Pages: 1 ... 64 65 [66] 67 68 ... 72   Go Down

Author Topic: Skepticism about Climate Change  (Read 213541 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1300 on: September 24, 2017, 04:44:18 pm »

Then to get equally silly, how can You prove that it is not caused by human activities?...

I am not trying to prove it isn't. That's what makes me a sceptic.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1301 on: September 24, 2017, 04:51:03 pm »

I am not trying to prove it isn't. That's what makes me a sceptic.

A skeptic without a reason to be a skeptic. Just for the sake of it.

I see.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1302 on: September 24, 2017, 05:11:20 pm »

A skeptic without a reason to be a skeptic. Just for the sake of it....

Well, I have plenty of reasons and I mentioned them several times.

But I like what our friend Oscar (a Dutchman, coincidentally) said in another thread:

... the earth represents a 5 to 20 billion year evolutionary balance, and human beings can't even remotely comprehend what that means. Thinking that we can disrupt that balance just because we find our own intellect a unique and incomprehensible faculty in relation to nature is an extremely odd proposition and overestimation of our importance in the grander scheme of things...

As I said, we are but a grain of sand in the ocean of time.

But here are a few more prosaic reasons: "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron;  scientists are human, thus prone to human mistakes - herd mentality, confirmation bias, preoccupied with money/funding/being published;  it takes 10% of dedicated activists to turn a minority into majority; etc.

Ray also said it well:

... The so-called science of climatology cannot meets these high standards because of the great complexity of the circumstances, the elements of chaos involved, the impossibility of creating an accurate model of the entire planet, the unreliability or scarcity of accurate data from the past and even the present, and the large time-scales involved in the process of climate change....

And already by now certain predictions from a recent past have been revised: first it was claimed extreme weather events will become more frequent and stronger - then statistics proved it wrong; the percentage risk of a catastrophic change went down and the time frame up; more and more scientists are coming forward questioning manipulation and reinterpretation of existing measurements to suit one's preconceptions; etc.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2017, 06:19:46 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1303 on: September 25, 2017, 12:08:18 am »

People smell a con.   They wonder how and why the father of global warning,  Al Gore,  made $100 million on the climate change science while telling everyone to cut their carbon usage while his carbon footprint is 50 times the average guy.   

They check their pocketbooks when the hear the government talking about raising their taxes and giving other countries a leg up over is.

Maybe the thing that bothers them the most is the total lack of respect for their viewpoints, concerns and questions.  They're called stupid, bible thumpers,  ignorant,  deplorable,  etc. 

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4763
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1304 on: September 25, 2017, 08:32:29 am »

People smell a con.   They wonder how and why the father of global warning,  Al Gore,  made $100 million on the climate change science while telling everyone to cut their carbon usage while his carbon footprint is 50 times the average guy.   

They check their pocketbooks when the hear the government talking about raising their taxes and giving other countries a leg up over is.

Maybe the thing that bothers them the most is the total lack of respect for their viewpoints, concerns and questions.  They're called stupid, bible thumpers,  ignorant,  deplorable,  etc.


In a sense, you're right. There are a lot of personal insults flying around in the wider debate, a lot of alarmists talking over their head. Which is why the subject needs calm scientific study. But then when you have science, people insist on claiming that scientists are doing it for the big bucks or they are accused of following band-wagons because they agree on some data, which are just silly junk claims. Sorry, but those arguments tend to invalidate the challenges.

But then you also ruin your argument by bringing up Al Gore's income AGAIN. What does Al Gore's luck in the marketplace have to do with climate change? How is the fact that he fluked out and got rich(er) by releasing a book (or movie, I don't know which) germane to the discussion? I'm sorry, but who cares about Al Gore? You can't really be saying that because Gore got rich, then the case for human-caused climate change is invalid? How can that make any sense to anyone?
Logged
--
Robert

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1305 on: September 25, 2017, 10:16:42 am »


...
But then you also ruin your argument by bringing up Al Gore's income AGAIN. What does Al Gore's luck in the marketplace have to do with climate change? How is the fact that he fluked out and got rich(er) by releasing a book (or movie, I don't know which) germane to the discussion? I'm sorry, but who cares about Al Gore? You can't really be saying that because Gore got rich, then the case for human-caused climate change is invalid? How can that make any sense to anyone?

