Conservatives and climate change

[DC]

It's instructive that you think stating that: "The consensus of academia did not know that climate change was coming in 1972" is picking a side. As recently as post 127 you didn't think I was supporting one side.

It is quite irritating when those having polarized and IMO excessive conviction on a subject regard anything less polar as being the opposing side. It comes up a lot on this forum with political opinions. It should not do with evidence-based viewpoints.

You are not exactly dispatching my hypothesis on this matter into oblivion with your recent posts.

you are the one making a claim without providing evidence for that claim, i provided contrary evidence but somehow you are still right with your claim. this is laughable. your viewpoint is not evidence based at all.

 

[lomiller]

You say "incorrect" but then make a comment that agrees with mine. As did the member I challenged on that in the first place

Discussion over the possible cooling effects of aerosols has no impact on the certainty of the warming effect of CO2. Our understanding that burning fossil fuels warms the planet was fully formed by 1960.

There will always be questions of “what else is there”, that’s just how science works. Even if we find something else it will not change what we already know about how CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels warms the planet.

 

[Francesca R]

you are the one making a claim without providing evidence for that claim, i provided contrary evidence but somehow you are still right with your claim.

No, I agree that I have not provided evidence that the consensus did not know climate change was coming in 1972.

I withdraw that assertion, apologies.

 

[DC]

No, I agree that I have not provided evidence that the consensus did not know climate change was coming in 1972.

I withdraw that assertion, apologies.

apologies accepted

 

[mhaze]

Excuse me? Like everything in the world it has advanced more in recent times, but studying climate goes back centuries. What a silly argument. Do you have some kind of special definition for what you call "climate science"?

Maybe we can stop with the calling people wrong to make up for a lack of an argument on your part. But can that be expected from someone who takes a comment of "the math is simple" and spins it into an argument about Climate science being easy.

Excuse me? So there were degree programs in climatolobotomy in 1972?

No, there were not. Little difference then and now?

 

[BenBurch]

Exactly. What we really need to do is completely audit the honesty and integrity of any scientist or researcher who receives government grants.

You get the lie detector and I'll bring the sodium pentathol and thumb screws.

I think we need a whole new Federal agency to do the audits. Maybe a Cabinet level post. I figure a few billion a year should cover it.

 

[mhaze]

No, I agree that I have not provided evidence that the consensus did not know climate change was coming in 1972.

I withdraw that assertion, apologies.

And don't expect anyone to catch the joke.

They are very serious people.

After all, Saving the World.

It's a serious business.

 

[DC]

And don't expect anyone to catch the joke.

They are very serious people.

After all, Saving the World.

It's a serious business.

i see you still did not provide a paper or a search or a study contradicting the study i provided. very telling. the planet is in no need to be saved. he will do fine. and yesterday you claimed to respect other peoples belief, and you belief AGW is belief based, then why are you mocking it? so you lied when you said you respect other people beliefs?

 

[mhaze]

Nonsense, looking at the historical record, it will most likely be bad in some isolated places and very good in others like Canada and Siberia.

But, even if it would be devastatingly awful everywhere and for everyone, why aren't the AGW-devastation-frenzy-bleaters advocating a switchover to nuclear power from coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants as soon as possible? And why is paying extortion money to third-world dictators seen as a solution to first-world CO₂ emissions?

Well, the basic answer is that the political and cultural movement we refer kindly to as AGW-devastation-frenzy-bleaters is quite stupid. It's an odd thing about such movements, large numbers of smart people get in them, and then regress to the mean.

Oh, and by the way...don't believe them (individuals in the AGW-DFB) when they say things such as they are for nuclear power. Judge them by their actual track record and actions. They support an anti nuclear movement.

Hence, they are antinuclear. Their chatter about being pro nuclear is...well, just part of the bleating.

 

[mhaze]

i see you still did not provide a paper or a search or a study contradicting the study i provided. very telling. the planet is in no need to be saved. he will do fine. and yesterday you claimed to respect other peoples belief, and you belief AGW is belief based, then why are you mocking it? so you lied when you said you respect other people beliefs?

Not at all. I make jokes pretty indiscriminately. Usually they are bad jokes, too.

....It is quite irritating when those having polarized and IMO excessive conviction on a subject regard anything less polar as being the opposing side. It comes up a lot on this forum with political opinions. It should not do with evidence-based viewpoints....

So you think this level of mass hysteria is largely just a USA phenomena?

It's quite clearly totally illogical with heavy emotional roots, I tend to have always classified it as a form of religious behavior including the compulsive needs to convert or demonize others.

