Slashdot Mirror
Strong Climate Change Opinions Are Self-Reinforcing
An anonymous reader writes "A study recently published in Nature (abstract) looked at how personal beliefs altered a person's perception of climate change. Surveying a sample of people in 2008 and then the same people again in 2011, the study looked for 'motivated reasoning,' where 'high belief certainty influenced perceptions of personal experience,' and 'experiential learning,' where 'perceived personal experience of global warming led to increased belief certainty.' According to the article, 'When you categorize individuals by engagement — essentially how confident and knowledgeable they feel about the facts of the issue — differences are revealed. For the highly-engaged groups (on both sides), opinions about whether climate is warming appeared to drive reports of personal experience. That is, motivated reasoning was prevalent. On the other hand, experience really did change opinions for the less-engaged group, and motivated reasoning took a back seat.None of that is truly surprising, but it leads to a couple interesting points. First, the concrete here-and-now communication strategy is probably a good one for those whose opinions aren't firmly set — fully 75 percent of Americans, according to the polling. But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 8 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise.'"
Prof. Obvious of the Romero Institute noted today that people who already strongly believe something will continue to do so regardless of new evidence. In related news, the government edges closer to falling off the fiscal cliff, the totally solvable budget problem that we created to force our two political parties to play nice together. Both sides have recently stated they aren't open to negotiation, will not offer any concessions, and aren't talking to each other, however our correspondent on the scene reported recently that they have started writing numbers down on a sheet of paper. The sheet of paper was not immediately available for comment at the time of this post.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
"I believe GW is happening and that it causes bad things. Today bad weather happened, must be due to GW."
or
"I do not believe GW is happening or that it causes bad things. Today bad weather happened, as it does from time to time."
"I did not believe GW was happening, but did believe it would cause worse hurricane. Today a bad hurricane happened, so now I have more faith in GW."
or
"I did not believe GW was happening, but did believe it would cause hotter summers.. We had snowfall in June so, therefore, no GW.
The far more interesting thing than the conclusion reached by the source is that none of these is a remotely scientific line of reasoning. Correlating personal experience (i.e., weather events) with climate is long acknowledged as foolish, just like jumping to the conclusion that you live in the most unsafe city in the world because you got mugged -- or that you live in the safest one because you've never been mugged.
I've read plenty of studies talking about how abnormally cold winters in many places are also the result of climate change. What you did there? It's a logical fallacy. You're assuming that scientists say that, then making an erroneous conclusion based on it. But your initial assumption isn't factual.
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Cognitive bias is nothing new; it is not specific to climate change.
"A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular situations, which may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
Sent from my ENIAC
He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.
The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.
If someone says they believe in AGW but refuse to support nuclear technology, the ONLY technology able to replace our base load generation requirements and not produce CO2, then it is more likely that they believe in AGW only as a vehicle to impose their already established political agenda of rationing and taxes.
The irony is that if we did go full nuclear, it would go a long way towards satisfying the agendas of anti-AGW people (Cheap and abundant energy) and the AGW crowd.
Then we'd never have to suffer any more wanksfests about Global Warming on Slashdot again. That right there should be worth a few rads of exposure.
weather != climate
Scientists rarely say anything one way or the other. They publish papers and then the politicos, pundits and whatever you call us here on Slashdot and other sites start arguing and calling each other names over what they published.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
....when it's extremely cold in the winter, scientists say thats just normal weather, but when it's extremely hot in the summer, it's global warming?
Maybe you could make us a list of scientists who are saying that.
We know about global warming, not from observing warm days, but from longitudinal measurements from all over the world.
And of course, we understand the mechanism. The "greenhouse" property of certain gasses that we have been spewing into the atmosphere in ever-increasing amounts since the beginning of the industrial age has been known IIRC for about 200 years.
Also, global warming doesn't imply warm winters in any particular location. It means more thermal energy in our atmosphere and oceans, which can destabilize that very complex dynamical system that we call "weather".
