Climate Change denial vs History

Ignored by the political agenda is not the same as being debunked.

 

So, how long does humanity have left in terms of your belief? Seriously, I'm curious?

 

Does it really matter? Maybe I believe that science is what they use in Star Trek when doctor McCoy says "beam me up, Scottie".

Why are you continuing to talk about this stuff when you've already conceded that it's just political? All the scientists in the world seem to be standing around agreeing with each other, and that's just fine.

It seems to me that you're trying to convince people who don't agree with those scientists that they really need to believe them.

Let me put it to you this way. I learned in school that the earth orbits around the sun. This was the most useless bit of information that I have ever had the misfortune to come across because it didn't matter to me then, and it doesn't matter to me now. Maybe one of these days when I am trying to fly my spaceship to mars, it might come in slightly handy if I have to use the sun as a geographical point of interest to do a bit of trigonometry in order to find my way back to good ol' Earth, but it's looking like I won't have that problem to deal with.

Now we have a bunch of boffins sitting around in laboratories who have apparently come to a near unanimous conclusion that is equally as unimportant to me. Yet for some reason, I'm supposed to be interested.

Well here's what I have to say to that...

 

You're right. It's not the same. But there is a tendency to ignore work that has been debunked.

Please understand, H8. There is no malice in the scientific method. It's just a method used to try to understand reality. And it's not perfect. But it works!

 

Do you know how often settled science gets turned on its head? First off "settled science" is not determined by the largest and noisiest pep rally. Nor is it a democratic process. As Einstein once said (paraphrasing), "It doesn't take thousands to prove me wrong. One good one is sufficient." There are a number of credible qualified scientists that take umbrage with some/much/pieces of the science of global warming. Plus the arguments against "deniers" that they are ugly, stupid, gullible, and their mother eats dog food is way short of credibility.

 

This explains how science works at the IPCC. Now that there won't be an alarmist filter on research, perhaps we will see some objective research:
Landsea, the IPCC & the Union of Concerned Scientists
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/07/05/landsea-the-ipcc-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/

 

Then you don't understand human nature. Science is rife with examples of ego driven defense of one's work. AGW in particular is full of visible and vocal opposition to inconvenient findings. On the political end the funding goes to the CO2 centric spectrum of study and the universities are keen to get as much of that as possible. Many of the AGW proponents in science have become political, damaging science itself. In the workplace an academic not on board with the current political position has little chance of finding a position or advancing. There is much written about this.

 

When a scientist can accurately predict even 10 yrs down the road I'll believe the problem can be solved as easily as eliminating oil usage. But I'll only do what they say if they're executed when their predictions are wrong.

Let's see how many scientists will put their lives on the line. I'll bet not a single one. I live in FL and I'm not underwater. Could every genius who claimed S FL would be so much worse than reality please toss themselves into the ocean that was supposed to destroy us. Please.

NO ONE believes man he no impact. It's how much that is debatable. Not a single scientist knows what we've done vs what has been natural. They're completely guessing. Like hurricanes destroying S FL every year. I'd like those individuals executed thank you very much, for being so pathetically bad at their jobs they don't deserve to live. The amount of money they cost me every year is unconscionable.

 

Okay what we have here is another guy that doesn't actually know anything about the science parroting left wing BS talking points. Everyone believes climate changes. It has, through out human history - to say nothing of planetary history - done so with some frequency and not infrequently drastically it has done this whether man has occupied the planet or not. The question at had is not whether climate is changing, whether or not man's almost mindbogglingly small addition to CO2 via industrialization is the culprit. I think not and I am scarcely alone.

 

Of course there are many examples of biases. That's the reason why there is a Scientific Method. That's the whole point.

That's why a serious scientist can't come out and say "Oh, I ran this model in my computer that conflicts with established Science. And you are mean for not accepting that this debunks scientific principles that have been replicated thousands of times during the course of decades". You will be ridiculed if you hold something like that. The Scientific Method demands that you be ridiculed. And the only reason for this is the expectation that the bias to not being ridiculed becomes stronger than the ego-driven defense of your work, that you mention.

