Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeBentley said:
I often wonder how the debate would be right now if "Climate Change" had been used from the start instead of "Global Warming" so that so many people couldn't get hung up on the "But it's cold where I'm at right now, how can there be global warming?" disconnect.
Click to expand...

Climate change was used all along, recognize the name of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?
 
Trakar said:
Climate change was used all along, recognize the name of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?
Click to expand...

True but "Global Warming" was the layman, man on the street term for a long time and has attributed if not outright caused the attitude I was talking about.

At least here in the States. Is/was the term not as common in other places? *Honest question*
 
Global Warming is the underlying process creating climate change.

Currently the driver for global warming is the increase in C02 in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels.

One aspect of the changes in the climate is more extreme weather.
 
I get that. But as long as I've been aware of this debate one side has almost constantly used "But it's cold here, there can't be global warming" and eye rolling "Global warming eh?" everytime a snowstorm hits as their primary counter-argument.
 
macdoc said:
That's just lack of understanding of what is going on in the Arctic.
Click to expand...

In general, just a lack of willingness to try to understand. It isn't about the science to these people, it is about rejecting the support for disliked policy arguments.
 
Arnold Martin said:
My defenses are impenetrable but they are not metaphysical. They are based on reality
Click to expand...
You're defending your belief-system, which is metaphysical territory. Your decision to believe that Exxon is lying has nothing to do with facts or reality and everything to do with making their statement fit your belief-system. You explain the lie as Exxon placating malicious agencies which you can't identify but believe in anyway, which again is metaphysics. The reality is that Exxon have made the statement.

Your defences are impenetrable for the simple reason that you reject any evidence inconsistent with your belief-system. This is very common behaviour, far from unique to you.
 
I think it's generally termed hubris.

A science approach is always open to new evidence and theory. Any climate scientist is happy to admit there has been a slowing in the atomspheric aspect of AGW but a corresponding jump in ocean heat and they are digging into the dynamics of how that is occurring.

IF you can provide a theoretical framework that provides the physics and the evidence to overturn AGW then we're all ears.

Reality is, you cannot nor have others been able to and Exxon knew this in 1995 and acknowledges it openly this year.

A number of publications on line have simply banned outright statements denying AGW as being "factually incorrect" in the same way they do not acknowledge anti-evolution claims as having any merit in science or factual reality.

You are smart enough to fly a helicopter.....means you can learn despite lack of formal schooling.
You are handcuffed by your ingrained suspicion of science.

Archeologists and scientists can be a weird and elite group . They sometimes express the same traits as dictators and totalitarians. They think we are unwashed peasants.
http://treasureworks.com/forums/11-g...ologists#11243
Click to expand...

You can get past this AM ..... but only if you are willing...there are tough policy decisions to discuss bout AGW...you are not in the conversation.
 
Last edited:
Iamme said:
Ive read every post since my last post. Sure is a lot to know regarding this subject.
I wonder why Sean Hannity would embarrass himself over the airwaves, saying AGW is not true? I think Rush in this camp also? Cant remember for sure, but i think so.
Click to expand...
They're immune to embarrassment, and provide what their audience wants. Denying AGW does no harm at all to their ratings; acknowledging its reality would end their careers.

I think they have painted it as some liberal agenda, where basically anything Al Gore has to say is foolish poppycock. Probably started from claims made that he invented the internet.
Click to expand...
Of course, Al Gore never made that claim; it was invented by people who have a vastly inflated image of Al Gore and his role in the world. In the general belief-system of the US right Al Gore is a Titanic figure, whereas in reality he's a failed US politician who couldn't even beat a chimp to the White House.

I notice that r-j brings up this Titanic fantasy-figure by attributing an "all Arctic summer ice gone by 2013" claim to him (another claim which Gore didn't make, naturally, but which rightwingers believe he did) and thus making it (for r-j) a central tenet of climate science.
 
macdoc said:
Reality is, you cannot nor have others been able to and Exxon knew this in 1995 and acknowledges it openly this year.
Click to expand...
As a good rule of thumb, when an industry hires Fred SInger to deny something it confirms that they've done their own research and know it's true. If there was an honest scientific case to be made the industry could get honest scientists to make it for free.[/quote]

A number of publications on line have simply banned outright statements denying AGW as being "factually incorrect" in the same way they do not acknowledge anti-evolution claims as having any merit in science or factual reality.
Click to expand...
In the case of reddit they've banned statements which are demonstrably untrue - such as "there has been cooling for years". Valid arguments haven't been banned, but they very rarely emerge from the crowd of zombies.