For an example of a mechanism whereby global warming can make winter colder in specific locations, see "The Winters of Our Discontent" in the December 2012 Scientific American.
But then, I'm guessing that you're not particularly interested in learning how scientists figure out what's going on, or you wouldn't be posting such nonsense. A "first post!" would have made you look less foolish.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It's insane how so many other areas of study are just accepted when 99% of scientists agree, but this one is different. Shall I listen to some turd on the internet, or people who've been studying it most of their lives and actually know what they are talking about?!
Rejection of creationism or global warming is comprehensible, because of the strong ulterior motives. What I don't get is how rabidly so many people here oppose the existence of dark matter. I'm having trouble grokking a financial or religious motive for that one.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
To show how these things work, I've been thinking about setting up a denial campaign for an obviously factual event: "Hurricane" Sandy.
It wasn't really a hurricane. National weather service decided not to issue a warning. The roller coaster would not have landed in one piece as it is photographed. We could build a pretty solid case that it wasn't real. It would really piss off the people who were there :-)
Bruce Perens.
The time to do something effective about climate change was 20 years ago. And the scientific data was solid back then. It was ignored because it was too inconvenient. I guess that will make a nice inscription on the tomb-stone of the current civilization: "It died because saving itself was too inconvenient".
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
A lot of the anti-globalwarming movement rely on classic FUD, throwing enough shit on the wall and counting on that something will stick.
Climate change is big business. Those in the profession who don't push the agenda end up hungry. Money corrupts all, and at this point I basically have a hard time believing anyone 100%. Scare tactics work, and generate money. And when caught in a flat out lie, over overexageration it becomes a 1 step forward, 2 steps back as far as trust with me.
So how come scientists in all the other fields are too stoopid to get in on the scam? Can't astronomers just make up claims about a non-existent asteroid that's going to smash us later this century if we don't poor big money into further research, and rely on greed to keep anyone from revealing the fraud? Physicists, astronomers, biologists, geologists - all too dull witted or honest to do what those clever climatologists have done.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
We are pleased to announce that in recognition of their high engagement and their high motivation to disregard facts, those 8% are all eligible to a Darwin award.
I think the Darwin Award would only be appropriate if their actions harmed themselves without having the same negative consequences on the rest of us.
Indeed, I can only agree with you. On the other hand, if an 8% of ignorants is enough to prevent us to act collectively, we are in for the highest Darwin award (or next to the highest as the highest would be the extinction of all life): a Species Darwin Award.
He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.
It's a simple fact that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice, and as such, it has meaning. It is not direct evidence that global warming is occurring; it is good evidence that the direct evidence has been thoroughly examined.
The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.
Well, I have comforting news for you: it's not. You seem to have scared yourself with your own rhetoric.
You could just stop listening to the eco-activists until they start the first step of the scientific method and make clear their necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Problem solved :)
They come out with a bogus study that says 97% of scientists all agree. That's not proof, it's social proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Proof
The ad hominem attacks aren't necessary, but typical of unskeptical-science types.
Sorry, but I believe in calling a spade a spade.
I have the utmost sympathy for someone who has an IQ of 70, but IMO people who are wilful idiots deserve all the crap anyone cares to dump on them.
I guess if you can't attack the argument, attack the person instead. At least you'll feel better. I see you did attack the argument earlier on, but you might as well not have bothered with a sign-off like that.
But you see, I *did* attack the argument. You're just latching on to the fact that I ended by mentioning that anyone who made the slightest effort to inform themselves never would have made the argument in the first place.
Maybe we should address the question of why you're doing that instead of responding to my refutation of the argument?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
but I also believe it is not due to mankind.
You must concede that mankind has some influence though right? I mean for millions of years there has been a fairly stable cycle of volcano's etc spewing out CO2 and the plants locking the carbon away underground to keep the balance approximately even, and now we are taking that buried carbon and turning it back into CO2, and also cutting down the trees, while the other outputs of CO2 remain approximately constant.
CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and the mechanism is well understood, so I hardly think that's up for debate. Just how much influence that is having on the current climate and how much influence it is going to have in the future is a bit of guesswork (there are other much more potent greenhouse gases around, like water vapour and methane), but to say that mankind has not had any impact at all seems a little ignorant.
He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.
The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.
As someone who thinks the "scientific consensus" on AGW is much more likely correct than not, I have to say I agree with this. History is littered with examples of scientific consensus that was later proven wrong, and indeed that is the very definition of scientific progress.
The key thing to consider when evaluating an unsettled scientific issue is to note whether the evidence for a particular hypothesis gets stronger or weaker as more and better research is done. By my admittedly layman's interpretation of what read, the evidence for AGW has only been getting stronger over time, and the evidence presented against it seems increasingly narrow. But even though I agree with the "scientific consensus", I hate hearing and reading it as the cliched soundbite and doubt it's convincing any of that 75% of people who are unsure (however they defined unsure).
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
The climate data isn't mere the preponderance of the evidence, it is overwhelming. A team that loses 5-4 can say the need a couple of breaks, a team that loses 11,000 to 24 – got hosed.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
I am pro-GW (I am in favor of it). So perhaps I may be of some assistance. I try to resist posting in global warming related 'stories' because:
1. They are off topic for this site. Nothing to do with geeks or technology or Linux.
2. Any post I make is likely to be modded down to -1 and vanish before any interesting discussion can develop. That is pretty much inevitible with any controversial topic where the overwhelming majority is on one side of the debate. I think you guys really do prefer to just debate among yourselves anyway.
Let me summarize the debate. One side believes there is sufficient evidence for theory X. The other side believes there is insufficient evidence. The side that believes there is sufficient evidence believes that the evidence is so overwhelming that to be skeptical of it is of the same order as being skeptical of gravity.
I personally believe rational argument is virtually impossible on the topic of global warming. Devout AGW believers will not be swayed by any argument. To them
AGW is self-evident and the burden of proof should be on the other side to prove that it is not happening.
GW heretics like myself OTOH, will not be convinced of AGW without the sort of overwhelming evidence that we aren't likely to ever have. Certainly not within the lifetime of anyone now alive. The fact that the vast majority believes AGW is undeniably real and even some kind of immediate threat to our species makes it even more unlikely that any real evidence will ever be gathered. Why bother to gather evidence about something that the majority of the world has already decided is undeniably true? These days scientists (and I use that term loosely) focus on refining and reinforcing the argument in favor of AGW. Not so much on proving that it exists.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Because supporting Dark Matter requires believing in indetectable entities that somehow influence the entire universe around them, and that's too much for the average slashdotter to admit.
a) Dark matter is in fact detectable, by its gravitational effect. We just haven't figured out what it is.[*]
b) Like all other matter with mass, it does in fact influence the "entire" universe around it -- modulo that speed of light horizon effect thingy.
[*] This is hardly novel in science. For example, we detected "nebulas" centuries before we figured out that some of them are distant galaxies. Almost a thousand years in the case of Andromeda (see link).
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And of course, we understand the mechanism.
Are you sure? The last glacial maximum was between 19-25000 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum) during which time vast portions of North America and Europe were covered in ice sheets.
19,000 years is a pretty short period of time in the grand scheme of things. To think the location I'm currently living was underneath a kilometer of ice less than 20,000 years ago, and no there are no glaciers anywhere close, the logical conclusion is the earth has been warming up for a lot longer than just the time since the industrial age. In fact, from what I understand about earth's history, we've been a majorly tropical planet for most of the time and ice cover is somewhat rare.
There's no doubt we have some effect on the changing climate (in regards to temperature via the greenhouse effect), but to say that is the mechanism causing the earth to warm seems like a huge jump from basic logic.
1. The vast majority of scientists who have devoted their professional lives to the study of the earth's climate;
I think you will find that the vast majority of so called climate scientists have believed in AGW from a very young age and are not attempting to disprove the theory (as you would normally do in science), but to reinforce it as much as possible so as to convince politicians to save the world from what they passionately believe will otherwise result in the extinction of our entire species and perhaps even all animal life on the planet.