The upside is that, once you meet the epistemological requirements that the Scientific Method demands (which might, in some cases, include a period of being ridiculed), you get to ridicule the kid fresh out of college who thinks he knows it all.

Ask Galileo about being ridiculed. And he deserved to be ridiculed. Because he didn't actually PROVE his findings until 10 years after he was ridiculed by the Pope. That's why we see Galileo as the founder of modern Science. The method has been perfected for centuries. In Science, being right is not enough. You have to show proof.

Many don't like it, and they decide to leave the field of Scientific Investigation. And they might accept a cozy position in a pseudo-scientific outfit like the Cato Institute and be interviewed occasionally by Rush Limbaugh so he can whine about how "nasty" other scientists were to him when he used to work for a serious Research Center .

But, guess what? The Scientific Method works!

 

You give yourself too much importance.

The question on hand is not what you think. it's about what can be proven scientifically. Doesn't matter what you think. You can believe that the Earth is flat, for all I care. And you can even say that you don't believe that Science has any value. But there is a very clear checklist that determines what is Science. And Global Warming has all the check-marks.

If you believe that Science is worthless, then there is nothing more I can say to you. But to anybody saying that Global Warming is not established Science, I can repeat myself as many times as they want to show that it is.

 

Of course it works. The real question is "so what?"

Even assuming there is global warming that can be traced to human activity, and that activity is related to our use of fossil fuels... Even if all of those things are conceded. All those science guys are absolutely correct, and nobody laughs at them. Even assuming all of that...

So what?

The answer to that question suddenly becomes a very vague, and not very sciencey demand that the way to stop it is by asking a bunch of politicians to come up with a way to stop it. The politicians start saying we need to stop using gasoline, and to lower our carbon footprint. No more driving gas guzzling muscle cars and take our bicycles to work. That we need to stop using air conditioners, and that we need to start planting more trees, and stop drilling for more oil.

And this is where the science buffs jump the shark. We haven't weighed the benefits of global warming versus no global warming. Last time I checked, there are large swaths of land to the north that aren't suffering from too much heat, but rather a lack of heat. There's antarctica which is a whole new continent that, if we can manage to coax a bit more global warming out of our mustangs and camaros, looks to be a fine place for a summer home. The coastal cities will be submerged under dozens of feet of salt water! Do you really think republicans are fretting over the eventual loss of california and new york? Hell, I'll burn a few tires in order to do my share to speed up the process! In the meantime, Alaska becomes a veritable paradise of conservative values the whole year long.

I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming enthusiast! Or in the words of George 'Dubya' Bush, "Bring it on!"

 

So nothing. I am unable to comment. Nihilism is not a disputable position. My debate is with those who find any value in Science.

 

And no one yet has proven that CO2 is the only, let alone chief, culprit in Global warming nor have they proven that reducing CO2 outputs will stabilize temperatures. Oh and for what it's worth flogiston was once a scientific consensus, so were leeches and bleeding. Interestingly leeches are mounting a bit of a come back, flogiston, and bleeding not so much.

 

I find quite a bit of value that comes from science. Just not all of it. If it's the scientific method that is being discussed, then great! That's an interesting topic. If it's the scientific method being used as a valid tool to predict the trajectory of a comet that has a 98% chance of hitting the earth, I want a bit more information like where exactly it's going to hit. That's an interesting bit of scientific knowledge that could well mean the difference between staying at home, or taking that cruise to the Bahamas my wife has been babbling about for the last decade.

On the other hand, if it's science being used to predict the trajectory of a comet that has 0% chance of coming even close to our solar system, I admit that my interest in the subject might be somewhat less than my interest in the never-ending saga of the Kardashian bunch.

With global warming, I'm asking why should I be interested?

 

Your whole approach is about politics. There is a reason the ones speaking out are aged beyond needing the system to survive and the loudest purveyors of alarm are young like Michael Man.

