Climate Change Report

[Thondalar]

I'm reasonably sure the argument is how far mankind already alters the course of nature.

Mmm....I was kinda hoping you, of all people, would catch that.

What is happening now is natural. Attempting to stop it is not.

[Thondalar]

I have 32 pages of facts, they're listed in the OP. None of them involve a head of Greenpeace (current or former) or Al Gore. You can refuse to believe in those facts, that's your right as a member of corvidae computer generatus, but they exist nevertheless.

It's bad science, and you know it. When charting a timeline for anything, you start at the beginning, not the end. You can't just pick out the part of the timeline that fits your narrative and dismiss all other related data. It's ludicrous.

[Warriorbird]

It's bad science, and you know it. When charting a timeline for anything, you start at the beginning, not the end. You can't just pick out the part of the timeline that fits your narrative and dismiss all other related data. It's ludicrous.

What about picking a conclusion first and then dismissing all the other data? Doesn't that violate the scientific method from the start?

And I was responding to a shit stirring shit poster. I want you to contribute something, anything of value on this forum. Ever. Or just shut the hell up. You distract, insult, get on your high horse of vapid so called moral superiority and compassion and shit up threads right and left. You have no point, make no valid argument in recent history, randomly cite stuff that is not germane to the topic being discussed and use all manner of other tactics and techniques to distract, upset, derail and stir shit so that you can claim moral victory when people stop posting due to your crap. You are the king of fallacious arguments. If you don't want called out on your bullshit, stop acting like a shit flinging monkey and contribute something of value.

I was purposefully making fun of someone. If people have already agreed not to make something serious by their actions, why exactly does it matter to you? You certainly don't follow your own rules. Why am I supposed to listen to your value judgement then? Or care?

[Jarvan]

What about picking a conclusion first and then dismissing all the other data? Doesn't that violate the scientific method from the start?

You mean like those scientists that fudged climate data to support global warming?

[Warriorbird]

You mean like those scientists that fudged climate data to support global warming?

My kindergarten teacher taught me two wrongs don't make a right.

[Parkbandit]

My kindergarten teacher taught me two wrongs don't make a right.

True, but isn't that exactly what they did? They came to the conclusion that man is causing the Earth to warm.. then cherry picked the data to support that conclusion and dismissed any data that didn't support the claim. I mean heck, if they didn't prove the conclusion that was the foundation of the grant money they were receiving, they were essentially out of a pretty lucrative job.

All I want to know is this: If man is changing the climate.. do I need more sweaters or more tee shirts? If the debate is over, the science is proven, just tell me what to buy.

[Warriorbird]

True, but isn't that exactly what they did? They came to the conclusion that man is causing the Earth to warm.. then cherry picked the data to support that conclusion and dismissed any data that didn't support the claim. I mean heck, if they didn't prove the conclusion that was the foundation of the grant money they were receiving, they were essentially out of a pretty lucrative job.

All I want to know is this: If man is changing the climate.. do I need more sweaters or more tee shirts? If the debate is over, the science is proven, just tell me what to buy.

If that actually were what happened by all the scientists who investigated global warming ever (which is a hilariously entertaining notion, but let's play along) it still doesn't stop the opposite from being a violation of the scientific method too.

I'm not a scientist but to my understanding all the average Floridian would have to prepare for is an alteration of weather patterns and you already prepare for hurricanes, presumably.

[cwolff]

It's bad science, and you know it. When charting a timeline for anything, you start at the beginning, not the end. You can't just pick out the part of the timeline that fits your narrative and dismiss all other related data. It's ludicrous.

If you're correct and the science, from a basic and fundamental level, is completely wrong; then where are the legitimate skeptics? Science is full of big competitive egos. It's implausible to think that they would all collude. The only thing I'm hearing from the deniers on here is more consipiracy theories. Where's the Beef?

Those who think scientists keep silent on global warming presumably because they fear the barbs of the world demonstrate a peculiar kind of paranoia, especially since what they fear largely does not exist. More prosaically they need to recall Carl Sagan’s words again because the claim that scientist don’t dare to speak out against global warming in the literature is, quite definitely, an extraordinary claim. And it doesn’t seem to stand up to even ordinary evidence.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...one-disagrees/

Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. Many papers captured in our literature search simply investigated an issue related to climate change without taking a position on its cause.

Our survey found that the consensus has grown slowly over time, and reached about 98% as of 2011. Our results are also consistent with several previous surveys finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...fclimatechange

“The public perception of a scientific consensus on [manmade warming] is a necessary element in public support for climate policy,” the study says. “However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity.”
But Keith Kloor, a science writer for Discover, smartly argues that while closing this gap is a laudable goal, it doesn’t necessarily move the needle on public’s level of concern about the issue or their motivation to act.
“Over many years of research, we have consistently found that, on average, Americans view climate change as a threat distant in space and time–a risk that will affect far away places, other species, or future generations more than people here and now,” concludes a Yale report that Kloor cites.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g-so-what-now/

[Ker_Thwap]

“Over many years of research, we have consistently found that, on average, Americans view climate change as a threat distant in space and time–a risk that will affect far away places, other species, or future generations more than people here and now,” concludes a Yale report that Kloor cites.

Isn't that a reasonable view on the average? Break it down into it's component parts...

-In space and time. Maybe people living on the fringes might notice the extra 1/2 of a degree? A reasonable belief.
-Other species. The canary in the coal mine will die first. A reasonable belief.
-Future Generations. This potentially covers millions of future generations. A reasonable belief.

Humans are a wonderfully adaptive species. As a species we've survived climate changes in the past; it's Chicken Little, "the sky is falling" stupid to think that as a species we won't survive other periods of climate change, whatever the source. Eventually people will work out the actual science in a manner that better forecasts long term climate change based on a variety of natural and man made factors. We're also a manipulative greedy species, there will always be people looking to politicize the process to line their pockets with the cash of people who both care, and don't care.

I dated a hippie chick last year for a few months. She talked the good talk, frowned at the use of insecticides in my garden, suggested I could eat my dandelion greens, gave me a recipe to make dandelion wine (which she admitted tasted horrible,) she made a point of shopping at the local co-op when I was around, and some other little things. She talked about attending some Wiccan tree festival thing in the woods (stoners getting stoned) but never bothered to attend, and just generally talked a lot about how "they" should be doing more to save the planet. In reality, she had twice as much processed crap in her fridge than I have, drove a bigger car than I do, didn't bother to get it tuned, or check tire pressure, her garden was overgrown with weeds and bugs, and yielded pretty much nothing, her house was packed with the same consumer goods, she had the most recent iphone, ate quinoa (but felt guilty that the indigenous quinoa eaters could no longer afford it) ate edamame shipped across the world on tanker ships, and generally lived with a larger carbon footprint than I do.

I guess my point is, it's hard to take people too seriously when they profess to have these firm beliefs, but they behave pretty much exactly like the people they claim to disparage. Liberals, conservatives, whatever, these are just labels people put on themselves hoping they'll be loved a tiny bit more.

[Warriorbird]

“Over many years of research, we have consistently found that, on average, Americans view climate change as a threat distant in space and time–a risk that will affect far away places, other species, or future generations more than people here and now,” concludes a Yale report that Kloor cites.

Isn't that a reasonable view on the average? Break it down into it's component parts...

-In space and time. Maybe people living on the fringes might notice the extra 1/2 of a degree? A reasonable belief.
-Other species. The canary in the coal mine will die first. A reasonable belief.
-Future Generations. This potentially covers millions of future generations. A reasonable belief.

Humans are a wonderfully adaptive species. As a species we've survived climate changes in the past; it's Chicken Little, "the sky is falling" stupid to think that as a species we won't survive other periods of climate change, whatever the source. Eventually people will work out the actual science in a manner that better forecasts long term climate change based on a variety of natural and man made factors. We're also a manipulative greedy species, there will always be people looking to politicize the process to line their pockets with the cash of people who both care, and don't care.

I dated a hippie chick last year for a few months. She talked the good talk, frowned at the use of insecticides in my garden, suggested I could eat my dandelion greens, gave me a recipe to make dandelion wine (which she admitted tasted horrible,) she made a point of shopping at the local co-op when I was around, and some other little things. She talked about attending some Wiccan tree festival thing in the woods (stoners getting stoned) but never bothered to attend, and just generally talked a lot about how "they" should be doing more to save the planet. In reality, she had twice as much processed crap in her fridge than I have, drove a bigger car than I do, didn't bother to get it tuned, or check tire pressure, her garden was overgrown with weeds and bugs, and yielded pretty much nothing, her house was packed with the same consumer goods, she had the most recent iphone, ate quinoa (but felt guilty that the indigenous quinoa eaters could no longer afford it) ate edamame shipped across the world on tanker ships, and generally lived with a larger carbon footprint than I do.

I guess my point is, it's hard to take people too seriously when they profess to have these firm beliefs, but they behave pretty much exactly like the people they claim to disparage. Liberals, conservatives, whatever, these are just labels people put on themselves hoping they'll be loved a tiny bit more.

Humans, like coyotes, are marvelously adaptive. It is hubris to dismiss our capabilities though.