People claim that Donald Trump became president to make himself, his family, and his friends richer.   How can anyone make any sense out of that?

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1306 on: September 25, 2017, 10:34:08 am »

People claim that Donald Trump became president to make himself, his family, and his friends richer.   How can anyone make any sense out of that?
Makes a lot of sense if you see some of the cronies flocking around him. Even his own daughter gets absolution from "made in the USA". Describing it as Nepotism is an understatement.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1307 on: September 25, 2017, 10:35:22 am »

But then you also ruin your argument by bringing up Al Gore's income AGAIN. What does Al Gore's luck in the marketplace have to do with climate change? How is the fact that he fluked out and got rich(er) by releasing a book (or movie, I don't know which) germane to the discussion? I'm sorry, but who cares about Al Gore? You can't really be saying that because Gore got rich, then the case for human-caused climate change is invalid? How can that make any sense to anyone?
+1

In lieu of a like button ;)
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1308 on: September 25, 2017, 10:46:29 am »

But then when you have science, people insist on claiming that scientists are doing it for the big bucks or they are accused of following band-wagons because they agree on some data, which are just silly junk claims. Sorry, but those arguments tend to invalidate the challenges.

Isn't the claim that 'certain' scientists are doing it for the money, one of the arguments used by the alarmist camp to discredit the views of scientists in the skeptical camp?

Geologists, such as the Australian Ian Plimer who wrote a book on the subject of climate change from a geological perspective, and concluded that human CO2 emissions alone would have a very minor and insignificant effect on climate, was heavily criticised by the alarmist camp because of his association with various mining projects which might have included oil and coal.

Scientists working in the Tobacco industries are notorious for their views which have attempted to minimize the harmful effects of smoking.

Why is it so difficult to understand that there is usually a pressure on employees in any industry or organization to conform to the general ethos of that organisation?

Any scientist employed by the tobacco industry, years ago when the research about the harmful effects of smoking became more certain, would have been faced with the choice of either retaining his job by 'toeing the line' and criticizing the new research, or walking away from his job.

No doubt some tobacco scientists did walk away from their job, just as some climate scientists have walked away from their position in government-funded climate research centres because their skepticism was not tolerated.

I recall a few years ago when reports began to emerge about the hormonal and neurological effects of fructose from corn syrup, which is added to so many processed foods and was claimed to have a significant effect on the body and mind's sensation of satiety when eating. In other words, people who ate a lot of fructose were unable to sense when they were full and had eaten enough, so they kept on eating to enjoy the taste of the food, which resulted in their obesity.

The Fructose industry is huge, just like the tobacco industry (was). I recall reading a leaked report of the decisions of a board meeting of one the major fructose suppliers. The board of management decided that the company would conduct it's own research into this issue. If the results of their research contradicted, or revealed flaws in the claims that Fructose interfered with the body's sense of satiety, they would publish the research. However, if their research were to confirm this theory, they would bury their research.

Government-funded climate research centres are not set up for the purpose of conducting an impartial and curious inquiry in the nature of climate. They are funded because of a claimed danger of CO2 emissions. The funding will continue, at least at its current level, only if the alarm about human emissions of so-called Greenhouse Gases is maintained. Isn't that obvious?

Quote
But then you also ruin your argument by bringing up Al Gore's income AGAIN. What does Al Gore's luck in the marketplace have to do with climate change? How is the fact that he fluked out and got rich(er) by releasing a book (or movie, I don't know which) germane to the discussion? I'm sorry, but who cares about Al Gore? You can't really be saying that because Gore got rich, then the case for human-caused climate change is invalid? How can that make any sense to anyone?

The issue is about the honesty and credibility of Gore. Bill Gates is wealthy and donates a lot of his wealth to poor people, because it's an issue he's concerned about. What would you think if Bill Gates were to merely talk a lot about poverty and write books about it, but not donate any of his wealth to the cause of poverty. Wouldn't you think he was a hypocrite?

If Gore were to reduce his 'carbon footprint' to an average or moderate amount and donate a large portion of his wealth to the construction of, say, a large solar farm which could produce low-cost electricity as a result of his free donation to the construction cost, then Gore would have a lot more credibility and might even appeal to intelligent people.  ;)

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1309 on: September 25, 2017, 11:50:16 am »

Once again a “like” for Ray’s post.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1310 on: September 25, 2017, 12:03:02 pm »

Isn't the claim that 'certain' scientists are doing it for the money, one of the arguments used by the alarmist camp to discredit the views of scientists in the skeptical camp?