You are smart enough to fly a helicopter.....means you can learn despite lack of formal schooling.
You are handcuffed by your ingrained suspicion of science.
Click to expand...
That suspicion is central to defending his belief system and is thus impervious to education, or anything else for that matter.

You can get past this .....
Click to expand...
The will is absent. Without the will there's no chance.
 
JoeBentley said:
I often wonder how the debate would be right now if "Climate Change" had been used from the start instead of "Global Warming" so that so many people couldn't get hung up on the "But it's cold where I'm at right now, how can there be global warming?" disconnect.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would have made much difference. Anyone who still believes AGW is a left wing conspiracy, does so religiously.
 
Trakar said:
In general, just a lack of willingness to try to understand. It isn't about the science to these people, it is about rejecting the support for disliked policy arguments.
Click to expand...
I think it's more fundamental than objections to particular policies. The rightwing libertarian economic model is a sum of exchanges between two parties (buyer and seller) and cannot incorporate third-parties, and hence externalaties.

A more sophisticated rightwing model is possible, of course, recognising the reality of externalities while using a market-oriented technique (or "trick" :cool:) such as cap-and-trade to take account of them. One can conclude that rightwing economic models have become less sophisticated since Reagan's days, especially in the US.
 
Jules Galen said:
Meanwhile, Record Low temperatures have been recorded in Antarctica and a ship full of Global-Warming Scientists are stuck in record Antarctic Ice (and so is the Ice Breaker which came to rescue them!).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/01/antarctica-icebound-ship/4280971/

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/not-thats-c-c-c-cold-antarctica-sets-record-135-2D11719427
Click to expand...

Have you not read the posts and links which shows this is a massive red herring?
 
Jules Galen said:
Hey...I look at the record low Polar Temperatures and record Polar Ice as facts.
Click to expand...

That is called looking at facts and conforming them to your preferred message, rather than accepting the scientific analysis of what the facts indicate.

Why do you prefer your personal political interpretation to the understandings provided by scientific research and analysis?
 
The plants are ignoring the likes of JG

He has yet to convince a single mangrove sprout....

With Few Hard Frosts, Tropical Mangroves Push North

Dec. 30, 2013 — Cold-sensitive mangrove forests have expanded dramatically along Florida's Atlantic Coast as the frequency of killing frosts has declined, according to a new study based on 28 years of satellite data from the University of Maryland and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Md

Between 1984 and 2011, the Florida Atlantic coast from the Miami area northward gained more than 3,000 acres (1,240 hectares) of mangroves. All the increase occurred north of Palm Beach County. Between Cape Canaveral National Seashore and Saint Augustine, mangroves doubled in area. Meanwhile between the study's first five years and its last five years, nearby Daytona Beach recorded 1.4 fewer days per year when temperatures fell below 28.4 degrees Fahrenheit (-4 degrees Celsius). The number of killing frosts in southern Florida was unchanged.

The mangroves' march up the coast as far north as St. Augustine, Fla., is a striking example of one way climate change's impacts show up in nature. Rising temperatures lead to new patterns of extreme weather, which in turn cause major changes in plant communities, say the study's authors..
Click to expand...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131230170342.htm

They are politically amoral I guess....:rolleyes:
 
It appears that the current Sunspot Cycle is shaping up to be a relatively weak and long Cycle. If historical precedent is an indicator, this means that the recent Global Warming we've experienced is about to undergo a very significant reversal.

ssn_predict_l.gif


On Youtube, there is a series of Videos where Scientist David Archibald explains why long Sunspot Cycles are indicators of imminent Global Cooling. These are good videos that give a pretty-clear explanation of the facts.

Hope this helps.
 
Even the little critters aren't listening to you JG

Climate change makes pests move north from the tropics – study

Monday, September 2, 2013 - 08:00 in Earth & Climate

Insect swarms from warmer regions near the equator branching out to new locations they would have previously found too cold. Hundreds of crop pests are advancing away from the tropics at a rate of nearly two miles a year, research has shown.
The mostly likely explanation for the trend is said to be climate change as rising temperatures make new habitats more inviting.Pest invasions driven by global warming have serious implications for agriculture and food security, according to scientists.Already, between 10% and 16% of global crop production is lost to pests such as fungi, bacteria, viruses, insects and worms.
Losses caused by fungi and fungi-like micro-organisms alone amount to enough to feed 8.5% of the global population.Agricultural pests are mainly spread by being carried on transported farm products. But the second most important factor in disseminating pests is weather.To investigate the likely effect of climate change, British scientists studied data on the distribution...
Click to expand...
http://esciencenews.com/sources/the...e.change.makes.pests.move.north.tropics.study
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom