Conservatives and climate change

[DC]

Ah, no, I simply noted that guy actually cared about the effects of cap and trade on the poor. As I do.

As you don't.

yeah sure. wich of your religions is more imprtant to you? your sky daddy religion or the science denial cult?

 

[Furcifer]

i would have thought we owe it to our kids to leave behind a for humans working climate and not the mess we generate curerntly.

Since that's not possible we're going to leave them in better shape to deal with it. It makes more sense than fighting an un-winable fight.

 

[DC]

Since that's not possible we're going to leave them in better shape to deal with it. It makes more sense than fighting an un-winable fight.

well i think we have the technology to reduce the the mess in the climate a bit and still leave them behind with a economy even in a better position to deal with the consequences that propably will come.

 

[Furcifer]

well i think we have the technology to reduce the the mess in the climate a bit and still leave them behind with a economy even in a better position to deal with the consequences that propably will come.

Yes, that's happening as we speak.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Bishop Hill linked this:

I think the only solution is to talk about the science as science, in the context of all its implications and also for its own academic interest – and talk about it to everyone irrespective of their position in the policy debate. This includes talking with sceptics, and not in defensive mode but as scientists willing to talk around the issue. It used to be the received wisdom that climate scientists should not engage with “sceptics” beause, it was said, it only wasted time and gave credibility to arguments that had already been countered many times before. In my view this is no longer a helpful strategy, if it ever was. Counter-arguments to criticism are given from a distance, but without direct engagement they may be ignored, and without a proper conversation it is often hard to get the real heart of the issue and address the real nature of the disagreement. Also, while arguing from a distance may address some of the scientific issues, it is hard to clarify misconceptions of motivation. If “sceptics” believe scientists to be motivated by political agendas or simply protecting their jobs, and scientists believe sceptics to be “anti-science” or promoted or even funded by vested interests, each side merely claiming otherwise is unlikely to make a difference. Proper discussion is required if true motivations are to be understood.

Of course this needs to happen in a wide variety of communications arenas, but social media offers great opportunities for such engagement. A large number of blogs cover climate change issues, but with one or two exceptions these cover scientific discussions with little direct engagement from critics, or feature discussions amongst groups of largely like-minded individuals who merely reinforce each others views. There are signs that this is starting to change, for example with some scientists engaging with sceptic blogs, and while discussions can often be robust they can be constructive if participants take care to remain civil.

"(W)hile discussions can often be robust they can be constructive if participants take care to remain civil." Cute.
I see a gentle admonition to the proud "I don't do blogs" types.

 

[stokes234]

I feel like a broken record

WE ARE DOING SOMETHING, WE AREN'T "WAITING AROUND"

Right now we're acting to reduce emissions while maintaining economic growth. Until something comes along or the science is more conclusive.

We're not doing enough, though. This article by Monbiot analyses two papers published in Nature to suggest that we actually need to start considering not even extracting some of the known reserves of oil.

Or, since quality of life and longevity continue to increase at the greatest rate in human history look at them and say "We've put you in the best possible position to deal with this".

IF it happens.

Firstly, I could use a source on that. Secondly, does it matter how good your quality of life is, if you're dead? Climate change is predicted to cause more chaotic weather, and mass migration of tens of millions of people from areas claimed by rising tides would bring famine, disease, and conflict over remaining land and food sources, and the worst effects are most likely to hit the 3rd world. Shiny Ipads will not be much comfort in those kinds of situations.

 

[uke2se]

... and the worst effects are most likely to hit the 3rd world.

I'm starting to believe that this is the issue with the denialists. They simply don't want to pay for some brown family to be able to live.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In a previous post, Malcolm Kirkpatrick said he trusted Freeman Dyson's interpretation of the science. Here's Freeman Dyson explaining why we don't need a time machine:...
The Keeling graph can be seen here:...
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2005/keeling/keeling_web.html

I don't need a time machine to read about historic temperature measurements. I would need a time machine to read thermometers which report historic temperature measurements. jj wrote "I'm also sure that you can read instruments that show the historical trends of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere" and I replied "If you supply the time machine, sure". If you write that triceratops had a body temperature of X^o, I can read what you write. If you want me to take a triceratops' body temperature, I will need a time machine. Right? The immediate argument here is about the requirement that we trust people who supply data and calculations, that no one can compile all the relevant information on his own.

So you have to trust someone. The only alternative is to remain ignorant.

You have made some strange choices of people to trust (McIntyre, Wegman), but your decision to trust Freeman Dyson wasn't too bad. I quoted from Dyson's explanation of why you should trust the Keeling graph.

I addressed your "trust" issues by noting that you had declared your trust in Freeman Dyson's interrpetation of the science. I then quoted excerpts in which Dyson explains why you should trust the Keeling graph. If you truly trusted Dyson, you would trust the Keeling graph.

You responded by restating your aversion to trust. Since I had already addressed your trust issue quite explicitly, your response looks like a poorly veiled excuse to avoid learning anything.

That's been your pattern throughout this thread. You go to great lengths to remain isolated within the conservative echo chamber that fosters and perpetuates ignorance and denial of climate science. Your reaction to the Keeling graph is just one more example of that.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You responded by restating your aversion to trust. Since I had already addressed your trust issue quite explicitly, your response looks like a poorly veiled excuse to avoid learning anything.

Read. The immediate argument is about trust. That is, all of us get almost all of our science second-hand (we accept someone else's word for temperature measurements in the Palmer penninsula, or for the width of tree rings from fossils in Yamal, for the length of a solar year--have you actually counted?, for the elemental composition of water--H₂O, etc.). I wrote "The problem is, most people, in fact ALL people, lack the first-hand knowledge of facts and the ability to systematically deduce from these facts and the relevant theoretical constructions the outcomes of changes such as the predicted increase in fossil fuel consumption" and jj responded "Now that is utter stuff and nonsense...
...you can read instruments that show the historical trends of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere". To that I responded "If you supply the time machine, sure."

I disputed jj's assertion that I could read historic thermometer gas chromatorgaph measurements of atmosphere temperature composition. Without a time machine I cannot, anymore than I can take a triceratops' temperature.

Clinger misrepresents this obvious point and turns it into an occasion to insult:

...your response looks like a poorly veiled excuse to avoid learning anything.
That's been your pattern throughout this thread. You go to great lengths to remain isolated within the conservative echo chamber that fosters and perpetuates ignorance and denial of climate science. Your reaction to the Keeling graph is just one more example of that.

Again, I recommend this. We just might manage a civil discussion,

 

[DC]

Read. The immediate argument is about trust. That is, all of us get almost all of our science second-hand (we accept someone else's word for temperature measurements in the Palmer penninsula, or for the width of tree rings from fossils in Yamal, for the length of a solar year--have you actually counted?, for the elemental composition of water--H₂O, etc.). I wrote "The problem is, most people, in fact ALL people, lack the first-hand knowledge of facts and the ability to systematically deduce from these facts and the relevant theoretical constructions the outcomes of changes such as the predicted increase in fossil fuel consumption" and jj responded "Now that is utter stuff and nonsense...
...you can read instruments that show the historical trends of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere". To that I responded "If you supply the time machine, sure."

I disputed jj's assertion that I could read historic thermometer measurements of atmosphere temperature. Without a time machine I cannot, anymore than I can take a triceratops' temperature.

Clinger misrepresents this obvious point and turns it into an occasion to insult: Again, I recommend this. We just might manage a civil discussion,

there are so many scientist working in this field, do you think they are all conspired to cover their faked data world wide?

 

[uke2se]

Read. The immediate argument is about trust. That is, all of us get almost all of our science second-hand (we accept someone else's word for temperature measurements in the Palmer penninsula, or for the width of tree rings from fossils in Yamal, for the length of a solar year--have you actually counted?, for the elemental composition of water--H₂O, etc.). I wrote "The problem is, most people, in fact ALL people, lack the first-hand knowledge of facts and the ability to systematically deduce from these facts and the relevant theoretical constructions the outcomes of changes such as the predicted increase in fossil fuel consumption" and jj responded "Now that is utter stuff and nonsense...
...you can read instruments that show the historical trends of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere". To that I responded "If you supply the time machine, sure."

I disputed jj's assertion that I could read historic thermometer gas chromatorgaph measurements of atmosphere temperature composition. Without a time machine I cannot, anymore than I can take a triceratops' temperature.

Clinger misrepresents this obvious point and turns it into an occasion to insult: Again, I recommend this. We just might manage a civil discussion,

If it all comes down to trust, why do you chose to trust a minority of people with next to no relevant education in climate science over more than 90% of the world's leading experts?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
So the scientists who argued that Global Warming is not a crisis were as you previously called them..."Deniers"...

As well as half the audience.

And when Deniers get the podium, more Deniers are born in the audience.

Thanks.

wich has nothing to do with them being right or wrong.

Then don't argue that a consensus in science makes something right.