Imagine a mythical climate scientist who is not a true believer. Who didn't drink the koolaid and is naturally skeptical of the AGW theory. How far do you think he would get in school? Unless he lied on his exams he would fail or at least do poorly. He would be unlikely to go into a field where it was so obvious he was not wanted. If I had been interested in studying the Earth's climate and was not persuaded by the AGW arguments/evidence I would certainly not consider becoming a climate scientist as a practical option. Even if I managed to somehow graduate by telling the profs what they wanted to hear on every exam I would still never be hired by anyone as a climate scientist when they discovered that I was a skeptic.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
How do you classify people who definitely believe the earth is getting warmer, but not because of the activity of people? How do you classify people who believe that a warmer Earth would be beneficial overall to all living things including human beings? Where do fossil fuels come from and why do we call them that? Where was all that carbon that we humans are now so lustily burning, before the fossil fuels existed?
I will give you my answers. Yes, there is evidence that the earth is getting warmer, but there is no evidence YET that human activity is to blame. Living things generally do much better when it is warmer than when it is cold. There are large land areas on earth, which are too cold to grow much food for any creature, including people. Fossil fuels come from things that were once alive, both plants and animals. In order for plants to take in carbon to make hydrocarbons with, they get it from the atmosphere.
Consequently, before fossil fuels were formed, all the carbon we have already burned plus all that is still in the ground must have been in the atmosphere, where plants could take it and water, in combination with sunlight to make hydrocarbons, which later were buried. Now we dig up and pump some of these hydrocarbons and put the carbon back in the atmosphere. If living creatures, before they became fossils were able to live in a much warmer climate due to the abundant carbon dioxide, then it is quite likely that humans would also be able to not only survive, but thrive on a uniformly warm Earth.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
I am pro-GW (I am in favor of it)
I'm guessing that that doesn't mean what it sounds like!
Joking aside, I appreciate your forthright post. And I despise the fact that people mod down posts that state views that they don't agree with. (Much better, IMO, to mod them *up*, so that the post and the refutations (or attempts) will be read by more people.)
But IMO, here's the crux:
Let me summarize the debate. One side believes there is sufficient evidence for theory X. The other side believes there is insufficient evidence. The side that believes there is sufficient evidence believes that the evidence is so overwhelming that to be skeptical of it is of the same order as being skeptical of gravity.
I am not a climatologist, but I do know a bit about how science works. And I know that the overwhelming majority of *scientists* believes that there is sufficient evidence for the fact (not theory) of global warming. So for me there *aren't* two sides.
Now scientists aren't divinely inspired, and are in fact sometimes wrong, but in the big picture science bases its views on evidence, and even goes out of its way to look for refuting evidence. So for me this is like asking whether I should invest in someone's flying car business when the overwhelming majority of aeronautical engineers say that the design won't actually fly, contradicted by a smaller number of non-experts who publish their views as editorials in the Wall Street Journal rather than engineering journals. There simply isn't the slightest reason to examine "two sides". Especially when the contradictors resort to arguments that the entire field of aeronautical engineering are lying because they want the venture to fail. It's just nonsense.
I personally believe rational argument is virtually impossible on the topic of global warming. Devout AGW believers will not be swayed by any argument. To them AGW is self-evident and the burden of proof should be on the other side to prove that it is not happening.
No, AGW is based on evidence. As I said, I'm not a climatologist, but I can read.
The fact that the vast majority believes AGW is undeniably real and even some kind of immediate threat to our species makes it even more unlikely that any real evidence will ever be gathered.
FWIW, I do believe that AGW is undeniably real, but that the only "threat" is poses to our species is inconvenience, and probably a lot of deaths in wars by nations trying to optimize their own convenience at the expense of others, but hardly an extinction-level event. (*Maybe* a runaway instability will render our planet uninhabitable, but I'm not aware of any evidence that that is our fate.)
