed journals. When they start saying the journals are compromised and that there's a conspiracy you start to look fondly at the 9/11 Truthers, as they're at least hilarious. And their misguided stupidity doesn't have a potentially disastrous policy impact.

So now that we've agreed to disagree (actually, you've agreed to despise me, but that's ok. I've been married for 18 years, I'm used to it by now) perhaps we can address the elephant in the middle of the room in this issue.

So, climate change is happening. You think we caused it, I disagree. Nonetheless, what are we to do about it on a practical level?

The restructuring of the world economy that would begin to address this would make the Great Depression seem like a off Friday on Wall Street. The way this has been sold is that millions will die if we do nothing, and millions will starve if we do.

So what are our options? We shut down the coal plants, and millions freeze to death. We try to build nuke and windmill power plants, but the environementalists block us from doing so. So what are we to do that won't kill hundreds of millions of people?

Granted, there are those who would no doubt love to cull the herd, so to speak. Me, I'd like to avoid that.

Guys, he's onto us. People who believe in global warming are trying to promote genocide. Quickly, flee his logic.

I just don't understand the limited choices. Either this or that. I also don't understand how anyone feels they have a stake in the profits of a handful of greedy energy industry executives and Saudi princes. Even if all the thousands of scientists are wrong about the continuing and future effects of global climate change, how is it a bad thing to put our taxpayer support towards technologies that don't in any way threaten to kill us, drive thousands of species to extinction, acidify the oceans, melt the ice caps, increase the severity of weather patterns thus creating a massive refugee crisis, cause numerous cancers and other ailments, etc.?

I mean, seriously, what is your stake in their profits? Because keeping the handful of people in the energy industry rich is the only reason I can think of that you wouldn't want to change the energy landscape. I know that's what they and their millionaire lobbyists are focused on in crafting their climate change denier propaganda. There's just no other argument to be made against changing it.

I'm not a fan of cap & trade but at least it's something. I don't think all the coal plants need to be shut down over night but I'd feel much better if my taxpayer dollars-turned-corporate welfare went to green companies rather than dirty polluters making record-breaking profits while the rest of the world pays the price of the externalities.

Youre right. Disregarding peer reviewed journals would be retarded.

Hey speaking of which, you know theres a bunch of peer reviewed journals that actually challenge the idea of man made global warming, correct? So, this circles back to my original question in this thread; how does one discern between one reputable peer reviewed journal and another reputable peer reviewed journal? You personally don't have to answer as Im sure I know what youll say, but it is a standing question for anyone who could help me out here.

Also, I love what you did here:
How very Hannity-esque of you.

It's not (at least I dont think so). Im all about green energy, moving away from all fossil fuels, etc. If not to prevent what may or may not be occurring regarding the climate, then to at least do it because you realize it's better in the long run financially and is just common sense.

Personally I would like to get to the bottom of this for two reasons;

1) As the Dr said, if we're advocating a drastic and immediate (which many are) overhaul that effects our economy in such a substantial way we should make sure the science is indeed sound.

2) Im sure folks like myself dont like being compared to Holocaust deniers.

You're exactly like Holocaust deniers. Ill-informed and dangerous.

But I still don't understand what your stake in it is? What is lost if a sustainable future becomes the target, rather than making CEO of Exxon Mobil and the Koch Brothers into the royalty of the 21st century? I mean, why is this your and Dr. Vivisector's cause? What are you afraid of if we move away from fossil fuels and toward green technology? I totally don't get it.

ps. Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers

ExxonMobil cash supported concerted campaign to undermine case for man-made warming
[from the Independent]

Thank you for proving my point.

Wait, didn't my post say I was all for alternative energy sources? I dont understand when you ask me what I'm afraid of when I'm saying "yes, let's reform our energy infastructure to something cleaner, cheaper, and sustainable."

If your asking what my "stake is" regarding getting to the bottom of this whole climate change thing, aside from being a taxpayer I don't think I have one. It's more curiosity than anything.

So I guess you have no answer to his question about conflicting peer reviews?

Of course oil companies would do this. Who didn't think they would?

If he'd produce some I'd bother answering it.

If you don't know that there's more than a few out there then you clearly haven't been paying attention.

In any case, you shouldn't need to see one specific example to answer my rather general question.

OK, so you can't produce any. Thanks!

The thing with the global warming/climate change skeptics is their camp is strongly lacking people with expertise in the relevant field. I can ignore alarmists, talking heads, and conspiracy theorists, but I can't ignore that scientists (but especially climatologists) agree global warming is real and man-made. That doesn't look like a vital scientific debate to me. So the objections must be coming from elsewhere...