Conservatives and climate change

[BenBurch]

There is no excessive certainty about the optical properties of CO2 or about the behaviour of black bodies. If you know of something that would point to that, Francesca, show us.

I know you cannot.

 

[mhaze]

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.

I think if one lived in an area where glaciers were melting such beliefs might seem more factual. I'd like to think it would not influence my opinion but who really knows.

In any case, that doesn't make the math of climate science "easy".

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.

Right. But I'm not the one that needs to support a claim, you are. Think about it. The claim that there "was a consensus in 1972" is much harder to support than the reverse. The reverse is that we don't know much about opinions on that matter back then and really can't say much based on facts. The survey you mentioned certainly doesn't support any consensus.

 

[DC]

I think if one lived in an area where glaciers were melting such beliefs might seem more factual. I'd like to think it would not influence my opinion but who really knows.

In any case, that doesn't make the math of climate science "easy".

Right. But I'm not the one that needs to support a claim, you are. Think about it. The claim that there "was a consensus in 1972" is much harder to support than the reverse. The reverse is that we don't know much about opinions on that matter back then and really can't say much based on facts. The survey you mentioned certainly doesn't support any consensus.

you belief oppinions create the concencus in science?

and i supported my claim and showed evidence that most published studies in this field up to 1972 were in favor of climate change and even already back then towards warming and not cooling. if you have any evidence they left out studies or you have a study that covers more studies than they did, pls present it, until then my claim stands and is supported by evidence untill better evidence is provided. feel free to do so.

 

[BenBurch]

you belief oppinions create the concencus in science?

Solipsism is like that.

 

[mhaze]

?? 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)

I think that's pretty well phrased.

It's also a red flag when people try to squash contrary opinion or as it's euphemistically called by true believers, "keep the Deniers from making people doubt". Of course this is largely just nonsense seen on the internet forums and media.

Note that Ben is trying to draw the conversation into a "safe area", but you are looking at the broader picture.

What's been intriguing to me in this little detour is the extent to which people will defend a ridiculous proposition before figuring out that they are being ridiculous in doing so, "excessive certainty" applies to the issue of "guard the fort", where the fort is "climate science", and the attack is anything virtually at all.

Thus the heated defense of the assertion "climate science math is easy".

Ridiculous.

Any reasonable person looking at that question would have first precisely defined his terms and the presumptions. There are 3 terms and a good half dozen presumptions.

These guys blindly trash their way forward.

 

[DC]

Solipsism is like that.

would make AGW only more factual to me

 

[DC]

I think that's pretty well phrased.

It's also a red flag when people try to squash contrary opinion or as it's euphemistically called by true believers, "keep the Deniers from making people doubt". Of course this is largely just nonsense seen on the internet forums and media.

Note that Ben is trying to draw the conversation into a "safe area", but you are looking at the broader picture.

What's been intriguing to me in this little detour is the extent to which people will defend a ridiculous proposition before figuring out that they are being ridiculous in doing so, "excessive certainty" applies to the issue of "guard the fort", where the fort is "climate science", and the attack is anything virtually at all.

Thus the heated defense of the assertion "climate science math is easy".

Ridiculous.

Any reasonable person looking at that question would have first precisely defined his terms and the presumptions. There are 3 terms and a good half dozen presumptions.

These guys blindly trash their way forward.

i think she sees you doing just the same. i doubt she is really supporting your position at all. she ain't nuts.

 

[Trakar]

Since the consensus of the academic community did not know it was coming in 1972, you've corroborated my hypothesis.

I could be mistaken, But I believe Ben is talking about polarized political extremism, not climate change issues specifically.
As for the problems of CO2 emissions those were being discussed in the related academic fields as far back as the late 1800s.

 

[mhaze]

i think she sees you doing just the same. i doubt she is really supporting your position at all. she ain't nuts.

There is no particular value in looking for "support" and certainly none in looking for "Consensus" when a scientific question is involved, rather there is simply the evidence and the hypothesis and so forth.

I've simply argued that "climate change math ISN'T easy" and I have pointed out to you that you have not proven "A consensus" in scientific thinking pre 1973 regarding anything.

You've speculated there may have been a consensus. But that's ridiculous, because the associated scientific community was numbered in the thousands or tens of thousands. If all you can show is a dozen or so papers, then these peoples' attention was simply elsewhere.

Regarding your question about whether belief creates a consensus in science, yes they can, but not necessarily. Reference Lysenko, Stalin era. Many examples of this sort of thing.

 

[DC]

There is no particular value in looking for "support" and certainly none in looking for "Consensus" when a scientific question is involved, rather there is simply the evidence and the hypothesis and so forth.

I've simply argued that "climate change math ISN'T easy" and I have pointed out to you that you have not proven "A consensus" in scientific thinking pre 1973 regarding anything.

You've speculated there may have been a consensus. But that's ridiculous, because the associated scientific community was numbered in the thousands or tens of thousands. If all you can show is a dozen or so papers, then these peoples' attention was simply elsewhere.

Regarding your question about whether belief creates a consensus in science, yes they can, but not necessarily. Reference Lysenko, Stalin era. Many examples of this sort of thing.

oh well then show me more research papers that were not taken into account in the paper i provided. or simply present me a better study. its that easy. i presented evidence and you deny it, now you should present evidence then we see if i also deny it and confirm Francesca's hypothesis.