The fact that the vast majority believes AGW is undeniably real and even some kind of immediate threat to our species makes it even more unlikely that any real evidence will ever be gathered. Why bother to gather evidence about something that the majority of the world has already decided is undeniably true?
As a matter of fact, scientists *are* busy gathering additional evidence. The fact that both old and new evidence overwhelmingly support one conclusion is hardly a reason to deny that conclusion.
These days scientists (and I use that term loosely) focus on refining and reinforcing the argument in favor of AGW. Not so much on proving that it exists.
Scientists are also busy studying gravity and the expanding universe, but as with global warming, they're far past the point of needing to determine whether those phenomena exist.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
But you see, I *did* attack the argument
You can see it by reading his post before replying to it, as well.
Since clearly you did not read his post, since you began with something he already said while acting like he didnt know it, well.. that tells us how emotionally involved you are, which explains the insults you were using too.
It is very clear that your belief, be it scientifically right or wrong, is internally justified on an emotional rather than rational level. That you are so vocal about it means that nobody should listen to you on any topic, because you clearly believe internally that emotion-inspired reasoning trumps rational arguments.
"His name was James Damore."
Well isn't it obvious? Every day the earth warms means that more and more people are sinning and not asking for forgiveness. Eventually Satan will come out of the depths (followed closely by an annoying sounding English speaking Saddam Hussein) to literally rain fire and bring hell to earth and all the sinners that remain. And everybody in heaven will be standing on unfrozen icebergs that encase tons of carbon while looking down on all the bad people burning and suffering in eternal damnation.
[parent post not worth quoting]
a) No climatologist claims that they can explain "every single event ever observed", even if you limit that to relevant events.
b) Why do you think what climatologists say isn't falsifiable? Did thermometers stop working or something? Are the melting glaciers and ice caps irrelevant? Do you know of some climatologists' hypothesis where measurable quantities such as, say, warming, are irrelevant?
This is like saying that continental drift is an unfalsifiable hypothesis in an age when we can directly measure it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Show me the numbers. Not someone's opinion about what they mean, but a detailed description of each experiment and the raw data that resulted.
They already have: it's called the scientific literature. It's not their fault you haven't taken the time and effort to read and understand it.
Climate change is big business. Those in the profession who don't push the agenda end up hungry.
Either that, or the scientists overseeing grant funding are actually competent, and don't waste money on crackpots who fail to grasp even the most basic results in the discipline.
Nah. It's gotta be the conspiracy.
ISTM that if someone has to defend their beliefs by invoking a vast international conspiracy involving almost every scientist in the relevant fields, they should re-examine their beliefs.
I mean really, we *laugh* at people who claim that the moon landings were a hoax.
Yet many GW-deniers and evolution-deniers do in fact defend their views by invoking a vast international conspiracy involving almost every scientist in the relevant fields.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.
The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.
We're not saying that reality is subject to a vote. We're saying "when in doubt, listen to the experts".
That can be problematic advice when the experts are strongly divided on the topic, but when there's near unanimity among all the experts in the world, sensible people listen to them.
And in fact people usually do. But curiously, when there's near unanimity among all the relevant scientists about a conclusion that some people don't like, some of those people excuse dismissing the opinions of the experts on the curious argument that "science isn't subject to a vote".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Link to the "actual data", please?
Sorry, but we don't have the technology for HTML links to alternative realities.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Al Gore is not a scientist.
This is all very stupid anyway and the result of a very expensive PR campaign. If the scientists said nothing in the face of the PR the PR lies would have been accepted at face value. Now people like yourself are saying that by not being good little quiet scientists because they spoke out against the PR lies they are not good scientists? That's a sign of the petty little trap sprung by the PR folks, an angry scientist looks unreliable to the general public. A diehard US Republican from 1980 would look at the current global warming debate and wonder what the fuck happened to his party and who let the luddite loonies in. The west, and the USA in particular, got to where it is today by listening to it's experts and leaving the loonies on the fringe where they belong.
By my admittedly layman's interpretation of what read, the evidence for AGW has only been getting stronger over time
Perhaps because that's all that people are looking for. No matter what happens, it is inevitably spun as evidence for AGW.
Do you have the faintest idea how much prestige accrues to a scientist who overturns the common conception? Do we recognize the names of Einstein and Hubble because they were staunch supporters of the status quo?
If I was a climatologist and had actual evidence that global warming wasn't happening, I'd make myself famous in a heartbeat.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Since it's been considered obvious from about as long as plate tectonics that would be the case, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Conversely, if somebody manages to truly disprove global warming there's a shitload of money in it for them from a pile of lobby groups and a Nobel prize to put on their mountain of money. Even an attempt or fabrication or a book of utter bullshit that looks sort of like it makes sense gets a portion of that mountain of money. Freezing your arse off in Antarctica and reporting things as they really are doesn't pay anywhere near as well as a bug-eyed Sudoko puzzle composer and occasional snake-oil salesman jetting around the world telling lies about polar bears.
To be fair I found the link on Forbes and the Heartland Institute, and replicas from scientists in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html
I started out assuming the warmist side of this issue and stayed there many years, being big into natural sciences and earth sciences and such. It was just the general dickwad nature of the warmist argument: "sit down and shut up while scientists are speaking!" and the general fear of discussion that led me to investigate the matter for myself. Turns out I was wrong to be so trusting.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Actual data shows that temperatures in the last 20 years have DROPPED, not increased.
You should check into that claim. It is, of course, trivially wrong. At least your using multi-decade trends. Most of your intellectual brethren will only look back far enough to get the statistical trend they want: nothing. But on a 20 year time scale there is a slight warming trend with p
Look into it. Open you mind. If you are wrong about this, you may be wrong about... many things.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
You could just stop listening to the political sides and listen to climate scientists instead.
Problem solved.
Wrong, because the scientists have politicized themselves and the science.
If a scientist advocates for some political action to be taken or not taken or policy to be enacted or not enacted then he has politicized himself, and his opinion is political, not scientific.
That's ridiculous. If astronomers detect an asteroid on a collision course with the earth and testify before Congress about it, does that disqualify them from having an opinion on the topic? (And justify ignoring the threat?)
Scientists do studies, perform experiments, and publish papers on purely scientific topics. They don't engage in political/ideological advocacy.
Scientists are people, and are entitled to advocacy just like everyone else. In fact, if they advocate for public policy based on facts, there's far more reason to listen to them than to most people advocating this or that.
Those advocating one side or the other are not scientists, at least while they are advocating.
So, no scientists have advocated one side over another, as the very act of advocacy disqualifies them as performing "science" and therefor their opions are not "scientific", but political.
Strat
That wins a prize for convoluted logic even on the internet.
If you don't like global warming, try arguing against the facts rather than for disqualifying the opinions of those who actually know the facts.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Consider the consensus on the directions of up and down for example. Is it scary that everyone agrees on those?
He lives in Australia, you insensitive clod.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
How come, when we have one or two cold days, all the nutjobs come out and say "SEE, HOW CAN THERE BE GLOBAL WARMING WHEN IT WAS REALLY COLD THIS WEEKEND?!".
There are plenty of nutjobs on each side. It seems irrefutable that global warming exists. The only concern is what the cause is and whether it is just a natural part of the cycle that we aren't actually impacting. This is all compounded by the assholes turning the global-warming thing into a cottage industry with the whole "carbon credits" scam and other "green initiatives" that are less good-natured and more cynical and preying on people.
Either way, I don't really give a fuck. I'll be dead before any of it matters. As long as I'm not up to my neck in a melted iceberg in the next few decades, I'm fine.
I hear you, and I been through that phase. Now I honestly look at the mess of politics and laughter is the only way to take its stomach churning stupidity. I once read about a politician who was cool with the fundamental irrationality of the world, and he laughed a lot too. I guess that's an aspiration of mine.
