dajo9;842850810 said:
Your attempts at petty takedowns of climate activists expose your weakness on the real discussion
ducky23;842850812 said:
This could be a really dumb questions (since I have no knowledge of the subject at all) but how exactly would Obama be able to fly coach?
How would the security work? Where would the secret service sit? I guess it wouldn't cause a semi commotion if Obama were to walk thru an airport?
All the effort it would take Obama to fly commercial, it would probably be more green to just fly private.
ducky23;842850812 said:
This could be a really dumb questions (since I have no knowledge of the subject at all) but how exactly would Obama be able to fly coach?
How would the security work? Where would the secret service sit? I guess it wouldn't cause a semi commotion if Obama were to walk thru an airport?
All the effort it would take Obama to fly commercial, it would probably be more green to just fly private.
NVBear78;842850808 said:
The really comical thing about this response is that the biggest public proponents of alleged "human caused climate change", i.e. Obama, Al Gore and Leonardo De Caprio are guys with the greatest use of private jets and the largest carbon footprints. If this is real why do they act as they do...
ps. Lots we can and should do about all the things you noted we just happen to have different opinions as to what that should be...
NVBear78;842850816 said:
Bring it on, haven't heard a technical word from you yet. I read everything I can on climate change including all the predictions that have proved to be false.
blungld;842850836 said:
The sad thing is that you actually think you have the knowledge and expertise to contribute to the conversation (belied by this asinine post) let alone the solution. There comes a time to admit your limitations and defer to experts--but not in this everyone gets an opinion age.
GivemTheAxe;842850838 said:
We have been through this all before. If 95%-plus of scientific community agrees that climate change is man made and you do not believe them then I doubt that we are going to be able to convince you here.
If 95 out of 100 cancer specialists told you you had cancer but could cure it with an expensive treatment, I guess you would deny that they were correct if that morning you were feeling fine.
NVBear78;842850843 said:
But 95% of scientists are not on board with this though you have been told that over and over.
It should have been a clue to you when the politicians declared this was "settled science". There is no such thing and why are the politicians saying it is so...
chazzed;842850857 said:
If Cal graduates can ignore the evidence, we're truly screwed. Look, nobody is going to convince the other side in this context -- we all have our heels dug in. However, the world will be very different decades from now IF we don't come up with solutions to greenhouse gases. I don't want to be right in this case but our trajectory is clear to anybody that is willing to put aside their self-interests and political views.
NVBear78;842850843 said:
But 95% of scientists are not on board with this though you have been told that over and over.
It should have been a clue to you when the politicians declared this was "settled science". There is no such thing and why are the politicians saying it is so...
NVBear78;842850842 said:
I do defer the experts, just not the same ones as you.
blungld;842850872 said:
No you don't. You select those who affirm your belief.
dajo9;842850875 said:
Tribal politics. The more a conservative knows about science the less likely they are to believe in climate change.
http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/why-do-most-american-conservatives-still-refuse-to-believe-in-climate-change
blungld;842850956 said:
What I find sadly––and potently ironic--is that my conservative friends will constantly vent their frustration about "identity politics" and the religious-like conviction that Liberals believe in Climate Change despite how inextricably their identity seems to be connected to both party and religion--and that they will argue positions that they would never agree with in their right mind, but will take in their right-minded persona to align with conservative media/politicians and to constantly reassert themselves as loyal, faithful anti-Liberals. Reason and personal integrity go out the window in their gloating refrain of sound bytes they've been told.
It's the same when they accuse Liberals of being "emotional" and not using facts as they froth at the mouth in outrage and rant about what they "believe"--typically a position with no cogent or fact-based support that decays into false equivalencies, straw men, or cognitive dissonance as soon as it is challenged.
GivemTheAxe;842850838 said:
We have been through this all before. If 95%-plus of scientific community agrees that climate change is man made and you do not believe them then I doubt that we are going to be able to convince you here.
If 95 out of 100 cancer specialists told you you had cancer but could cure it with an expensive treatment, I guess you would deny that they were correct if that morning you were feeling fine.
Sebastabear;842850974 said:
I must admit I typically try to avoid the myriad OT topics that pop up on this board like the plague, but I feel compelled to add one personal data point because I'm spending the week in Iceland. I have probably talked to 100 Icelanders and virtually all of them bring up climate change within the first 5 minutes of any conversation on any topic. Because for them this isn't theory. They see it every single day. The pace of change up here is staggering. It's not happening in terms of millennia, centuries or even decades. It's happening in terms of years and even months. If we think the occasional heat wave in California is bad, talk to folks in Norway or Iceland or Finland. Their world is crumbling and they are just flabbergasted that this is even being debated in the US.
Typically scientists struggle to convey the long-term implications of their data. Ironically here we have near universal scientific consensus and directly observable real time events and yet still we argue and refuse to act. It's honestly even more depressing than Cal football.
BearGoggles;842850990 said:
It would be helpful if you (and others) were more careful with your claims. The 95% or 97% claimed consensus of "man made climate change" is simply false.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/2/#449469b5d08e
"Cook is careful to describe his 2013 study results as being based on "climate experts." Political figures and the popular press are not so careful. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly characterized it as 97% of scientists. Kerry has gone so far as to say that "97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible." This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position. One does not expect nuance in political speeches, and the authors of scientific papers cannot be held responsible for the statements of politicians and the media.
Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.
In the strict sense, the 97% consensus is false, even when limited to climate scientists. The 2016 Cook review found the consensus to be "shared by 90%100% of publishing climate scientists." One survey found it to be 84%. Continuing to claim 97% support is deceptive. I find the 97% consensus of climate scientists to be overstated.
An important consideration in this discussion is that we are attempting to define a single number to represent a range of opinions which have many nuances. To begin with, as Oreskes says, "often it is challenging to determine exactly what the authors of the paperdo think about global climate change." In addition, published surveys vary in methodology. They do not ask the same questions in the same format, are collected by different sampling methods, and are rated by different individuals who may have biases. These issues are much discussed in the literature on climate change, including in the articles discussed here."
To answer your cancer analogy, if the proverbial cure for one person's cancer resulted in the death or impoverishment of 100 people, wouldn't that be a factor to consider? And that is the problem, many of the climate activists simply don't want to engage in ANY cost benefit analysis or acknowledge that the measures they advocate for have real costs - including limiting the development and advancement of third world countries where the conditions do in fact lead to death/shorter lives.
I've read a fair amount (though by no means am I an expert) and the only consensus I have found is that there is general agreement that humans impact climate (i.e., there is Anthropogenic Climate Change). It seems axiomatic - we live on the planet and obviously have an impact (just like cows do when it comes to methane). But there is absolutely no consensus or science that clearly explains the magnitude of human impact vis-a-vis other factors. Some scientists believe man's contribution to climate change is significant and others feel the impact is minor (compared to other factors). There are many models attempting to quantify both climate change and the amount that is man-caused and projecting future changes. Those models have not been anywhere near accurate.
So that leads to the following questions, that I would invite you and others on the board to answer:
1. If the science is settled, why has every "consensus" climate model going back 40+ years been wildly inaccurate? Is it possible that human understanding of climate is far from complete? If so, does declaring the science "settled" (and stamping out all contrary points of view) lead to a better understanding of climate?
2. Why have all of the modes vastly OVERSTATED global warming and/or the claimed climate effects? If the science were not politicized or influenced by non-scientific factors, wouldn't we expected the climate models to sometimes underestimate impacts/temperature rise and sometimes overestimate those? But that has not been the case - "consensus" predictions of climate change have always been alarmist and wrong. Why?
3. Why is so much emphasis put on cudgeling opposing points of view with the questionable 95/97% numbers and so little placed on actually explaining the climate science? Shouldn't an honest discussion include a discussion of the limits and many complex assumptions built into the consensus view (such as the limitations on historical temperature data and other educated "guesses" that go into the models)?
For example, false alarmist predictions from Al Gore's inconvenient truth: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/
Some links from Scott Adams (Dilbert) to consider:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157694622351/the-climate-science-debate-illusion
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158159613566/how-to-convince-skeptics-that-climate-change-is-a
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-biases-on-climate-science
Cal88;842851006 said:
So Scandinavians have been complaining about their climate getting too warm?
dajo9;842851024 said:
That's a lot of words to make the point that the correct phrasing is, "97% of climate scientists who expressed an opinion believe in manmade global warming".
What's the point? I'd be so embarrassed to have to defend conservative positions these days. The mental gymnastics one has to go through are laughable.
dajo9;842851024 said:
That's a lot of words to make the point that the correct phrasing is, "97% of climate scientists who expressed an opinion believe in manmade global warming".
What's the point? I'd be so embarrassed to have to defend conservative positions these days. The mental gymnastics one has to go through are laughable.
dajo9;842851024 said:
That's a lot of words to make the point that the correct phrasing is, "97% of climate scientists who expressed an opinion believe in manmade global warming".
What's the point? I'd be so embarrassed to have to defend conservative positions these days. The mental gymnastics one has to go through are laughable.
Unit2Sucks;842851048 said:
Exactly. They never quite get to the point of discussing what percentage of climate scientists don't believe in AGW but guys like Cal88 know every. single. one. of them by name.
I guess it's like listening to comic book collectors argue about whether Superman or Batman would win in a head to head battle and we know what happened there. We all lost.
NVBear78;842851053 said:
Wow, so weak, am embarrassed by people who are unwilling to think. Climate change is a religion and no amount of facts or logic are even considered by its proponents
Cal88;842851006 said:
So Scandinavians have been complaining about their climate getting too warm?
dajo9;842851025 said:
Yes, that was made pretty clear from the original post. And here you are mocking them. Feel goid about yourself?
) : no region in the world would stand to benefit more from global warming than Scandinavia.
Unit2Sucks;842851065 said:
Cal88, it's only politicized by republicans.
Quote:
How many of these AGW skeptics in the Republican Party possess that knowledge?
Unit2Sucks;842851068 said:
Yeah not seeing how Scandinavia wins when billions try to immigrate there to abandon their now uninhabitable homelands. I think you are going to have to spell that out.
Bonus points if you can tell us why you think they will benefit from all their new Muslim neighbors since if I recall correctly you don't think Muslim immigration helps western societies.
