Conservatives and climate change

[bit_pattern]

If they survived previous fluctuations in temperature, they will survive the projected 21st century rise, even if AGW theory is correct. Coral grows quickly. All the people have to do is let the reef grow and compost their garbage.

Oh, that must be reassuring for farmers who are having storm surges and flooding encroaching his farming land - just wait a couple of hundred years and your coral will have grown right back!

 

[DC]

You have evidence for this, aside from the fact that they disagree with the AGW case for urgent action? What generally accepted math, physics, chemistry, geology, biology, or economics does Freeman Dyson deny? Evidence? What is Dyson's "political ideology"? I read a couple of his books some years ago and I have no idea. He does not seem particularly partisan to me. Let me add a couple more: is Roger Pielke, jr. A "science denier"? Lubos Motl?
No. They disagree with your assessment of the implications. That is all.
btw, do you have a normal human name? Can we search for your credentials to assess your competence to question theirs?

what is their evidence against the evidence of AGW theory?

 

[SezMe]

Coral grows quickly.

Unjustified blanket statement.

 

[mhaze]

....
Cherry pick data...
Try to mire the discussion in insignificant details...
Just asking questions...
Ignore the evidence based scientific consensus...
Call those that accept the overwhelming support by experts as "true believers", aka sheeple...
Unsourced claims...
....

Have I done any of that in this thread?

Nope. Not at all.

Have true believers in this thread been time after time, ignoring the disconnect between their scientific opinions and their political agendas?

Yep. Over and Over.

 

[mhaze]

Unjustified blanket statement.

Huh. Your reference cites growth in cm per year, where ocean rise is one or two mm per year. Have you considered working for your (perceived) opposition?

Oh, that must be reassuring for farmers who are having storm surges and flooding encroaching his farming land - just wait a couple of hundred years and your coral will have grown right back! [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif[/qimg]

Now you are falling for, and repeating, propaganda lies. Step a bit back and sort it out and reconsider.

Here's what I'm talking about.

• Malcom: They disagree with your assessment of the implications. That is all.
  
• DC: What is their evidence against the evidence of AGW theory?

DC tries to redirect the discussion from "Implications" - a subject of public policy, and hence the politics forum - to "scientific evidence" - a subject appropriate for the science forum. And that's already been shut down by the moderators.

So this thread or sections of it will be cut out by the moderators, if the resident Warmers continue trying to discuss "science" in a "politics" forum.

No hidden agenda there, is there?

Naw. No way. Nohow. Naw...

Wait....

 

[DC]

Huh. Your reference cites growth in cm per year, where ocean rise is one or two mm per year. Have you considered working for your (perceived) opposition?



Now you are falling for, and repeating, propaganda lies. Step a bit back and sort it out and reconsider.

Here's what I'm talking about.

• Malcom: They disagree with your assessment of the implications. That is all.
  
• DC: What is their evidence against the evidence of AGW theory?

DC tries to redirect the discussion from "Implications" - a subject of public policy, and hence the politics forum - to "scientific evidence" - a subject appropriate for the science forum. And that's already been shut down by the moderators.

So this thread or sections of it will be cut out by the moderators, if the resident Warmers continue trying to discuss "science" in a "politics" forum.

No hidden agenda there, is there?

Naw. No way. Nohow. Naw...

Wait....

I know, you dislike scientific evidence as it contradicts your beliefs, but i would really be interested if meanwhile those alleged "sceptics" have brought up any evidence. I have seen none.

 

[mhaze]

I know, you dislike scientific evidence as it contradicts your beliefs, but i would really be interested if meanwhile those alleged "sceptics" have brought up any evidence. I have seen none.

I'm asking for a clear connection between whatever you think "scientific evidence" may be and your beliefs about public policy. I really don't care what science you think you have or how conclusive you may think it is.

 

[bit_pattern]

I really don't care what science you think you have or how conclusive you may think it is.

Sums it up nicely, really.

 

[AlBell]

Right on point too, re proposed political/economic programs to address AGW which need cost/benefit analysis. Unless I suppose you and the other warmers think econ is a science.

 

[DC]

I'm asking for a clear connection between whatever you think "scientific evidence" may be and your beliefs about public policy. I really don't care what science you think you have or how conclusive you may think it is.

not sure if i understand your question.

but i think as the evidence shows clearly that our CO² from fossil fuels is increasing the world's average temperature, that we need public policies to help reducing our CO² footprints. And also educational, humans must be made aware of what their CO² output is doing so we do things more aware of the consequences.

 

[bit_pattern]

.....

 

[bit_pattern]

Polar bears survived the previous interglacial. Similar argument.

Yeah but they had thousands of years to adapt, we're talking about changes in the next 50 years. Species don't adapt that quickly, that's why it's such a threat.

 

[mhaze]

WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN

I'm asking for a clear connection between whatever you think "scientific evidence" may be and your beliefs about public policy. I really don't care what science you think you have or how conclusive you may think it is.

Sums it up nicely, really.

WHAT BITPATTERN SAW


I really don't care what science you think you have or how conclusive you may think it is.

Sums it up nicely, really.

heelllllOOOOOO????

 

[mhaze]

not sure if i understand your question.

but i think as the evidence shows clearly that our CO² from fossil fuels is increasing the world's average temperature, that we need public policies to help reducing our CO² footprints. And also educational, humans must be made aware of what their CO² output is doing so we do things more aware of the consequences.

1. We need public policies to help reduce our CO2 footprints.

Really? In what ways and at what costs? And compared to spending the same amounts on what alternatives?

You need to show a tangible benefit for proposed costs. The simple reason is that I can propose alternative uses for those funds which will have clear and demonstrable impacts on human lives and misery.