 

[bit_pattern]

Then don't argue that a consensus in science makes something right.

A consensus of what exactly? I would have thought that a consensus of evidence is exactly what makes something "right" in science.

 

[DC]

Originally Posted by mhaze
So the scientists who argued that Global Warming is not a crisis were as you previously called them..."Deniers"...

As well as half the audience.

And when Deniers get the podium, more Deniers are born in the audience.

Thanks.



Then don't argue that a consensus in science makes something right.

intersting that you think that the concencus of laymen after lsitening to a debate is as much worth as the concencus extracted from scientific peer reviewed publications over several years.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

If it all comes down to trust, why do you chose to trust a minority of people with next to no relevant education in climate science over more than 90% of the world's leading experts?

there are so many scientist working in this field, do you think they are all conspired to cover their faked data world wide?

Look, the current argument started here:...

...The problem is, most people, in fact ALL people, lack the first-hand knowledge of facts and the ability to systematically deduce from these facts and the relevant theoretical constructions the outcomes of changes such as the predicted increase in fossil fuel consumption. Science is a collaborative enterprise which depends on trust (~reputation~status~authority). Experts in geochemistry have to trust experts in astrophysics for the astrophysicists' contribution to the discussion. Field paleobotanists have to trust field meterologists for the meterologists' contribution. Experts in some disciplines even have to trust other experts in their own discipline, since no one has the time to dig into sandbanks on all continents for fossil trees and then to prepare slides and measure tree rings...

jj asserted that I "can read instruments that show the historical trends of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere" and I replied "If you supply the time machine, sure". Do or do you not agree with the basic point, that all of us get almost all of our "scientific" knowledge second-hand? Do you or do you not accept that no one can, without a time machine, today take yesterday's temperature, anymore than s/he can take a triceratops' temperature? Yesterday's weather report was someone else's inspection of an instrument. Today, for me, yesterday's weather report is someone else's word. Even if I visit the weather station at Honolulu International Airport and look at the thermometer, that's today's temperature, not yesterday's temperature. Right? I will certainly believe that since the 50's and earlier people sampled air and ran it through gas chromatographs to derive values for chemical species' representation. I have to take their word for what they found. There's nothing wrong with that. It's how it has to work. Most science is a collaborative effort.

This relates to the questions above. How could so many experts go wrong? Do they all have to conspire? No. A few critically-placed insiders can construct a consensus around a mistake (or a fraud). Misplaced trust, pride, confirmation bias, and careerist ambition do the rest. In some public venues, it hepls if devotees resort to calumny and other intimidation. For a while.

 

[DC]

Look, the current argument started here:...jj asserted that I "can read instruments that show the historical trends of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere" and I replied "If you supply the time machine, sure". Do or do you not agree with the basic point, that all of us get almost all of our "scientific" knowledge second-hand? Do you or do you not accept that no one can, without a time machine, today take yesterday's temperature, anymore than s/he can take a triceratops' temperature? Yesterday's weather report was someone else's inspection of an instrument. Today, for me, yesterday's weather report is someone else's word. Even if I visit the weather station at Honolulu International Airport and look at the thermometer, that's today's temperature, not yesterday's temperature. Right? I will certainly believe that since the 50's and earlier people sampled air and ran it through gas chromatographs to derive values for chemical species' representation. I have to take their word for what they found. There's nothing wrong with that. It's how it has to work. Most science is a collaborative effort.

This relates to the questions above. How could so many experts go wrong? Do they all have to conspire? No. A few critically-placed insiders can construct a consensus around a mistake (or a fraud). Misplaced trust, pride, confirmation bias, and careerist ambition do the rest. In some public venues, it hepls if devotees resort to calumny and other intimidation. For a while.

when you think you need a timemachine you need to google ice cores and read about how they measure the CO².

 

[mhaze]

when you think you need a timemachine you need to google ice cores and read about how they measure the CO².

It would appear that you did not understand Malcolm's comments.

Any more than you understood my comments about the scientific method.

 

[bit_pattern]

Bejaysus. The wonders of modern science, eh? Who woulda thunk they could reconstruct past temperatures

Christ on a bike

 

[mhaze]

A consensus of what exactly? I would have thought that a consensus of evidence is exactly what makes something "right" in science.

Oh? So if items of evidence A, B, C, D, E, and F are not inconsistent with hypothesis XYZ, then XYZ is proven true.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[bit_pattern]

It would appear that you did not understand Malcolm's comments.

Any more than you understood my comments about the scientific method.

Are you a Creationist too?