Topic: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change? - page 7. (Read 22181 times)

You don't know a damned thing about science. You just learned propane and hydrogen turn into liquids when compressed a couple weeks ago and think cars explode when you shoot the gas tank with a gun.

Re: sirazimuth,
We have been round and round and he never has any logic, its always just his little sophist games. Actually people love me at parties, I just hang out with people smarter than him and we get along fine

Well its hard to pinpoint a specific amount of warming because there are so many variables on our planet that affect each other and set off series of events and feedbacks.  Models allow for different scenarios to be put in and spit out different outcomes.  I don't understand why knowing the specific amount of warming that will happen is so important when we know there will be warming.  Its not like 1.5 degrees wouldn't be a huge problem.   You are getting too caught up in the quantitative and ignoring the qualitative.

Increase in temperatures increase plant growth in some places which decreases CO2 which decreases plant growth which increases CO2 but what about plants being cut down by humans which increases CO2 and decreases the amount of CO2 being absorbed.  Theres no certain way to run a climate model.



This is way off-topic and irrelevant.  Are you trying to make the point that CO2 and the greenhouse effect are necessary and natural?  everyone understands and acknowledges that the earth would be very cold without any greenhouse effect..  I'm not sure if you went here because you are trying to prove some side point or you really don't understand.  This was never about getting rid of all CO2 or denying natural cycles.  I feel a strawman coming....

Can you try to refute scientific argument rather than resort to childish name calling?

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.289.5477.270


Thanks

You've neither quoted the link properly or understood it, or even have a clue what I said.

Also, can you try not to talk like a ten year old?

Thanks.

"oh, 100% of the papers don't support it, so it's bogus. It's only 97%"

Like do you even listen to yourself? Literally linked to a study saying the overwhelming amount of papers support climate change while a few may not suggest a coloration to humans. You're saying "these papers exist because there's not 100% accuracy". But you've yet to link to any papers. You haven't disproven the original 980 some that support claim change.

https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/20962165

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996clch.book.....H

More proof cause "idk man"

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.289.5477.270

Last 1000 years ^^ I recommend reading it.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes

Oh, that propaganda piece.

This public discussion was started by Oreskes’ brief 2004 article, which included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords “global climate change.” The article says “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” of anthropogenic global warming. Although this article makes no claim to a specific number, it is routinely described as indicating 100% agreement and used as support for the 97% figure.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#670075ca1157

But don't take his word for it, you can figure it out yourself.

Gee, I guess you've quoted it, now you have to defend it. Of course, many people have noted the sloppy methods in that article, and the way it is mis quoted and abused by political operatives.

In fact, I think it is fair to say that looking at the actual articles, and the way their words were distorted in summarization by O., then in turn how O.'s limited findings were against distorted for pop propaganda usage, is an excellent exercise in understanding the creation of a political meme.

But then, this thread has really not been about science.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
(corrections: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.307.5708.355

Peer[even corrected] reviewed material.

Ya know what. I could just pretend to live in my own fansty and pretend this data and this study didn't exist. That these people didn't put their lives effort into it and the universe was just created last Thursday; however unlike some individuals, I try to stand rooted in actual reality rather than some silly conspiracy.


The thread is why is humanity so stupid about science in reality. Pretty much people choose "ignorance is bliss" and it's perpetuated by individuals for private gains.

Jeeezus dude. Been reading a lot of your material around here.
You must be really popular at parties...

Here you are again with another completely retarded fallacious argument that anyone who doesn't accept your conclusions must be the stooge of big oil. You are a stooge of the would be carbon swap market that would result from your moronic plans to effect cycles you have no proof that humans are causing to begin with. Now I win. See how stupid you sound? Bring some empirical data to the table.

Pretty much anyone arguing against climate change has investments in accelerating change.

That's pretty much the only logical conclusion to why people overwhelming deny the actual, scientific, peer reviewed information.

Yep. Even asking the question P/NP narrows the group addressed to one in a hundred, and that's extremely optimistic. But "climate change" broadens the focus, to almost a ridiculous chatter with noise everywhere, signal rare.

The prior question I posed to another forum member illustrates the essential issues behind the science of climate change quite nicely.

Can you state the equilibrium temperature of the planet Earth, and show how you derived it?

Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.