/could/ successfully be used against AGW denial could equally be used to promote any stupid idea. The truth of things is a little too complex for open debate, which is why there is so little of it -- even in academia -- and why Leo Strauss so favoured the noble lie.
About 10 years ago I worked out that pretty much everything I knew was wrong. I just heard something I believed from someone else who heard something they believed etc. I thought it was a joke that people believe in the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, but now I realise that some people really experience the world that way. That is when I stopped knowing and started listening, and really tried to understand different perspectives from their own point of view.
There is stage beyond that, where you just realise stupidity is stupidity. There are many great politicians who really should be doing the job they do, and they are matched by equal numbers of lunatics and egomaniacs. If the crazy could be put in the bag, it would have been done a long time ago.
Any tool you use to deal with a madman, the madman will then learn and use it as a tool to propagate their madness, quite unselfconsciously. That is why movement conservatives are going around talking about arithmetic after Clintons speech at the DNC. Any rhetoric that
Perhaps one day I'll see the wisdom of not laughing behind someone's back, but people accept the level of reality they are willing to bear, and laughter can cut straight through that. It can drive the deluded into an even deeper delusion, but it may also be the only message a person can hear. If it sounds a little 6th gradish, then consider that an anger response is the greatest predictor (by far) that someone will share something with someone else. Politics really is the way it is for a reason.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Hurricane + flood + drought + tornado + superultramegastorm Sandy + record high temperature at a given location + record low temperature at a given location + all of the other weather in between taken over a long enough time period = climate.by definition. How they change over time in number, length and strength is an indication of climate change.
Oh please, humans can do practically nothing to affect the humidity (water vapor level) of the atmosphere. The planet is 75% covered by water, a ready source of humidity. Any excess humidity we add quickly* precipitates out to rebalance the level, any humidity we remove will be replaced quickly from the vast sources of water. Temperature is the primary controller of humidity and water vapor levels in the atmosphere.
*By quickly I mean in a matter of days, maybe a week or two.
Either way, I don't really give a fuck. I'll be dead before any of it matters.
Don't count on that if you're going to live for more than a decade more. It's already probably a factor in rising food prices and the cost of extreme weather events.
a) when AGW alarmists see record heat waves, it's because of global warming. when they see record cold snaps, it's because of global warming. then they move to "climate change" (which, always does, so that's like saying "I'm right as long as something that always happens keeps happening"), and then the record does something silly like exhibit a zero trend for 16 years.
b) AGW isn't falsifiable because any observation of global average CO2 and global average temperature can be explained away with an ad hoc special pleading. If the melting glaciers *prove* AGW, but advancing glaciers don't *refute* it, then you've simply done a "heads I win, tails you lose".
Continental drift *is* falsifiable -> find a seam of rock stretching from south america to africa that is all of exactly the same age (given that our current hypothesis of continental drift depends on the mid atlantic creating new rock as those two continents drifted apart).
decade on decade cooling *is* climate
decade on decade staying the same *is* climate
there is no statistical trend in extreme weather events that correlates to human CO2 emissions, or heck, even to global CO2 levels in general. In fact, cyclonic activity has *dropped* (which, if you read some AGW papers, is expected because the temperature gradient between the poles and equator is reduced...of course others expect more cyclonic activity, so no matter what happens, someone can pull a paper out and say "see, global warming!").
As for record breaking, check this out: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/
Well, let's be a bit more specific.
For the past 16 years, the earth has *not* been changing in temperature in any statistically significant way.
If you want to pick any particularly arbitrary points, you can assert that the earth is getting warmer, the earth is getting cooler, and the earth is staying the same temperature.
1900-2012? Getting warmer.
1998-2012? Staying the same.
Fun fact, 1998-2012, we've been dramatically increasing global CO2 levels. The NOAA stated in 2008 that 15 years of no statistically significant warming would exclude their models at the 95% confidence level.
So, if the falsifiable claim is simply "the earth is getting warmer", well, that's trivial - it happens all the time. The thing you missed from your falsifiable hypothesis is "human CO2 emissions are *causing* the earth to get X degrees warmer over Y amount of time" and "getting X degrees warmer over Y amount of time is going to cause catastrophic destruction that we must avoid by doing Z amount of economic damage to ourselves today".