 

Nope! There was never any experimental evidence. It was not required in 17th century medicine. So it was not produced.

And that's not how it works. You can't just write the first thing that pops into your head and baselessly claim that there was "Scientific Consensus" Again: the scientific method is very precise.

 

No they don't except for one very very impotant fact

They all point upwards

 

You did a calculation

Whoop de do!!!

So what makes your calculation so much more scientific than people with PHDs who have spent thier lives researching this?

 

We have to

The non deniers mostly do not understand unless we put it in pre school language. BTW thanks for the straw man

 

Of course! You would want more information. Not the rantings of a political party just denying the threat because the news hurts the bottom line of a corporation that contributed to their campaign.

Exactly as it is now with Global Warming.

That, you would have to figure out on your own. All we have is the scientific consensus that Global Warming is real, and that it's caused by human activity. Nothing more, nothing less. We're not sure about the consequences. Right wing obtuseness has impaired the dialogue in that area. Which is actually what we should be focusing on. But they just deny it. More and more those consequences don't appear to be very pleasurable for anybody. They will probably vary from one place to another, though. I know what they would be where I live. Do you know what they could be in your location? In general, food shortage, water shortage, plagues and hostile weather appear to be imminent just about everywhere. Maybe... Again: we're not sure. Hopefully a group of less short-sighted politicians than the ones we have in power now will realize that we need more information than what has been established. Just like your comet example.

Although by then it might be too late to avoid or, at least, mitigate the impact. Or even to prepare for it.

 

Right! But, more importantly, my approach is that it shouldn't be about politics.

Unfortunately, politics has taken over a matter that was settled by science a long time ago.

 

Well honestly, the science sales dudes have to be a bit more scientific. We're not all complete dunderheads when it comes to the stuff. You want honesty? Then stop talking about a scientific consensus. We all know that is not what science is about. We also know that nothing is truly settled in science. The closest we get to that are laws, and last I checked, anthropogenic global warming is neither a hypothesis, theory, or law. It is an observed result that can be explained by the greenhouse theory, but that is not necessarily the only explanation.

It is real, but it is not necessarily caused by human activity. That's a fair assumption, and I'm willing to consider it a distinct possibility.

We can predict quite a few things because of the greenhouse effect theory. The earth will become hotter, and it will become greener due to heightened levels of CO2.

There will be consequences for quite a few places, including where I live. I might not need to shovel quite as much snow in the future, and with my back, that will be a blessing. I doubt there will be food or water shortages because we don't use the food or water supplies in the most economic ways right now. As things get hotter, we will migrate to where things are cooler. Some islands will disappear, but some will become habitable at the same time.

Getting from global warming to less global warming is something that can be accomplished, but not by politicians. You're using the wrong tool for the job there, ol' hoss. That is the sticking point you will always have, even if everybody gets on board with wanting to make do with less. You will never get governments to stop spewing pollution, and the more money you give them, the more pollution they will make. So whatever humans have up their sleeves to deal with this problem, you're going to have a whole lot of people like me saying 'NO!' if it involves giving governments more power and more money.

No, no, and no.

We're not talking about science deniers, but rather government efficiency skeptics.

 

Big questions ARE settled =- the "laws" of physics are proof of that - but the fine detail such as what are gravity waves and how are they propagated are NOT settled

So it is with climate science - are we warming the planet - indisputably yes - what is the change going to be at your location - not so sure

Fortunately capitalism may save the day but the start up does need incentive We had a lot of corporations and people with trotters in the fossil fuel trough and it need some kick start to get the alternatives off the ground

Now we are seeing an evolving electricity industry less reliant on fossil fuels

 

Even laws aren't settled. There's always something better and brighter around the corner, which is why Newton is now studying under Einstein in that great laboratory in the sky.

That incentive is called "moolah".

p.s. Don't tell the communists this, or they might decide to become capitalist swine themselves. And then where would we be?