Couldn't agree more, there is not much you can do by yourself to check any of this shit. Unlike something like the flat earth, where you can actually do tests/experiments by yourself and you don't even need a lot of scientific knowledge. I would give you merit for this post but I have 0 to give
A lot of people here act like they know everything about it because they read a few articles here and there.

And it doesn't arouse your suspicion at all that hard data is so hard to find?

Interesting point of view. Sometimes it's healthy to change the perspective in order to figure out the right answer.

I guess to be a bit more accurate, what I'm getting at it's hard for an intellectually curious person not involved in these fields to have a genuinely strong conviction based on their understanding. I tried looking at the data a couple of times. It's so heterogeneous that you'd need to know a lot about the technical details of measurement techniques to even start evaluating it. And many of these things you can't easily look up, and without significant resources you won't get around to play with. I'm sure many of us have an opinion or a gut feeling one way or another and that's fine.

With something like P/NP, at least the "insiders" have less of an edge which is mostly access to other smart people thinking about it I guess?

Actually, no it was a rather small group that did that.

Like Hansen doing a Senate presentation on the subject in 1988, having first rigged the building air conditioners to not work. Then your friend Al Gore started his clown act.

I'm sure you saw my earlier quote but let me repeat it.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Earth’s mean temperature is predicted to rise by between 1.5 – 4.5 °C for a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is expected by around 2050

If everybody knows so much why is there a 3x variability in the estimates? They are quite straightforward in stating what little they really do know.

I'm sick and tired of political operatives such as you restating scientific findings into memes and partial truths that support your objectives, but bear little relation to the actual science or none whatsoever.

Graphs display data. If you want to use graphs please source them. Otherwise I certainly wouldn't access them. It would not be the first time that "evidence" has been presented that on examination was just propaganda from a radical political group.



Can you state the equilibrium temperature of the planet Earth, and show how you derived it? Then I'll entertain your ideas of higher and lower temperatures occurring statistically significantly more often and/or predictions of future climate change. (because then you have values to plug into formulas to find the variance, right?)

If you can't do that simple thing, shut the fuck up.

Yeah, we all know you didn't create the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Yet here you are arguing that it is legitimate. You know what that means? The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate empirical data to support the conclusion YOU SUPPORT.

"The burden of proof is not on the person who subscribes to the consensus of research on the topic."

This is quite a telling statement, thank you. This is what is known as an appeal to authority or and appeal to popularity. It is a logical fallacy. One that clearly demonstrates you think science comes from consensus. You skipped a step. The part with the empirical data. Now if it is just such solid science, why don't you present it so we can address it? Of course you can't so you need to create some kind of lame attempt at manipulation via the common need for humans to be accepted. Everyone knows do they? EVERYONE? Quite a bold claim.

And yes your meaningless unsourced pictures loaded.

I am not the one who introduced the idea of anthropogenic climate change.    The entire community of atmospheric scientists did that.    You have a strange way of taking widely accepted scientific ideas, and saying they are coming from me and my bias. The burden of proof is not on the person who subscribes to the consensus of research on the topic.  The burden of proof is obviously on the person who goes against almost the entirety of the scientific community.

Your claim is not that the sun heats the Earth.  Your claim is that the INCREASE in temperature is due to the sun.  Those are two very different claims.  Everyone knows the first, and the scientific consensus is that no more than 40% of the warming in the past 100 years and no more than 20% of the warming in the last 50 years is due to the sun.  

I am not being funny but I really have to ask, do the two graphs from my last post even load in your browser?

Oh I see, so the idea that the sun heats the Earth has been debunked now has it? Do you even bother reading what you write? No, YOU are the one claiming anthropogenic climate change is a thing, the burden of proof is ON YOU. You keep talking about all this "proof" and "evidence" as if it is just an accepted fact. That's not how science or debate work. What am I cherry picking here? Now you are just throwing names of fallacies at me and using them as a cudgel. That doesn't even make sense. I swear, if you really are a teacher your students should start a class action lawsuit for defrauding them of their tuition.

But they do. Go back through this very thread, you will see dozens of people wailing about how hot it is and that it's climate change, and carbon emissions was obviously the reason....

Oh, wait...that was in the summer....


Amusing, isn't it?

The concept of something being too abstract to have an opinion on I'm going to have to mull over. Offhand I believe the abstractness INVALIDATES statements of opinion.

Do you have an OPINION on p versus np?