Geologists, such as the Australian Ian Plimer who wrote a book on the subject of climate change from a geological perspective, and concluded that human CO2 emissions alone would have a very minor and insignificant effect on climate, was heavily criticised by the alarmist camp because of his association with various mining projects which might have included oil and coal.

If you need the help of Ian Pilmer to prove a point, you've lost already. Not because of his contrarian's opinions, but because of the nonsense he puts in articles/books (scientific publications wouldn't pass the test of peer review). And no Slobodan, it's not ad hominem, he's an idiot, and he proves it by what he says/writes. In case you still doubt, https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Ian_Plimer.htm. Yes, that site dedicated a webpage on Plimer, because of the volume of nonsense he produces.

Quote
Scientists working in the Tobacco industries are notorious for their views which have attempted to minimize the harmful effects of smoking.

Are they, or is it their marketing department? Any peer-reviewed publications (that survived) by them?
As with the Exxon researchers (link in post no. 1294) their science was not the problem, it was their communication to the public/regulators.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 12:06:57 pm by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4763
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1311 on: September 25, 2017, 01:36:19 pm »

People claim that Donald Trump became president to make himself, his family, and his friends richer.   How can anyone make any sense out of that?

Maybe they can and maybe they can't, that's their problem.

My question remains, however, what does your antipathy towards Gore have to do with claims of human-based effects on climate change?
Logged
--
Robert

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1312 on: September 25, 2017, 01:50:29 pm »

Robert, you don’t seem to understand how the science and art of influence works. Gore was personally influential in raising the alarmist  hype to screeching highs, so yes, Gore and everything about his “footprint” is relevant.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1313 on: September 25, 2017, 01:58:15 pm »

The issue is about the honesty and credibility of Gore. Bill Gates is wealthy and donates a lot of his wealth to poor people, because it's an issue he's concerned about. What would you think if Bill Gates were to merely talk a lot about poverty and write books about it, but not donate any of his wealth to the cause of poverty. Wouldn't you think he was a hypocrite?

If Gore were to reduce his 'carbon footprint' to an average or moderate amount and donate a large portion of his wealth to the construction of, say, a large solar farm which could produce low-cost electricity as a result of his free donation to the construction cost, then Gore would have a lot more credibility and might even appeal to intelligent people.  ;)
Do you know for certain that Al Gore is not donating to various charities?  He has set up a foundation to deal with climate change; what is wrong with that.  At least he is more transparent than Koch Industries who fund a myriad of organizations that advance a variety of conservative causes including those fighting climate change and clean coal.  How do you square that circle?
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1314 on: September 25, 2017, 02:01:52 pm »

Robert, you don’t seem to understand how the science and art of influence works. Gore was personally influential in raising the alarmist  hype to screeching highs, so yes, Gore and everything about his “footprint” is relevant.

I don't follow your reasoning. Gore is not a scientist, so how could his opinion invalidate Scientific peer-reviewed truths (some of them contradicting some of his claims)?

Gore's actions speak for Gore, not for Science. Using him to discredit serious scientific research is a pretty lame distraction tactic.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1315 on: September 25, 2017, 03:07:48 pm »

Ok, so let me add Bart, in addition to Robert, to the list of those who do not understand how influence works.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1316 on: September 25, 2017, 04:09:05 pm »

Ok, so let me add Bart, in addition to Robert, to the list of those who do not understand how influence works.

Unlike you, I get it, and you fell for it.

Case in point, you said:
Quote
But here are a few more prosaic reasons: "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron;  scientists are human, thus prone to human mistakes - herd mentality, confirmation bias, preoccupied with money/funding/being published;  it takes 10% of dedicated activists to turn a minority into majority; etc.

You have been led to believe that scientific consensus and consensus on results are the same thing. As explained, Scientists by definition try to pick other Scientist's conclusions apart, or try and disprove them if possible. When almost all of them get approx. the same results, then there is consensus on the results.

Yes, scientists are human, but that's why the Peer-review is an essential part of finding an emerging truth. One man can be wrong, but it's increasingly unlikely that thousands of independent researchers are equally wrong when they reach similar conclusions.

The money argument. Of course, Scientists need money in order to conduct experiments, but you suggest that that also buys the outcome of the research and of the peer-review that's an integral part of it. Show us your evidence.

The 10% activists argument, it is not limited to one side of an argument, both sides can achieve a majority. So why use it to discredit one side's position and not the other side's?

You also said:
Quote
And already by now certain predictions from a recent past have been revised: first it was claimed extreme weather events will become more frequent and stronger - then statistics proved it wrong; the percentage risk of a catastrophic change went down and the time frame up; more and more scientists are coming forward questioning manipulation and reinterpretation of existing measurements to suit one's preconceptions; etc.

You seem surprised that progressive insight (better instrumentation and more powerful computer processing) can lead to changed conclusions, suggesting as if Scientists do not know what they are doing, to begin with. You then give an example by saying that "first it was claimed extreme weather events will become more frequent and stronger". Yet you do not give a link to substantiate that. You also do not provide evidence for a claim of manipulation of existing measurements (suggesting that it's done to deliberately distort the truth).  What Scientists are, and have been, saying is that the frequency will go down a bit but the intensity is likely to increase, depending on location (e.g. in some locations droughts will get worse, in others extreme precipitation will get worse). I do not recall that a majority of Scientists claimed what you said, instead they are very nuanced in what they say, exactly because there are very few absolute certainties that are applicable to all locations/situations on earth.

You also seem to have an odd type of understanding of the difference between Scientific observations and causality. When I stick my hand in an open flame without proper preparation, I'll burn my hand. You'd say that Correlation is not Causation, so the burns may have another cause, which is nonsense. It's the same with the burning of fossil fuel, the excess of released CO2 will lead to Climate Change. The exact amount is hard to predict because there are many variables, and the effect of some is not yet fully understood.

That's why Scientists, almost all of them, do know for sure that Global warming is predominantly anthropogenic, conclusions based on the laws of physics, not on contrived nonsense correlation.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1317 on: September 25, 2017, 04:30:18 pm »

I don't follow your reasoning. Gore is not a scientist, so how could his opinion invalidate Scientific peer-reviewed truths (some of them contradicting some of his claims)?

Gore's actions speak for Gore, not for Science. Using him to discredit serious scientific research is a pretty lame distraction tactic.

Cheers,
Bart


Gore is  one of the leaders of climate change issues relating to use of carbon.   As a major spokesman,  people expect him to lead by example.   If he's hypocritical enough to not reduce his carbon footprint,  why should the average schnook? 

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1318 on: September 25, 2017, 04:57:30 pm »



Gore is  one of the leaders of climate change issues relating to use of carbon.   As a major spokesman,  people expect him to lead by example.   If he's hypocritical enough to not reduce his carbon footprint,  why should the average schnook?
How do you know for sure he has not done this?
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4763
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1319 on: September 25, 2017, 05:59:54 pm »



Gore is  one of the leaders of climate change issues relating to use of carbon.   As a major spokesman,  people expect him to lead by example.   If he's hypocritical enough to not reduce his carbon footprint,  why should the average schnook?

I would not use the words "leader" nor "major spokesman", you're giving him too much credit. He may be the go-to guy for head shots on TV news sound bite spots, but let's not overstate the importance of that exposure nor his ability to influence people. It's a big world, and he's just an ex-politician who has some American TV network standing. I have no idea if most people in Europe, say, or Asia, have a very good idea of who he is. He's not nobody, of course, but my point is that he is not central (or even particularly germane) to the current discussion. Whether or not he has as much influence as you think and whether or not he's a hypocrite has no bearing on the basic issues. None.

But your argument is annoying on another level. You seem to want to raise the bar quite high on what is expected of him before you'd be prepared to listen to him. What would he have to do to meet your criteria for believability? Should he give up ALL carbon footprint causing activities? Is that what is required of him? If he did that, never flew again, never rode in a car again, never flushed a toilet again, would you THEN be prepared to listen to what he has to say. It's a rhetorical question because of course you wouldn't. Calling attention to his supposed hypocrisies is a distraction.
Logged
--
Robert
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 [66] 67 68 ... 72   Go Up