Conservatives and climate change

[DC]

The consensus of academia did not know that climate change was coming in 1972.

That you exaggerate the position to unrepresentative certainty corroborates the hypothesis in the linked thread. You just did it again.

yes they did....


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

this shows that even in the 70's most publshed studies agreed and predicted warming.

 

[DC]

It is not a perfect predictor. Seems to be too strong to be a fluke though. Particularly since climate change views frequently end up getting more polarised ("deniers vs warmers") than the literature would justify.

yeah some poeple do their best to polarize it more and more, especially people that claim it has to do with politics ideology and less with actual science.
i wich those people would stop that.

 

[mhaze]

the irony, a AGW denier claims others are not able to discuss science. classic

Well, yes, if someone babbles nothing but ad hominems and belief driven dogmatic statements, and is concerned about opinions being expressed that might "casting doubt" on subject X, then yes, I have no trouble saying that person cannot scientifically discuss subject X.

I can't see how what LABEL you may wish to apply to someone would affect that reality.

You're completely missing the point. You have stated that anthropogenic global warming is some sort o liberal plot, that its entirely based on a political / ideological agenda and that it's junk science. My point is that the man referred to in the OP is both a reputable scientist and a bona fide conservative. So, did he suddenly get brainwashed? If not, then his stan contradicts and, I thing, invalidates your argument.

No, can you stop distortionalizing please?

I just noted what, the wording of Article 12, Kyoto? From that you get all that stuff? Hey, a suggestion. Maybe try writing sci fi fantasy?

Nope....don't try....

 

[DC]

Well, yes, if someone babbles nothing but ad hominems and belief driven dogmatic statements, and is concerned about opinions being expressed that might "casting doubt" on subject X, then yes, I have no trouble saying that person cannot scientifically discuss subject X.

I can't see how what LABEL you may wish to apply to someone would affect that reality.

No, can you stop distortionalizing please?

I just noted what, the wording of Article 12, Kyoto? From that you get all that stuff? Hey, a suggestion. Maybe try writing sci fi fantasy?

Nope....don't try....

does that mean you stopped using ad homs when debating AGW?and
your opinion doesn't matter at all, what matters is what science was able to prove. and that is that AGW is a freaking fact and that we have to act.
but as a humanity we are just to dumb to actually do something so you will get your will anyway. gratz.

 

[Francesca R]

Did the majority know it was coming? No, because the realization that we had the ability to make that sort of change to the atmosphere had not been reached by most, and CO2 increases in the atmosphere were not well-known except in those circles that were studying the matter.

Climb-down noted.

I am not overstating the degree of scientific confidence here on iota.

Suuuure:

Only really stupid and/or uneducated people will find the basics of this problem hard.

Those people are not worthy of our time.

.

YOU are the one who is trying to make a cold scientific issue political

Kindly check the title of the thread, and the title of the sub-forum.

 

[mhaze]

yes they did....


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

this shows that even in the 70's most publshed studies agreed and predicted warming.

Hey guess what! You are NOT A LIAR because you qualified your statement by using the phrase "in the 70's", instead of actually responding to Francesca's assertion about 1972 and the "consensus". You've mis stated, and mis interpreted, and mis understood things - but you are NOT A LIAR.

Congratulations!

By the way - Franscesca's right, as shown by your own link.

 

[BenBurch]

yes they did....


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

this shows that even in the 70's most publshed studies agreed and predicted warming.

Thanks DC! I was unaware of that white paper.

 

[BenBurch]

Hey guess what! You are NOT A LIAR because you qualified your statement by using the phrase "in the 70's", instead of actually responding to Francesca's assertion about 1972 and the "consensus". You've mis stated, and mis interpreted, and mis understood things - but you are NOT A LIAR.

Congradulations!

By the way - Franscesca's right, as shown by your own link.

Then you understood none of what you just read, if indeed you read it.

Not that this will surprise anybody here at this point in time.

 

[DC]

Hey guess what! You are NOT A LIAR because you qualified your statement by using the phrase "in the 70's", instead of actually responding to Francesca's assertion about 1972 and the "consensus". You've mis stated, and mis interpreted, and mis understood things - but you are NOT A LIAR.

Congradulations!

By the way - Franscesca's right, as shown by your own link.

my link shows exactly the contrary, it shows that the scientists in the field did indeed know about climate change coming. even most of them were correct by predicting warming and not cooling. but moost agreed, there will be climate change. even before 1972.

 

[mhaze]

does that mean you stopped using ad homs when debating AGW?and
your opinion doesn't matter at all, what matters is what science was able to prove. and that is that AGW is a freaking fact and that we have to act.
but as a humanity we are just to dumb to actually do something so you will get your will anyway. gratz.

Well, I have no problem at all with your or Clinger's sincerely felt expressions of BELIEF.

I stand by my comment regarding scientific discussion, in which statements of Belief have no part - like it or not - this applies to climate change equally to other areas of science.

my link shows exactly the contrary, it shows that the scientists in the field did indeed know about climate change coming. even most of them were correct by predicting warming and not cooling. but moost agreed, there will be climate change. even before 1972.

No, it does not. Look at the chart with the number of papers per year and the cumulative count. What the extremely low numbers show is that there was so little attention to this that the was no "consensus".

Then you understood none of what you just read, if indeed you read it.

Not that this will surprise anybody here at this point in time.

Strongly held BELIEFS have been known to cause ERRORS in JUDGEMENT even when the FACTS are right in front of you.



This statement by Franscisca is simply TRUE.

The consensus of academia did not know that climate change was coming in 1972.

That you exaggerate the position to unrepresentative certainty corroborates the hypothesis in the linked thread. You just did it again.

 

[DC]

Well, I have no problem at all with your or Clinger's sincerely felt expressions of BELIEF.

I stand by my comment regarding scientific discussion, in which statements of Belief have no part - like it or not - this applies to climate change equally to other areas of science.

No, it does not. Look at the chart with the number of papers per year and the cumulative count.

i agree, beliefs have nothing to do in the science. that is why there is a concencus about AGW. AGW is a fact, you can deny it or face it, your choice

 

[Francesca R]

yeah some poeple do their best to polarize it more and more, especially people that claim it has to do with politics ideology and less with actual science.

How is that polarizing it?

The strange thing is, both left and right leaning people seem to say that the science is on their side and that the other side is driven by ideological interests.

As far as I know, and based on my own study, any position of certainty the like of which pervades these arguments is a big red flag. That goes for deniers and for warmers.

 

[DC]

Well, I have no problem at all with your or Clinger's sincerely felt expressions of BELIEF.

I stand by my comment regarding scientific discussion, in which statements of Belief have no part - like it or not - this applies to climate change equally to other areas of science.

No, it does not. Look at the chart with the number of papers per year and the cumulative count.

erm up to 1972, 4 predicted cooling, 5 were neutral, 10 predicted warming. (14 predicted climate change while 5 were neutral.

 

[DC]

How is that polarizing it?

The strange thing is, both left and right leaning people seem to say that the science is on their side and that the other side is driven by ideological interests.

As far as I know, and based on my own study, any position of certainty the like of which pervades these arguments is a big red flag. That goes for deniers and for warmers.

that may be so in the US and maybe in your coun try, in my country it isn't, global warming is one of the few if not only points most agree that AGW is a fact, because that is actually what science shows and maybe it has to do that we see our glaciers melt away. but even most SVP voters i know agree that AGW is a fact , there surely is a debate what to do, and that is good, but nobody really of any importance denies it happening.

 

[Francesca R]

Actually I don't think it is as true anywhere as it is in the US. IIRC all parties in the UK favour action against climate change, but in many cases it is due to the precautionary principle.

 

[Kestrel]

The strange thing is, both left and right leaning people seem to say that the science is on their side and that the other side is driven by ideological interests.

The difference is that the climate change deniers need to invoke a conspiracy theory to explain why the scientists at our national labs don't support their side.

 

[mhaze]

erm up to 1972, 4 predicted cooling, 5 were neutral, 10 predicted warming. (14 predicted climate change while 5 were neutral.

Out of how many published papers, DC?

You are going to claim that based on a count this small there was a CONSENSUS?

Get real.

....any position of certainty the like of which pervades these arguments is a big red flag. That goes for deniers and for warmers.

I'd only agree with that in a scientific context. I have considerable respect for peoples' beliefs.

 

[DC]

Out of how many published papers, DC?

You are going to claim that based on a count this small there was a CONSENSUS?

Get real.

if you have me abetter study that managed to find more papers to include, pls provide it. i haven't seen any sofar. but i am happy to learn more.

 

[Francesca R]

I'd only agree with that in a scientific context. I have considerable respect for peoples' beliefs.

?? My point is that excessive certainty is predominantly belief-influenced. And excessive certainty (both ways) is mostly what is seen here (meaning on this forum; not everywhere)

 

[Corsair 115]

?? My point is that excessive certainty is predominantly belief-influenced. And excessive certainty (both ways) is mostly what is seen here (meaning on this forum; not everywhere)

What does "excessive certainty" mean in this context? Seems a rather important element of your point very much in need of a precise definition.