• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
CapelDodger said:
In the main denier meeting-halls such as WattsUpMyButt, McIntyre's and Curry's blogs, Planet Murdoch, and anywhere else the swivel-eyed viscount appears the denier masses are still denying global warming of any variety. The same goes for politicians in the US, Canada, Australia and the farther-right reaches in European (I'll include UKIP in Europe, just to annoy them). We don't see much of it on this forum anymore, but then the Liberal Authoritarian Conspiracy is strong in these parts. (We should know, we're part of it. Just ask mhaze.)

You're correct that some of the cult leaders are denying that they're denying it any more (or ever did, or that anybody ever did), but in their comfort-zones they mostly keep feeding their flocks with that old-time religion. Curry's terminally dazed and confused efforts to find a "pause" (by some definition) are part of that. I'm sure there's still much amusement to be wrung from this subject while we still have leisure to enjoy it.
Click to expand...

I would willingly modify my statement to read: "...however, only a small, disproportionately vocal, and politically influential fraction of those typically shunted..."

But if you compare the actual numbers globally, even these few and their flocks amount to an insignificant outlier community. A disjointed and largely disfunctional parade of misfits who generally disagree with each other as much as they do against the mainstream scientific understandings of climate.
 
Trakar said:
But if you compare the actual numbers globally, even these few and their flocks amount to an insignificant outlier community. A disjointed and largely disfunctional parade of misfits who generally disagree with each other as much as they do against the mainstream scientific understandings of climate.
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't argue with that. Gone-emeritus professors, attention-seekers, Flat-Earthers, Iron-Sunners, they're all attracted to the spotlight of a very real issue. Not a club I would care to be associated with.

In the 80's, and even the early 90's, there was still a valid scientific argument as to whether AGW would be significant but there isn't one now. Which, of course, is why it's now about stolen emails and the evidence of fraud that they conceal so effectively (thus proving how clever the fraudsters are). Deniers must have hoped for so much from the BEST results just before the Durban conference - Muller, Curry, Koch family money, what could possibly go wrong? - that I doubt they have a back-up ready. Not that it really matters, given the abysmal level of politial leadership in the world today.

The IEA reckons there's five more years to get things moving so it's all over as far as serious mitigation is concerned. From now on it's about getting your adaptation in ahead of the competition.
 
Furcifer said:
What I think is if you want to say there's consensus among climate scientists about the observed warming over the last 150 years, then there's nothing stopping you.
However, that's by no means "the entire scientific community".
Click to expand...
The best was (IMO) to summarize the scientific con sense on the observed warming over the last 150 years caused by human beings is:
There is strong evidence that around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
It is this that should be convincing for a non-scientist looking at the issue.

However there is also good evidence that a majority of all scientists endorse this position:
No one has done a survey of "the entire scientific community", i.e. surveying every scientist in the world. So all we can do is work with the population samples that we have.
 
Reality Check said:
No one has done a survey of "the entire scientific community", i.e. surveying every scientist in the world.
Click to expand...

Nor ever will, so "is there really a consensus?" concern-trolling will never end. It hasn't on evolution, after all.

So all we can do is work with the population samples that we have.
Click to expand...


The list of scientific institutions is very telling. Some in the denier tribe certainly think so, as evidenced by the APS Petition http://www.desmogblog.com/another-silly-climate-petition-exposed.

"In the realm of silly petitions, manufactured by a small, agenda-driven group and leveraged to extend the fiction of a legitimate scientific controversy, no document has ever been studied to this degree.
Thanks to John Mashey, a technology consultant, entrepreneur, member of the American Physical Society and tireless researcher, this document lies completely exposed as another phony front group play for attention."
Click to expand...

I tip my hat to John Mashey. I wish I could do half the job he does in any of his jobs.
 
Pixel42 said:
Excellent article by Naomi Klein: Capitalism vs. the Climate
Click to expand...

There are points of contention, and issues to argue, but this is definitely one of the best articles I've read in popular press that lays everything out in an appropriate manner to serve as the basis of the discussion that must be had.

We have passed the point of easy, and simple, gradual resolution to this issue. The question now revolves more around what is an acceptable level of loss and sacrifice and where do we focus our efforts to maximize results and minimize impacts.
 
Why is there such a massive disconnect?

Hi.

I'm wondering about this: Why does it seem there's such a huge disconnect between scientists and the public concerning belief in the existence of human-caused global warming? And it looks to be getting bigger -- the scientific evidence continues to mount, while the public sinks deeper and deeper into denial. What's going on?
 
I think the major issue is the desire for everything to be alright. Many Christians I've known are under the impression God created the Earth for them to exploit as well, and nothing bad can happen until the glorious rapture takes place. There has also been a climate of the media over hyping dangers in the last 20-30 years that really aren't that dangerous. There is also the issue of the data being complicated and the conclusions dependent upon a number of correlations that people aren't willing to study. The distrust of authority and technology is odd, as on one hand it seems to be seeded by a fear of what technology is capable of, and on another hand this seems to be denial of the problems technology can cause.

I used to be on the fence myself up until the last 5 years or so. I wrongfully put this in the category of killer bees invading the US and a hole in the ozone layer frying the Earth by the year 1999.
 
Last edited:
With a lot of apcoplypse oriented christians, they seem to believe it just doesn't matter.
But as far as most average people go, I think, without decent science literacy, they just don't understand. Plus, humans are geared to deal with the immediate, not the far (or barely far) future. Most of us can be sold on simple things like "air pollution is giving your kids asthma, you a-hole" but the idea that warming waters int he Atlantic will cause blizzards is confusing and gives conservatives some sort of populist ammo. I really do think that the environmentalists could get farther with warnings of immediate threats, even if they are technically less devastating.
 
I think it also depends on which public you're referring to - the disconnect does not appear to be consistent between countries.
 
mike3 said:
Hi.

I'm wondering about this: Why does it seem there's such a huge disconnect between scientists and the public concerning belief in the existence of human-caused global warming? And it looks to be getting bigger -- the scientific evidence continues to mount, while the public sinks deeper and deeper into denial. What's going on?
Click to expand...

A deliberate campaign in the media...
 
Halfcentaur said:
I used to be on the fence myself up until the last 5 years or so. I wrongfully put this in the category of killer bees invading the US and a hole in the ozone layer frying the Earth by the year 1999.
Click to expand...

Why is it your impression that the ozone layer breakdown was not a major cause for concern? Perhaps by 1999 is wasn't, but according to NASA (see the maps at ozone depletionWP, "Public Policy", we came close enough to have pretty thoroughly destroying the layer by 2050 to have been a major plant growing crisis.

It seems to me that we were damned lucky to have been able to mount a successful legal campaign to ban use of CFCs before the same reactionary political forces were able to come to bear on it, and by arousing those forces they were much more ready to react when global warming started being recognized. There was pushback from the CFC industry, though that lessened as CFC patents began to expire in the 1980s, and they began to explore new gasses, such as the HCFCs, which are the focus of a current controversy in which Chinese manufacturers feature.
 
Last edited:
mike3 said:
Hi.

I'm wondering about this: Why does it seem there's such a huge disconnect between scientists and the public concerning belief in the existence of human-caused global warming? And it looks to be getting bigger -- the scientific evidence continues to mount, while the public sinks deeper and deeper into denial. What's going on?
Click to expand...

Well organised PR campain. Most well known backers of the PR campain are at this point are the Koch brothers.
 
When numerous congressmen (all of whom conveniently live in fossil-fuel states) publicly repudiate the notion, and when a pretty large segment of the American labor force is involved in fossil-fuel industries...
And we all drive gasoline-burning autos with ever-increasing prices for said gas....

It's not hard to fathom.
 
There is a legitimate to not believe everything science says, all the time.
In medicine frinstance, we hear eggs are bad for ya, eggs are good for ya.
We get approved medications that turn out to be bad for ya.
Then there's the politicians who will spin anything to their advantage, and, our government lies, so it takes some effort to understand what is being discussed, and to find the flaws in the statements for and against anything.
AGW has pretty good standing from many fields of science, which is an indicator that there is something to the idea.
But most people have more important things in their lives to be concerned with right now, and problems in the future are not of any priority.
Problems right now are.
 
I Ratant said:
There is a legitimate to not believe everything science says, all the time.
In medicine frinstance, we hear eggs are bad for ya, eggs are good for ya.
Click to expand...

No you don't.

We get approved medications that turn out to be bad for ya.
Click to expand...

Err pretty much all medications are bad for you to some extent. If something is pharmacologically active its going to have side effects,

Then there's the politicians who will spin anything to their advantage, and, our government lies, so it takes some effort to understand what is being discussed, and to find the flaws in the statements for and against anything.
Click to expand...

I'm failing to see what that has to do with science.

AGW has pretty good standing from many fields of science, which is an indicator that there is something to the idea.
Click to expand...

"something to the idea". Its rather a long way beyond that at this point.

But most people have more important things in their lives to be concerned with right now, and problems in the future are not of any priority.
Click to expand...

No thats companies. Most people expect to live for ~70 years and as a result have a reasonable need to be concerned about the future.
 
geni said:
No you don't.



Err pretty much all medications are bad for you to some extent. If something is pharmacologically active its going to have side effects,
Click to expand...
.
.
I was using Avandia. And now I see Actos is on the bad-fer-ya list, based on the number of lawsuits. My doctor didn't blink an eye when I told him I dropped Avandia because of the suits. I'll tell him about dropping Actos next time I see him.
.
I'm failing to see what that has to do with science.
Click to expand...
.
Politicians misrepresent science for their re-elections.
.

...[/QUOTE]
 
I posted this in another thread but I think this video does a VERY good job of answering the question started by the OP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDNXuX6D60U&feature=youtu.be

This guy was a long time denier but finally saw that his denial had more to do with political bias not scientific findings. He was / is a Republican, he's a professor at Brigham Young University in Utah, and is an active Mormon. I think that gives him a very unique perspective.

If you really want to see the answer to the question "Why does it seem there's such a huge disconnect between scientists and the public concerning belief in the existence of human-caused global warming?" I think that video is THE place to start.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom