Is global warming about to die?

[ainamotore]

I don't entirely disagree with you there. There is a lot of uncertainty in the models and I think there are some good reasons to doubt the validity of some assumptions that climate modelers make. But to avoid looking like the guy who learns climate science from Glenn Beck, stop making the comparison to meteorology.

Glenn Beck knows nothing about climatology. I learned my climate stuff from Rush Limbaugh...

[GuineaPig]

 

[Seventh Son]

To add to that 

[Super Dude]

I don't entirely disagree with you there. There is a lot of uncertainty in the models and I think there are some good reasons to doubt the validity of some assumptions that climate modelers make. But to avoid looking like the guy who learns climate science from Glenn Beck, stop making the comparison to meteorology.

Glenn Beck knows nothing about climatology. I learned my climate stuff from Rush Limbaugh...

[GuineaPig]

In all seriousness, people like ainamotore give insight to why some people believe things that they do.  Clearly, his pre-existing political beliefs trump whatever scientific theories conflict with them; similarly to how some people's religious beliefs prevent them from accepting things. 

But he's also got this conspiracy theorist mindset that is baffling.  He apparently refuses to believe that the research, modeling, and field work done in relation to climate change is performed by scientists.  Apparently only "envirofascists" and politicians take sediment cores, analyze computer models, map out glacier advances/retreats, compile temperature records, etc.  So, despite his clear lack of knowledge in any related scientific field, his uneducated opinion is superior to those who have spent most of their academic life working in related fields.  Sort of similar to how some newspaper and magazine columnists think a degree in journalism trumps a PhD in climatology.

He claimed that majority belief does not equal truth.  This is true, but he misses the point.  If you do not have intimate knowledge of all the progressing areas of research in a specific field, one doesn't have cause to disregard the current majority belief in that area of science on a subject.  He doesn't accept this from climatology, but presumably he has no problem accepting the majority beliefs on things like gravity, heliocentricity, evolution, abiogenesis, whether aspirin works, smoking causing cancer, any medical or scientific theory or hypothesis or law, etc. that he has not studied either.  Why does he make an exception for climate change?  Because his political beliefs conflict with it.  If his political/religious beliefs conflicted with the effectiveness of aspirin, presumably he'd be claiming that doctors were wrong on that too.

[ainamotore]

In all seriousness, people like ainamotore give insight to why some people believe things that they do.  Clearly, his pre-existing political beliefs trump whatever scientific theories conflict with them; similarly to how some people's religious beliefs prevent them from accepting things.  

But he's also got this conspiracy theorist mindset that is baffling.  He apparently refuses to believe that the research, modeling, and field work done in relation to climate change is performed by scientists.  Apparently only "envirofascists" and politicians take sediment cores, analyze computer models, map out glacier advances/retreats, compile temperature records, etc.

To ignore the obvious political motivation of the so-called Green movement would be VERY unscientific. But the fact is, forgetting my viewpoint entirely, there is no consensus that global warming exists or is a threat.

Review:

https://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

Therefore, any policy designed to extort wealth from the developed world for the unearned and undeserved benefit of the backward world, is absolutely immoral.

I have no problem with scientists researching any topic until the cows come home. They can review, argue, discuss, debate, and digress.

When they want to steal my money, I draw the line. And the fact is, the Green movement are economic terrorists that will use junk science for the purpose of advancing a political and economic agenda.

if the Green people want to observe the world and make useful suggestions that might improve the universe if followed VOLUNTARILY and WITHOUT STATE COMPULSION, I am on board.

When it transmogrifies to cap-and-trade and carbon credits and other schemes that redistribute (aka steal) the income of individuals to give to other individuals, that is where I draw the line. However, for the Green movement, there is no line. This is an evil bunch of people and they need to be stopped.

[GuineaPig]

I don't understand when people say something like "I can't trust global warming because some people are making money off it."  It's absurd to try and say that somehow, a couple hundred "green" businesses are somehow have larger (fuck that, lets try 1 thousandth) political and economic sway than big oil, the motor industry, and pretty much any industry that relies on large amounts of power or supplying it via unrenewable means (steel, coal, industrial, anything that makes something else).

I mean, the link you posted to "disprove" that there's a consensus on global warming (it doesn't mention any at all, and does not cite a lot of it's claims) is on a website run by a company that manufactures and sells industrial equipment.  Good thing that they have no conflict of interest there.

[ainamotore]

I don't understand when people say something like "I can't trust global warming because some people are making money off it."  It's absurd to try and say that somehow, a couple hundred "green" businesses are somehow have larger (fuck that, lets try 1 thousandth) political and economic sway than big oil, the motor industry, and pretty much any industry that relies on large amounts of power or supplying it via unrenewable means (steel, coal, industrial, anything that makes something else).

I mean, the link you posted to "disprove" that there's a consensus on global warming (it doesn't mention any at all, and does not cite a lot of it's claims) is on a website run by a company that manufactures and sells industrial equipment.  Good thing that they have no conflict of interest there.

And you're going to offer some left wing Eco-Defense site as an objective alternative? Don't make me laugh.

The Greens have their websites promoting their shit. Do you question their motivation also? Or maybe not because you agree with their position?

I chose that site because it is user-friendly for those without a degree in geophysics. There are hundreds of others that debunk the myth of global warming.

The bottom line is there is no consensus on global warming. Many scientists agree with it. Many scientists disagree with it. In the absence of consensus, there must be no policy.

It is really that simple.

[XJDenton]

It really isn't.

[ainamotore]

It really isn't.

It really is...

Look this isn't an argument.
Yes it is.
No it isn't, it's just contradiction.
No it isn't.
Yes it is!
It is not.
It is! You just contradicted me.
I didn't.
Oh you did!.
No no no no no.
You did just then!
No no no nonsense.
Oh this is futile.
No it isn't.
I came here for a good argument.
No you didn't, you came here for an argument.
Well an argument is not the same as contradiction.
Can be.
No it can't! An argument is a series of connected statements to establish a definite proposition.
No it isn't.
Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Yes, but it isn't just saying "No it isn't"
Yes it is.
No it isn't! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
No it isn't.

...

[William Wallace]

I don't understand when people say something like "I can't trust global warming because some people are making money off it."  It's absurd to try and say that somehow, a couple hundred "green" businesses are somehow have larger (fuck that, lets try 1 thousandth) political and economic sway than big oil, the motor industry, and pretty much any industry that relies on large amounts of power or supplying it via unrenewable means (steel, coal, industrial, anything that makes something else).

I mean, the link you posted to "disprove" that there's a consensus on global warming (it doesn't mention any at all, and does not cite a lot of it's claims) is on a website run by a company that manufactures and sells industrial equipment.  Good thing that they have no conflict of interest there.

Granted, this thread is full of quackery. But to say that the environmental lobby is small potatoes compared to "big coal" ect. is a bit naive. Some of the biggest corporations in the US belong to the US Climate Action Partnership, which exists to bring on some variation of an unworkable emissions trading scheme. Their members include small time companies such as Pepsi, Shell, Ford and Dow Chemical. All of whom are lining up to receive the goodies that come with being "environmentally responsible" corporations.  

e claimed that majority belief does not equal truth.  This is true, but he misses the point.  If you do not have intimate knowledge of all the progressing areas of research in a specific field, one doesn't have cause to disregard the current majority belief in that area of science on a subject.

This standard is never applied consistently. For example, most economists will tell you that cap and trade is a loser in economic terms. But I am sure that doesn't stop you from advocating for a political solution to global warming.

 He apparently refuses to believe that the research, modeling, and field work done in relation to climate change is performed by scientists.  Apparently only "envirofascists" and politicians take sediment cores, analyze computer models, map out glacier advances/retreats, compile temperature records, etc.

Politics definitely play a role here, too. Phil Jones refusing to share temperature records because the people that want the data "want to find something wrong with it," grafting the temperature record onto proxy reconstructions and not telling anybody about it, and the EPA suppressing research that contradicts the president's agenda are all good examples of people's preconceptions influencing their science.

[ainamotore]

And let's not forget Climategate:

https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

[XJDenton]

Indeed lets not. Climategate was a great example of pundits jumping on stuff which they had no clue about and deciding based on sketchy info that there was a non-existent controversy. For that reason alone it should be remembered as a prime example of people's ignorance.

[soundgarden]

In the absence of consensus, there must be no policy.

Normally, yes, but not when the stakes include the very existence of our species.  Wouldn't you agree that it would be very wise to heed the warnings of the other side, even if you believe our economy will suffer with environmentally conservative policies.

Additionally, its necessary to remember that scientists seek truth and understanding.  By the very nature of their mentality the political, social, or economic implications of their findings are irrelevant.  Whether it hurts or heals, it still is the truth.  To suggest that the entirety, or most, of the global warming proponents of the scientific community are part of a larger political agenda is absolutely ludicrous, and insulting to academia.

What is your professional and educational background ainamatore?  Its humorous that oftentimes loudest critics of science tend to be the farthest remove from science.

[ainamotore]

Normally, yes, but not when the stakes include the very existence of our species.  Wouldn't you agree that it would be very wise to heed the warnings of the other side, even if you believe our economy will suffer with environmentally conservative policies.

Absolutely not. If we are going to abridge our freedom every time some armageddonist declares the world is ending, we would have nothing but tyranny. As long as global warming has detractors and supporters, there must be no policy. And even if there WERE consensus, then the advocates of global warming rights should be limited to persuasion and education, not political or economic action that seeks to redistribute wealth.

If we come to the point where the envirofascists exert real control over our money or our freedom, then eff it, we're better off dead, let the globe warm. Species destruction is a SUPERIOR alternative to tyranny.

Additionally, its necessary to remember that scientists seek truth and understanding.  By the very nature of their mentality the political, social, or economic implications of their findings are irrelevant.

This is false. Scientists are not immune from stupidity and get no carte blanche in matters of philosophy or politics. Many scientists today are concerned with advancing political agendas. And they have no problem constructing and interpreting data in support of their pre-determined conclusions.

 Whether it hurts or heals, it still is the truth.  To suggest that the entirety, or most, of the global warming proponents of the scientific community are part of a larger political agenda is absolutely ludicrous, and insulting to academia.

It is NOT the truth. It cannot be agreed on, it is not agreed on, it will never be agreed on. It cannot be agreed on. Why? We do not have sufficient empirical data to form a conclusion in the matter of global warming. We simply have not been here long enough period. And non-empirical data such as modelling is absolutely and inherently unreliable. Our models cannot predict the weather, cannot predict geologic eruptions, cannot predict tsunamis, and cannot even yet predict complex chemical reactions in closed systems. As long as modelling is unreliable, it is and must remain irrelevant in the formation of policy.

And as for insulting to academia? Please don't make me laugh. Academia is already a left wing leach field. Academia is a bastion of those who preach the gospel of collectivism, statism, and tyranny for the so-called "common good". Academia defaulted on its responsibilities decades ago, and is now a subjectivist cauldron of bad premises and worse conclusions.

What is your professional and educational background ainamatore?  Its humorous that oftentimes loudest critics of science tend to be the farthest remove from science.

In view of your observed implicit contempt for the Scientific Method, I think it is you who needs to present your CV. It is impossible for any proponent of global warming to be considered a scientist, because the data is so obviously conflicted and ill-supported that to declare it's validity is to renounce one's scientific credentials.

[Super Dude]

You've still failed to provide your own credentials.  Also, if you'd rather millions of humans die so you can have your free economy, you're the fascist.

[XJDenton]

The more I read the more its obvious that he has absolutely no idea how science actually works.

[Adami]

The more I read the more its obvious that he has absolutely no idea how science actually works.

Doesn't science fall into the free market? Which ever theory is most well liked and accepted, that it becomes the true one by default? Doesn't science care about the consumer at all? No? So science is socialism? Hitler was a socialist, so scientists are like nazis. Why do you hate jews, blacks, gypsies, gays, and capatalists?

[XJDenton]

Well being one of these leftist academics I hate them on principle. Plus they have more money than me.

[Adami]

Well being one of these leftist academics I hate them on principle. Plus they have more money than me.

So who pays you money to believe in global warming? Since it's obvious that the government is paying people to support it.

[XJDenton]

Can't speak for the others but I got mine from an ethanol company.

[soundgarden]

Absolutely not. If we are going to abridge our freedom every time some armageddonist declares the world is ending, we would have nothing but tyranny. As long as global warming has detractors and supporters, there must be no policy. And even if there WERE consensus, then the advocates of global warming rights should be limited to persuasion and education, not political or economic action that seeks to redistribute wealth.

If we come to the point where the envirofascists exert real control over our money or our freedom, then eff it, we're better off dead, let the globe warm. Species destruction is a SUPERIOR alternative to tyranny.

Its not "some."  Its a significantly vast majority.  To deny that is willful ignorance.

Environmental conservative policy makers do not aim to "redistribute wealth."  Its saddening that people out there, like yourself, are seeing a more responsible, progressive, and conservative approach to industry in the lens of "evil socialism."  Its the same language used in out politics today by the right wingers and its dishonest and counter productive.

And they have no problem constructing and interpreting data in support of their pre-determined conclusions.

WHAT!?!.  Millah, XJ, Rumbo, Seawolf, and other scientists, please enlighten our friend here.

It is NOT the truth. It cannot be agreed on, it is not agreed on, it will never be agreed on. It cannot be agreed on. Why? We do not have sufficient empirical data to form a conclusion in the matter of global warming. We simply have not been here long enough period. And non-empirical data such as modelling is absolutely and inherently unreliable. Our models cannot predict the weather, cannot predict geologic eruptions, cannot predict tsunamis, and cannot even yet predict complex chemical reactions in closed systems. As long as modelling is unreliable, it is and must remain irrelevant in the formation of policy.

It IS agreed upon.   It is a clear consensus.  Why has every other capable nation jumped on the ball with this regard.  Is American in its massive arrogance think the rest of the world is wrong, the scientists around the world are part of a political agenda?  Do you even hear yourself?

Its not the scientists who are playing politics, its POLITICIANS.  They are the ones who are in denial because they see and understand that an immediate change in economic policies to a more conservative environmental policy will result in a weaker economy in the short term.  How can they go back to their constituents and tell them that?

Yet, despite what YOU may believe as unreliable, the collective voice of scientists allowed this to become one of the most critical issues of our time.  What began in the 70's as a topic of concern grew though decades of research and observation into a real potential problem.  

And as for insulting to academia? Please don't make me laugh. Academia is already a left wing leach field. Academia is a bastion of those who preach the gospel of collectivism, statism, and tyranny for the so-called "common good". Academia defaulted on its responsibilities decades ago, and is now a subjectivist cauldron of bad premises and worse conclusions.

This reminds me of a tea party-er i saw earlier this year saying "we must stand up against the experts!"  Do you see the irony?

In view of your observed implicit contempt for the Scientific Method, I think it is you who needs to present your CV. It is impossible for any proponent of global warming to be considered a scientist, because the data is so obviously conflicted and ill-supported that to declare it's validity is to renounce one's scientific credentials.

MY contempt for scientific method?  MINE?  Are you serious?  You are willfully ignoring a large consensus because of your socio-political biases.  You are throwing out out years of research, observation, testing, theory all of which were guided by the Scientific Method because you believe that the vast majority of scientists in the world seek to redistribute wealth.  

I agree with XJ, you have NO idea how science works and it purpose.  

[William Wallace]

You are throwing out out years of research, observation, testing, theory all of which were guided by the Scientific Method because you believe that the vast majority of scientists in the world seek to redistribute wealth. 

I really hate statements like this one. They're used as a metaphorical club on anybody who dare question a prevailing point of view, and they illustrate just how political the global warming debate has become. While you're busy making declarations about the untainted nature of the scientific method and how it leads to consensus, a lot of research is shooting holes through the consensus view.

As time goes on, researchers are discovering, just to name a few examples, that serious discrepancies exist between the the IPCC's temperature projections and actual temperatures, the atmosphere may not be as sensitive to greenhouse gases as anticipated, and the effects of the warming that we are experiencing may not be disastrous in the long run. But nobody wants to talk about those because they're too busy telling the other side how stupid they are. 

[Adami]

While I agree with your main point highlander, don't you think it's a little ironic that you say, quite often, that scientists who believe in global warming are largely politically driven? You're claiming people who don't agree with you are driven by politics, yet when people say the same about you and your guys, you just use the same thing as a defense.

[rumborak]

I can't believe you guys are discussing this.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

While I agree with your main point highlander, don't you think it's a little ironic that you say, quite often, that scientists who believe in global warming are largely politically driven? You're claiming people who don't agree with you are driven by politics, yet when people say the same about you and your guys, you just use the same thing as a defense.

I fully admit that I have political preferences that color my views on most issues, this one included. But I find it irritating that many people, like soundgarden, refuse to admit the same. Science is just a tool used to study the natural world, and it carries no ideological baggage. People add their own political preferences to scientific topics and then claim with a straight face that only the other side of the debate does it.