Whatever it is, it is certainly a rich motherload of fantasies and hate. A Calvinist Puritanistic worship of Gaia.

I prefer Bacchus, myself. And Eos. Maybe Thor. So many to choose from.

 

[Corsair 115]

I think that's pretty well phrased.

Except for the fact that "excessive certainty" doesn't really say anything in and of itself. It was not defined and thus could mean different things to different people. Certainty about what? At what point does certainty cross over into excessive certainty?


I notice that Francesca R has subsequently posted in this thread but still has not defined what exactly is meant by "excessive certainty".

 

[Bill Thompson]

Well, those things won't happen. If that's your idea of the impact climate change is likely to have then you're a very confused individual and I'm not at all surprised you think it would be "freaking great".

Oh, and I have no science background, if that makes a difference to you.

Wait. What? How the hell can you have an opinion without the education or knowledge to back it up? You have no science background and you ask me if that makes a difference to me? How can it not? How can it not make a difference to you?!

 

[Corsair 115]

How the hell can you have an opinion without the education or knowledge to back it up?

By listening to those with the education and knowledge.

Not unlike how one might listen to one's cardiologist when it comes to treating one's heart condition, or how one might listen to one's dentist when it comes to taking care of one's teeth, or how one might listen to one's flying instructor when it comes to learning how to fly an aircraft.

 

[Bill Thompson]

The planet's current, ongoing mass extinction event could dispatch humanity, too.

Uh huh. Which is humanity better able to survive, Global Warming or another Ice Age? Also are you a scientist? Or are you just wasting my time?

You know, the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" lied when they said that "humanity survived one ice age, they would survive this one". The facts are that modern humans were a small tribe in a valley in Ethiopia during the last ice age. The Neanderthals survived two ice ages. Modern humans have not been tested with an Ice Age. I think we would not survive one. I think we would survive Global Warming with ease. Is there any credible scientist who says we would not?

 

[Bill Thompson]

By listening to those with the education and knowledge.

That is called "Argument from Authority" and is a logical fallacy.

Show me their arguments, don't drop names. Brigham Young University does that trick to try to convince people that the language of the Book of Mormon is ancient or even Native American. They get some professor on the pay role who is willing to say anything.

You are wrong, man.

 

[stokes234]

That is called "Argument from Authority" and is a logical fallacy.

Show me their arguments, don't drop names. Brigham Young University does that trick to try to convince people that the language of the Book of Mormon is ancient or even Native American. They get some professor on the pay role who is willing to say anything.

You are wrong, man.

Argument from authority is only a fallacy if used incorrectly. Citing the fact that ~97% of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change in order to claim the experts believe it to be true and therefore so should laymen is a legitimate appeal to authority.

 

[mhaze]

Except for the fact that "excessive certainty" doesn't really say anything in and of itself. It was not defined and thus could mean different things to different people. Certainty about what? At what point does certainty cross over into excessive certainty?


I notice that Francesca R has subsequently posted in this thread but still has not defined what exactly is meant by "excessive certainty".

True, but so what?

It's really, really common to see a weird shift from a statement in a scientific paper qualified by a half dozen (minimum) facts and carefully worded, in a very narrow area of study, be broaded, and turned into "general fact" by True Warmers.

Clearly that's an example of certainty above and way way beyond the degree of certainty imparted by the article.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

facts are stubborn things

The facts are that modern humans were a small tribe in a valley in Ethiopia during the last ice age. The Neanderthals survived two ice ages. Modern humans have not been tested with an Ice Age. I think we would not survive one.

Wrong. The last glacial maximum occurred 20-25 thousand years ago, and the most recent glacial period ended only 10,000 years ago. Anatomically modern humans have been living in Europe for the past 35,000 years.

 

[DavidJames]

You know, the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" lied when they said that "humanity survived one ice age, they would survive this one

I hate to break this to you but did you know that the movie you mentioned was fiction? Maybe that's why you can't seem to get any facts correct, you have difficulty understanding where you should get those facts.

 

[DavidJames]

That is called "Argument from Authority" and is a logical fallacy.

Here is a perfect example of you getting basic facts wrong. I could provide a link to the actual definition of the "Argument from Authority", but I'd like to see if you can do the search yourself. Good luck.

Here's a hint though, it's not an Argument from Authority if you are asking experts about stuff that is within their field of expertise.

Edit - oh darn, stokes234 beat me to it. Bill, consider my post as further encouragement for you to learn the correct way to gain knowledge rather then just making **** up.