Global Warming Revisited

[Diemen]

not to mention...more than 1000 scientists? big whoop. think about how many scientists there are in the world (every field of science, every country, every continent)...suddenly that number doesn't seem so impressive. science is a pretty big umbrella and the word scientist a blanketed statement in this instance imo. i wouldn't consider people who study magnesium and magnets to be at all qualified to speak about global warming.

But 1000 is such a big number.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Reading is fun.

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims | Global Research

Great, now how about you sit down and instead of reading other peoples' opinions, why don't you back it up yourself?

Do you know anything about carbon cycles? Nitrogen cycles? Atmospheric escape? The thermodynamics of a planetary system?

I can tell you that I've written a 68 page research paper on a planetary atmosphere. I can tell you that mathematically, as well as qualitatively, I understand what's going on. Can you say the same thing?

And here's the thing. I'm not telling you to not speak up. But, please, do not link me to an article and use your supporting evidence as "1000 scientists said so." Yes, every department has one. And then there's a good 15 others who identify that those scientists are the same scientists who allow politics to breed into their beliefs.

 

[nbelcik]

There are a lot of scientists who believe in intelligent design, it doesn't mean it's a valid scientific theory. The preponderance of evidence points towards the conclusion that climate change is occurring and humans are mostly responsible.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[the iron horse]

There are a lot of scientists who believe in intelligent design, it doesn't mean it's a valid scientific theory. The preponderance of evidence points towards the conclusion that climate change is occurring and humans are mostly responsible.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

29% of Earth is land mass. (Large oceans out there)

Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area.

Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness.

14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics.

9% is Antarctica.

Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas.

The earth is doing fine.

 

[PhilsFan]

You think what humans do only impacts the area they live on? Seriously?

 

[nbelcik]

29% of Earth is land mass. (Large oceans out there)



Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area.



Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness.



14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics.



9% is Antarctica.



Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas.



The earth is doing fine.

This might be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. So because we don't live in the oceans we can't affect the oceans at all?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[anitram]

29% of Earth is land mass. (Large oceans out there)

Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area.

Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness.

14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics.

9% is Antarctica.

Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas.

The earth is doing fine.

Aren't you a teacher? Is this what you're teaching your students?

Appalling.

 

[the iron horse]

Aren't you a teacher? Is this what you're teaching your students?

Appalling.

I teach students to question, think and read.

 

[BVS]

I teach students to question, think and read.

Practice what you teach.

We've all seen your reading sources, they don't question or think.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[the iron horse]

Practice what you teach.

We've all seen your reading sources, they don't question or think.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Please post a reading source I have quoted or linked
that you think shuts down thought or questions.

 

[BVS]

Please post a reading source I have quoted or linked
that you think shuts down thought or questions.

iron horse,

For years posters have pointed out the flaws in your sources. You always failed to address these posts. It's been a very well documented pattern. I've even tried in PMs. You are incapable of actually addressing the flaws in your sources.

Posters have continually asked you to explain your stance on climate change and you ignore them. You have declared your disdain for science. All you do is post anti-science personal beliefs to support your stance.

If you want a real discussion, you have to start answering questions. The day you answer a question about climate change is the day you gain an ounce of respect again regarding this issue.

Sincerely,

BVS

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Please post a reading source I have quoted or linked
that you think shuts down thought or questions.

Please provide a simple mathematical sketch-up that supports your claims.

 

[Izzy.nyc]

And while you're at it, maybe a simple recipe for apple turnovers.


Soundcloud.com/re2374

 

[BEAL]

Guys, we're looking at possibly the coldest November on record.

It normally doesn't get THAT cold going into winter. Therefore, it's a hoax.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I'm writing up a thesis defense presentation right now.

Two of my background slides are...

Measles rates over time versus vaccination rates over time

and...

Diabetes rates over time versus females graduating college over time

I'm really starting to question whether or not more females graduating college are the cause of our increase in diabetes as a nation. Scary thought.





But no really, if you can't supply logic to your argument, don't make your argument.

 

[the iron horse]

iron horse,

For years posters have pointed out the flaws in your sources. You always failed to address these posts. It's been a very well documented pattern. I've even tried in PMs. You are incapable of actually addressing the flaws in your sources.

Posters have continually asked you to explain your stance on climate change and you ignore them. You have declared your disdain for science. All you do is post anti-science personal beliefs to support your stance.

If you want a real discussion, you have to start answering questions. The day you answer a question about climate change is the day you gain an ounce of respect again regarding this issue.

Sincerely,

BVS

Ask me a question...one question and I will answer in my own words.

 

[Irvine511]

facts don't seem to have much weight in a thread like this. perhaps here is why:

The varieties of denialism
on OCTOBER 28, 2014
by Massimo Pigliucci

I have just come back from a stimulating conference at Clark University about “Manufacturing Denial,” which brought together scholars from wildly divergent disciplines — from genocide studies to political science to philosophy — to explore the idea that “denialism” may be a sufficiently coherent phenomenon underlying the willful disregard of factual evidence by ideologically motivated groups or individuals.

Let me clarify at the outset that we are not talking just about cognitive biases here. This isn’t a question of the human tendency to pay more attention to evidence supporting one’s view while attempting to ignore contrary evidence. Nor are we talking about our ability as intelligent beings to rationalize the discrepancy between what we want to believe and what the world is like. All of those and more affect pretty much all human beings, and can be accounted for and at the least partially dealt with in the course of normal discussions about whatever it is we disagree about.

Rather, the Oxford defines a denialist as “a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence,” which represents a whole different level of cognitive bias or rationalization. Think of it as bias on steroids.

The conference began exploring the topic of denialism with a delightful keynote by Brendan Nyhan [1] who set the tone with a talk on “The Challenge of Denial: Why People Refuse to Accept Unwelcome Facts.” This was followed by three sessions of three talks each, on Modern Strategies and Rhetoric of Denial, Political Uses of Denial, and Countering Denial: How and When? Hopefully the video of the conference will be available soon, and since contributors were asked to submit a paper to go along with their contribution, hopefully we will soon see an collection in print. I was asked to be on the final panel of the conference, attempting to bring together the several threads I noticed during the main proceedings and offer some general reflections. So the rest of this essay will refer only in passing to my colleagues’ fascinating contributions, and expand instead on the general commentary I offered.

The first two things that became clear during our discussions of denialism are particularly disturbing to me as a scientist and philosopher. First, as a scientist: it’s just not about the facts, indeed — as Brendan showed data in hand during his presentation — insisting on facts may have counterproductive effects, leading the denialist to double down on his belief.

This, of course, should not be taken to mean that the facts don’t matter. If I want to push the idea that climate change is real, or that evolution is a valid scientific theory, or that the Armenian genocide was indeed a genocide, I better get my facts as straight as possible. It’s a pure and simple question of intellectual integrity. But if I think that simply explaining the facts to the other side is going to change their mind, then I’m in for a rude awakening.

That was a lesson I learned many years ago while debating creationists. A debate is a fun event, during which your testosterone is pumped into your veins, which can rally your troops (helping, say, with a fund raising), and which may even grab the attention of fence sitters and others who knew little about the subject matter. What it certainly won’t do is to convince your opponent or any of his committed supporters. Indeed, my best moments as a debater (against Institute for Creation Research’s Duane Gish, or Discovery Institute’s Jonathan Wells) came when I was able to show the audience that these people were consciously lying to them. Nobody likes to be treated as a fool, not even a creationist.

As a philosopher, I found to be somewhat more disturbing the idea that denialism isn’t even about critical thinking. Teaching about logical fallacies isn’t going to do any better than teaching about scientific facts. Indeed, the evidence from the literature is overwhelming that denialists have learned to use the vocabulary of critical thinking against their opponents. To begin with, of course, they think of themselves as “skeptics,” thus attempting to appropriate a word with a venerable philosophical pedigree and which is supposed to indicate a cautiously rational approach to a given problem. As David Hume put it, a wise person (i.e., a proper skeptic) will proportion her beliefs to the evidence. But there is nothing of the Humean attitude in people who are “skeptical” of evolution, climate change, vaccines, and so forth.

Denialists have even begun to appropriate the technical language of informal logic: when told that a majority of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming up, they are all too happy to yell “argument from authority!” When they are told that they should distrust statements coming from the oil industry and from “think tanks” in their pockets they retort “genetic fallacy!” And so on. Never mind that informal fallacies are such only against certain background information, and that it is eminently sensible and rational to trust certain authorities (at the least provisionally), as well as to be suspicious of large organizations with deep pockets and an obvious degree of self-interest.

What then? What commonalities can we uncover across instances of denialism that may allow us to tackle the problem beyond facts and elementary logic? Participants at the conference agreed that what the large variety of denialisms have in common is a very strong, overwhelming, ideological commitment that helps define the denialist identity in a core manner. This commitment can be religious, ethnical or political in nature, but in all cases it fundamentally shapes the personal identity of the people involved, thus generating a strong emotional attachment, as well as an equally strong emotional backlash against critics. Think of Jenny McCarthy’s “I don’t care about science, my son is my science” refrain, or of people who are convinced that leftist environmentalists are out to undermine the American style of life, or of the Turkish government who equates acknowledgement of the Ottoman atrocities against the Armenians as a permanent moral stain on the very idea of a Turkish state, or again of the religious fundamentalist who equates accepting Darwin’s theory with the rejection of the divine, the end of morality and the destruction of any meaning in life. That’s why facts and reason can only do so much (or little) to turn the denialist.

there's more, but i thought the above was helpful.

 

[PhilsFan]

Ask me a question...one question and I will answer in my own words.

You get asked questions all the time and don't answer them, and then when it is pointed out to you that you don't answer questions, you indignantly demand we present you with questions. Your cycle is well known to people now, my friend.

 

[Diemen]

Ask me a question...one question and I will answer in my own words.

BVS isn't your student, and this is not your classroom, where you can dictate when and how someone may ask you a question.

We're all adults here. A little common courtesy of being at least willing to offer as much as you request from others would be nice.

 

[the iron horse]

BVS isn't your student, and this is not your classroom, where you can dictate when and how someone may ask you a question.

We're all adults here. A little common courtesy of being at least willing to offer as much as you request from others would be nice.

I apologize if I offended.

My request was not meant to be condescending.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

It's cold today.

Thus proving that global warming does not exist.

/case

 

[Kieran McConville]

It's hot down here (in hell).

 

[cedarwood]

The thing about the global warming debate is it distracts from bigger problems like soil degradation, deforestation and desertification. The desertification that's happening in the western U.S. has happened elsewhere in the world countless times, many long before fossil fuels were an issue. It's not just because it's hot. It's the result of destructive farming practices. Reducing fossil fuel emissions doesn't solve any of these problems.

Politicians like global warming, on both sides of the issue, because it keeps people pissed at each other and gets them a lot of money in the meantime.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Well, I certainly think you're for the most part true there.

Look at Jim Imhofe. The man is a buffoon, but if he has one thing right, it's that people pull stuff way out of proportion. It's sensational crap.

Scientist: Sea level is definitely rising, 1-50 meters in 50-300 years.
Media: Sea level is rising 50 meters in 50 years.
Politicians: You are all going to die if you don't vote for me.
Imhofe: Guys relax, the bible says we're good to raep the Earth.

 

[cedarwood]

Well, I certainly think you're for the most part true there.

Look at Jim Imhofe. The man is a buffoon, but if he has one thing right, it's that people pull stuff way out of proportion. It's sensational crap.

Scientist: Sea level is definitely rising, 1-50 meters in 50-300 years.
Media: Sea level is rising 50 meters in 50 years.
Politicians: You are all going to die if you don't vote for me.
Imhofe: Guys relax, the bible says we're good to raep the Earth.

Agreed. But both sides have equal guilt on this one. Trading carbon credits does almost nothing. It just gives politicians the appearance of doing something they can take credit for.

The actual impact is a mouse fart compared to the damage done by Agro chem products. (That's really raeping the planet btw. Significantly impacts the planet's ability to capture carbon , among other things.)

Both sides are in the pocket of agro chem. Republicans take more actual dollars , but there are pretty equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans that except contributions from Monsanto.

The Global warming debate is a distraction. It's the conversation created by politicians, so they don't actually have to do anything.

We need holistic, long term, sustainability in agricultural systems and societal systems as a whole . Unsustainable agricultural practices have the biggest impact on the planet and its ability to do things like capture carbon, or moderate climatic variation.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Carbon credits make companies think twice about polluting as much and it's a sneaky way to help make them pay more taxes. If global warming weren't even real, I'd support carbon credits.

 

[cedarwood]

The mega corporations love these kinds of regulations because it stifles competition. They're the only ones who can actually afford it. Meanwhile accomplishes almost nothing.

Forests capture more carbon than we could ever dream of preventing being put in the atmosphere in the first place. The global warming debate distracts from deforestation, desertification, and soil degradation worldwide. There are real solutions to these kinds of problems,but we focus on what the politicians want us to focus on, namely global warming.

That's because agro chem owns them. If they can keep us focused on global warming, then maybe we completely ignore the most harmful human influence: destructive and unsustainable agricultural practices.

Meanwhile, there are real solutions to these problems on large and small scales. Like weekday they did in the loess plateau in China. Hope in a Changing Climate: http://youtu.be/kK8z0qDtE2g we are definitely getting there in the US west.

 

[LPU2]

Global warming debate boiled down: 9 out of 10 auto mechanics tell you your car needs new brakes, but you do nothing because your plumber says your mechanics are full of shit.

 

[cedarwood]

Global warming debate boiled down: 9 out of 10 auto mechanics tell you your car needs new brakes, but you do nothing because your plumber says your mechanics are full of shit.

Except, in this case, the mechanics have ignored the fact that the car doesn't have an engine anyway. Soil erosion and deforestation outpace carbon pollution, and they additionally hurt the planet's ability to capture carbon and regulate climate.

I hope our grandkids won't be saying "why did you talk about carbon emissions so much while annually exporting (almost irreplaceable) topsoil by the tonnage?"

 

[BVS]

House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building