Sorry, still at step 1! :)
I mean, really, there are people out there who *actually believe* that we have sophisticated enough GCMs to accurately model all major natural climactic influences...I mean, they *really* believe that they have got a good bead on all the myriad possible natural influences...can you imagine such hubris?
To paraphrase Steve Schneider, climate science is a systems science. Understanding the climate is like understanding the human body, which is also a system. We know a lot about blood, and dna, and lipids, and antibodies, and neurotransmitters... but you will always be able to find something unknown. But that doesn't take away from the broad brushstrokes of what is known. For example, the inability to reverse engineer the vision system does not imply that we don't know that eyes are involved in vision.
/believes/ an AGW. There are mental health professionals who believe in demonic possession as a proportion.
Climate science is on that footing, which is why pretty much every climate scientist
I have only a moderate amount of expertise in the direct matters, but I certainly know enough to recognise the thoroughness of climate scientists in general, and substance to their arguments. What is more telling about the "debate" is the vapidity of the arguments of "critics", and the fact that they keep flogging the same dead horses again and again. Their arguments sometimes have surface validity but rarely more. Even someone like Pat Michaels, certainly one of the most sophisticated critics, has nothing of substance that I have seen. Watch this congressional testimony -- starts about 1:30min in.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I was there, and I was a Democrat. Carter was one of the most disastrous presidents the US has ever had. His economic ideas were directly responsible for a huge recession that cost my parents their house and forced me out of my home at 12 years old (28% mortgage rates on my parents' variable rate mortgage? Are you fucking kidding?).
Reagan was a dangerous man. Reagan WAS fucking crazy. Fortunately for us, a Fucking Crazy president was just what we needed at that time to scare the SHIT out of anybody who might make trouble. We elected him and the world shut the fuck up for long enough for us to get our shit back together. The only guy stupid enough to try to be more crazy was Qaddafi, and that didn't end well for Qaddafi.
Funny thing: Reagan probably didn't even know where he was the whole time, and he was STILL a better president than Carter. Toward the end the actor came out and he was acting as if he was President on a set when actually he WAS the president.
/Fun times. Scared the shit out of me. I was in the US military at the time. Spent the whole time thinking the End was near. But it worked out and I didn't have to go to some far place and meet unpleasant people who wanted to kill me.
//Love Carter's work since. But as a President he was a disaster.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Think of it this way:
Humans cause global warming with CO2 and similar.
a) Do nothing, climate gets worse, costs of a lot of money to adapt and repair damages.
b) Change our energy sources and energy use, costs money to do up front, long term gains only.
Humans do not cause global warming
a) Do nothing, no upfront costs, no long term gains
b) Change our energy sources and energy use, costs money to do up front, reduces pollution, extends life expectancy (due to reduced pollution), reduces dependence on foreign energy sources.
In my opinion, even if humans have absolutely no impact on climate, I still want us to change our energy sources and energy use - the long term gains from doing so are very much worth it.
Ah, I see the problem. You've mixed up the "local absence of evidence" with the "global absence of evidence". Allow me to explain:
A "global absence of evidence" is where a person makes a statement for which no evidence supporting their claim exists.
A "local absence of evidence" is where a person makes a statement for which evidence supporting that claim exists, however they did not provide the evidence (or a reference to where that evidence can be obtained from).
To demonstrate the difference I can make the following statement in a Slashdot comment:
"The Earth revolves around the Sun."
The above statement is obviously true, but I have provided no evidence nor any references to evidence. In the example above there is a "local absence of evidence", but if we go to the scientific journals we will find that there is an abundance of supporting evidence is available. The same is true of Black Parrot's comment; the evidence supporting Black Parrot's statements exists, it just wasn't provided in this thread.
To that end I suggest you start looking for evidence at RealClimate. The articles are well written and frequently cite papers published in scientific journals.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.