 

[bit_pattern]

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

EDIT: Youtube embed not working. But each clip is only a couple of minutes long.

http://youtu.be/0lgzz-L7GFg



http://youtu.be/pB2ugPM0cRM

 

[Trakar]

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

you left out the deliberately and purposefully disingenuous.

Those people are not worthy of our time.

all are worthy, unfortunately all too few are willing or open to honest discussion and debate.

 

[Trakar]

Back Squeeze.

You have not studied this issue and are demagoguing shamelessly.

I can show you a Scientific American article from 1959.

And I can show you other popular science press articles from earlier in the 1950s.

Svante Arrhenius outlined the mechanism in the late 19th century. I can shown you his paper if you think you might be able to understand that.

And even before that John Tyndall had the basics in 1861.

Everybody who was in the very small field at the time DID have a consensus of how the Earth maintained its temperature, and the effects of adding CO2 to that atmosphere.

You want a lit of cites longer than your arm, just ask.

The fact that you did not know this is either shameful or dishonest.

Which is it?

If neither of the above, explain your statement, and give me citations to literature to support your conclusion?

I may have been mistaken, in my earlier assessment of your intentions.

 

[AlBell]

I think that's pretty well phrased.

It's also a red flag when people try to squash contrary opinion or as it's euphemistically called by true believers, "keep the Deniers from making people doubt". Of course this is largely just nonsense seen on the internet forums and media.

Note that Ben is trying to draw the conversation into a "safe area", but you are looking at the broader picture.

What's been intriguing to me in this little detour is the extent to which people will defend a ridiculous proposition before figuring out that they are being ridiculous in doing so, "excessive certainty" applies to the issue of "guard the fort", where the fort is "climate science", and the attack is anything virtually at all.

Thus the heated defense of the assertion "climate science math is easy".

Ridiculous.

Any reasonable person looking at that question would have first precisely defined his terms and the presumptions. There are 3 terms and a good half dozen presumptions.

These guys blindly trash their way forward.

IMO, indicative of 'we're smarter than you' coupled with a well-developed ego.

 

[bit_pattern]

I think the M.O of mhaze and other "sceptics" is to try and make out that the maths is just sooo complicated that only someone as brilliant as they can understand it and expose the conspiracy at the dark heart of climate science.

It's kind of like the internet forum equivalent of the Wizard of Oz wow the plebes into submission by baffling them with Latin.

 

[mhaze]

IMO, indicative of 'we're smarter than you' coupled with a well-developed ego.

Lots of that in the petty halls of academentia and research, too.

 

[mhaze]

oh well then show me more research papers that were not taken into account in the paper i provided. or simply present me a better study. its that easy. i presented evidence and you deny it, now you should present evidence then we see if i also deny it and confirm Francesca's hypothesis.

No thanks. You wanted to argue for consensus pre 1972, you go right ahead and try to support your claim.


I can pick out of thin air a subject, and do a lookup for <1972, and find thousands of articles on said subject. If you only find a dozen or so, what does that tell you?

I think the M.O of mhaze and other "sceptics" is to try and make out that the maths is just sooo complicated that only someone as brilliant as they can understand it and expose the conspiracy at the dark heart of climate science.

It's kind of like the internet forum equivalent of the Wizard of Oz wow the plebes into submission by baffling them with Latin.

Not at all. Yes, there are some advanced math and computer simulation I have extensive experience with. But there are other types of math, modeling used in "climate science" that I have only a cursory understanding of (and really no interest in, either).

Here is a summary of what you've just done and how ridiculous it is.

"Mhaze argued that climate science math isn't easy. I decided to figure out what his M.O. was and report on it."

Any one who thinks that refuting a simple wrong statement requires an M.O. and ulterior motives .....

 

[DC]

No thanks. You wanted to argue for consensus pre 1972, you go right ahead and try to support your claim.


I can pick out of thin air a subject, and do a lookup for <1972, and find thousands of articles on said subject. If you only find a dozen or so, what does that tell you?

why dont you give me a link to that search? then we can take a look how many of those articles are actually scientific publications. pls provide the link to the search you are talking about.

btw, meanwhile there have been one more link provided that support the idea of a concensus of climate change in 1972. and sofar you have provided nothing else but your denial of the provided evidence.

 

[Trakar]

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.

The ideas and principal facts were known to and accepted by the majority of academia involved in climate study since the '30s. In the '50s and '60s, there were significant debates as to the direction climate was headed (the cooling argument had gained support due to temp readings and reassessments of milankovitch's orbital factors. It is during the early seventies that the understanding and acceptance of human induced warming became the clear and overwhelming majority consideration and in the '80s, the evidences swelled to a concensus in the primary related fields (climate, geology, etc.,) this concensus spilled over into all relevent general sciences (chemistry, physics, etc.,) in the '90s.

Your generalized usage of the term "academia" is somewhat troublesome, if it is meant to include all of academia (- The environment or community concerned with the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship) which could include everything from Early Childhood Education professors to Foriegn Language scholars as well as the Physical Sciences, then we might be hard pressed to find broad acceptance of the fundemental principles of many modern science understandings yet alone concensus on AGW. If you focus more narrowly on climate science and the closely related fields of that research, however, the general principles of modern AGW understandings have been a majority opinion consideration for going on at least 4 decades now.

 

[bit_pattern]

If you focus more narrowly on climate science and the closely related fields of that research, however, the general principles of modern AGW understandings have been a majority opinion consideration for going on 4 decades now.

Quantifiably so.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.