If I can do that, and you cannot, then you should not get any public funds for your projects.

2. Humans must be made aware of what their CO2 output is doing so we do things more aware of the consequences.

You likely clicked on some of the links I posted earlier, such as the baby-drowning-in-the-bathtub add by AGW propagandists. I'm opposed to those, and I certainly don't consider that "Education".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSsIIxQ_dE

Do you?

I consider it a propagandic appeal to guilt and shame, intended to reduce criticism of taxation policies which cannot stand empirical examination. Which takes us back to point #1 of this post.

 

[johnny karate]

Right on point too, re proposed political/economic programs to address AGW which need cost/benefit analysis. Unless I suppose you and the other warmers think econ is a science.

I'm asking for a clear connection between whatever you think "scientific evidence" may be and your beliefs about public policy. I really don't care what science you think you have or how conclusive you may think it is.

Two wonderful examples of a conservative science-denier propaganda technique:
When you can't refute the science that supports the existence of the problem, simply reframe the debate in a manner that allows you to deny the effectiveness of any proposed solution.

Reasonable minds can disagree on the best way to address man-made climate change, and that's certainly a discussion worth having. A discussion with disingenuous science-deniers is not.

 

[mhaze]

Except it isn't a reframe. It's directly from the OP. Want us to requote the OP for your benefit, or can you recall it yourself?

 

[johnny karate]

Except it isn't a reframe. It's directly from the OP. Want us to requote the OP for your benefit, or can you recall it yourself?

What would be the point of discussing solutions with someone who denies the existence of the problem?

 

[DC]

1. We need public policies to help reduce our CO2 footprints.

Really? In what ways and at what costs? And compared to spending the same amounts on what alternatives?

You need to show a tangible benefit for proposed costs. The simple reason is that I can propose alternative uses for those funds which will have clear and demonstrable impacts on human lives and misery.

If I can do that, and you cannot, then you should not get any public funds for your projects.

What to do exactly at what cost is up to the societies to decide. Cost benefit is surely very controversal as it contains things we actually don't know a price for. How much is our current climate worth?
everyone will have a different oppinion and ideology.

2. Humans must be made aware of what their CO2 output is doing so we do things more aware of the consequences.

You likely clicked on some of the links I posted earlier, such as the baby-drowning-in-the-bathtub add by AGW propagandists. I'm opposed to those, and I certainly don't consider that "Education".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSsIIxQ_dE

Do you?

I consider it a propagandic appeal to guilt and shame, intended to reduce criticism of taxation policies which cannot stand empirical examination. Which takes us back to point #1 of this post.

no thats not educational at all, not infomative, just an apeal to emotion.
Here in my region for example AGW is part of education of schools, children get informed and learn how they can help and even encourage their parents to help. But also on mainstream TV in more science oriented tv shows they inform the public and also show ways to reduce CO² footprints.

I think that is a good way to make changes in daily lifes.

 

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by mhaze
. . . (snip) . . . Looking through a juicy few cgate emails, I find this comment by a noted and prominent climate scientist:

...the good old precautionary principle must be guiding our effort. During the cold war, enormous resources were put into missiles, airplanes, and other military equipment to check Soviet expansion and make containment policy credible - in the firm hope that all this equipment would never have to be used. And it wasn't, and nobody complained about the costs. Now, in the face of a different, but clearly distinguishable global threat "more dangerous than terrorism" the cost issue surfaces all the time. Somehow we all need to help in creating an understanding that the threat of global change is real and that we need to develop a new paradigm of looking at the world and the future: this is not just a scientific or technological issue. It involves important philosophical and ethical considerations where some fundamental value systems have to be challenged. . . . ( snip) . . .

Concerning the hilited (bold face) areas: And the name of this noted climate scientist is? And the document in which this quote appears is? These citations are important for judging the validity of your assertions.

mhaze: Are you going to answer my question?​

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

what is their evidence against the evidence of AGW theory?

Since the case for AGW depends on many different threads of evidence, the cases against that evidence are numerous. For example:...
Proponents of the AGW theory claim that recently observed warming is unprecedented. Against this, critics offer the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period. Proponents assert that the Medieval warm period either did not happen or was localized to Northwest Eurasia (Europe). Against this claim are studies of lake sediments in China, South America, and (iirc) the American Southwest that find cooling during the European Medieval warm period.
Some proponents of AGW (Mann, et. al.) used tree-ring data as proxy thermometers in constructing the hockey-stick graph. Steve McIntyre demonstrated that one of these reconstructions depended on very few samples and ignored an available, wider sample from the same area that moved the trend in the opposite direction (the "Yamal chronology", apparently the people who used the data cherry-picked it to get the trend they wanted to see). Against the AGW claim that tree rings (of some species) make reliable thermometer proxies, skeptics make several objections: "climate", as assessed by a few ancient tree trunks buried in a sandbank, may be quite local, and for the time that tree lived, locally unusally warm or cold, or wet or dry. A herd of reindeer might have fertilized them, or stunted them with salt. Etc. Sample size matters, here, as do assumptions about the relation between ring width and other variables (soil chemistry, water, etc.) for various species.

Trakar observed that many disciplines contribute to this discussion (at a professional level). No one has all the relevant expertise. Experts in one discipline have to trust experts in other disciplines for their analyses. Experts often have to trust other experts in their own discipline when it comes to collection of raw data, since field work is time-consuming and no one can collect buried trees and measure tree rings from every continent from beds dating back to the end of the last Ice Age, and no one can personaly monitor every thermometer and remote sensor that supplies current temperature data. People who use the raw data have to trust the field workers who supply that data. With their behavior as revealed in the leaked UEA emails and elsewhere, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Steven Schneider, and Kevin Trenberth have forefeited that trust.