How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[Alan Klein]

I was talking about North Korea, but I agree, let's get back to global warming.

The supposed experts are the recognized experts. There are no other experts and no other way to decide who the experts are.

I have already answered the other objections several times in this thread. In short, the world is probabilistic in essence. Nothing is ever certain. But you have high odds and those are what policies need to be based on. You have lived your life that way, so have I. There is absolutely no reason why you should have a different take on global warming.

Cheers,
Bernard

Three weeks ago I went to Monmouth race track here in New Jersey. I hit a 18 to 1 long shot that paid me back $96 on a $5 bet. All the other betters played the favorites, and lost. I'd bet they were the global warming believers too.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Again... If I told you I am hungry, and your "remedial solution" is "well, you should eat something" is completely correct, yet utterly useless. How do we reduce greenhouse gasses without severely affecting our way of life?

Surely, unless the media one reads/views do not cover the subject (to get back on topic), there are many examples of what an individual can do to contribute to a solution.

So instead, I'm curious to ask you (presumably being exposed to different information sources than I have looked up) what you think might contribute to reducing Greenhouse gas emissions.

I've even mentioned, in one of the many thread exchanges, a (good) book reference on the subject:
Drawdown
Reading a copy from a library, or getting a second-hand copy, both saves you cost and helps preserving natural resources, trees.

In fact, many mundane solutions (not mentioned as such in that book which focuses more on the 100 big-ticket game changers) have to do with making more clever choices when we consume products. Given a choice between suppliers, choosing the 'better performing' one makes a difference (because it will influence the choices that manufacturers make).

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

I was talking about North Korea, but I agree, let's get back to global warming.

The supposed experts are the recognized experts. There are no other experts and no other way to decide who the experts are.

I have already answered the other objections several times in this thread. In short, the world is probabilistic in essence. Nothing is ever certain. But you have high odds and those are what policies need to be based on. You have lived your life that way, so have I. There is absolutely no reason why you should have a different take on global warming.

Cheers,
Bernard

What you're telling me, Bernard, is that you have faith, and that you're going to press your gospel on others to save them. Blaze away, but don't be surprised when you find unbelievers with a different faith -- snottily called "deniers."

[BernardLanguillier]

What you're telling me, Bernard, is that you have faith, and that you're going to press your gospel on others to save them. Blaze away, but don't be surprised when you find unbelievers with a different faith -- snottily called "deniers."

This isn’t faith or a belief.

It’s an understanding of the statistical nature of the world.

There is no other non statistical world where to escape to.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Three weeks ago I went to Monmouth race track here in New Jersey. I hit a 18 to 1 long shot that paid me back $96 on a $5 bet. All the other betters played the favorites, and lost. I'd bet they were the global warming believers too.

You are way smarter than that Alan.

Really.

Cheers,
Bernard

[RSL]

This isn’t faith or a belief.

Cheers,
Bernard

That's EXACTLY what it is.

[Alan Klein]

You are way smarter than that Alan.

Really.

Cheers,
Bernard

Do you think I lied about winning the 18 to 1 shot?  Wanna bet?

[BernardLanguillier]

That's EXACTLY what it is.

I am speechless...

I am sorry Russ, but it’s hard to converse when the most basic things aren’t understood.

I hope this is just a misunderstanding.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

This isn’t faith or a belief.

It’s an understanding of the statistical nature of the world.

There is no other non statistical world where to escape to.

Cheers,
Bernard

For a photographer who always see facts and representations about cameras' capabilities,  I'm surprised you'd think that everyone has a different take on which is real, or better, or hype, or whatever.  If we all thought the same, based on all the statistics given in a race's program prior to the race,  that lists every statistic about the horses' and jockeys' performances, what would be the point of betting on a horse race? 

Obviously we all think differently and come to differing conclusions about stuff.  Do you think only you have some gift from God that is able to conclude what the Truth really is?  I guess you have more faith then I do. 

[Alan Klein]

I am speechless...

I am sorry Russ, but it’s hard to converse when the most basic things aren’t understood.

Cheers,
Bernard

There you go again with your monopoly on the Truth. 

[BernardLanguillier]

For a photographer who always see facts and representations about cameras' capabilities,  I'm surprised you'd think that everyone has a different take on which is real, or better, or hype, or whatever.  If we all thought the same, based on all the statistics given in a race's program prior to the race,  that lists every statistic about the horses' and jockeys' performances, what would be the point of betting on a horse race? 

Obviously we all think differently and come to differing conclusions about stuff.  Do you think only you have some gift from God that is able to conclude what the Truth really is?  I guess you have more faith then I do.

Not at all.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

There you go again with your monopoly on the Truth.

Not at all.

Every single scientist understands that climat research is based on statistical analysis.

And a large majority of the population also.

If you disagree with this you are simply chosing to position yourself in what is close to a monopoly of denial.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And on (a perhaps lighter note, after all it's coming from last year's) "Comic Con":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjH-V7hawRI

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Every single scientist understands that climat research is based on statistical analysis...

So?

Nobody disputes statistical analysis, but conclusions drawn from that.  Climate is an extremely complex system and not 2+2=4, and you want us to believe that a single correlation of two  variables explains everything?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So?

Nobody disputes statistical analysis, but conclusions drawn from that.  Climate is an extremely complex system and not 2+2=4, and you want us to believe that a single correlation of two  variables explains everything?

Conclusion: Is CO2 (Carbon dioxide) a Greenhouse gas? (spoiler alert, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect).

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Not at all.

Every single scientist understands that climat research is based on statistical analysis.

And a large majority of the population also.

If you disagree with this you are simply chosing to position yourself in what is close to a monopoly of denial.

Cheers,
Bernard

Did you ever look at a racing program.  Every possible statistic about the horses running are given.  How fast they ran, at each furlong, who else they ran against, who the jockey is, his performances, etc etc etc.  You'd think it would be a cinch to predict the winner.  Yet you can't.  Despite all the statistics.  There are just unknowns that cause the "wrong" horse to win when it shouldn't.  So even with statistical analysis of the climate, there are variables that cannot be predicted.

But all this is beside the point.  Even if temperatures are going up, regardless of the reason, deciding what to do about it requires more than statistics.  We're not robots.  First off, what are the positive as well as the negative effects of warming?  Should different countries address them differently depending on effect?  Regional within a country?  Do you spend money on changing over from fossil fuels?  Or do you spend that money on cancer and heart research?  If both, to what extent should each be allocated?  SHould the money be spent on switchover or rather on fixing damage created by the warming?  These are human questions requiring human answers.  There's no simple statistical recipe. It requires complete truth about everything, and not cherry picked data.  Only then can the public decide how it should handle things.  Today, we're getting a very limited expository of what may happen and how we should take care of it.

[LesPalenik]

Nobody disputes statistical analysis, but conclusions drawn from that.  Climate is an extremely complex system and not 2+2=4, and you want us to believe that a single correlation of two  variables explains everything?

We all agree that climate is an extremely complex system. Most people would also agree that trying to have the smaller footprint on the environment won't hurt it. And there is a good possibility that it could help.
Personally, I identify with Bernard's personal initiatives to conserve energy and reduce pollution, and still have some fun. Every bit helps, and fortunately, there are many other people who think along the same way, so I think we are on the good course.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Personally, I identify with Bernard's personal initiatives to conserve energy and reduce pollution...

Sorry, Les, but who isn’t for conserving energy and reducing pollution!? Except CO2 isn’t pollution. Whatever you guys do has only one purpose: to make you feel good about yourself. I am glad for you. But it does zilch for the environment.

Take recycling, for instance. More and more cities are abandoning it, as it uses more energy than it saves. Back where we started, at the good old landfill. Cities still offer collection of recyclables, because they couldn’t bear to watch do-gooders end up with a broken heart, If they’d find out their hours of carefully separating brown glass from green glass, #4 recyclables from #6 recyclables, brown paper from white paper, etc. end up in a landfill anyway.

But don’t worry, Les, next time we get together for a drink, I’ll warn the server not to bring you a straw

[LesPalenik]

But don’t worry, Les, next time we get together for a drink, I’ll warn the server not to bring you a straw

Slobodan, I think, we drank coffee. The plastic straw would melt in the hot coffee. Best, we'll meet right on the Hollywood Beach boardwalk and bring our metal bottles with cold water.

[jeremyrh]

So?

Nobody disputes statistical analysis, but conclusions drawn from that.  Climate is an extremely complex system and not 2+2=4, and you want us to believe that a single correlation of two  variables explains everything?

As usual, Monty Python has it right - "this isn't an argument, this is just contradiction".  Saying that you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming because it's complex is intellectually void.