|
|
Post by martin44 on Aug 21, 2019 21:39:48 GMT
i particularly liked this one "The Gulf Stream is weakening, and Europe could expect a prolonged cold spell as the world warms"  I don't understand why you find so many of adrianc 's points laughably ridiculous, nor do you ever put forward your reasoning to be discussed.Human activity has caused global average temperatures to rise at an unprecedented rate (see previously posted xkcd comic). This temperature rise affects weather systems around the world and leads to 'extreme' weather events increasing in frequency. This can present locally in a variety of ways from hotter summers to colder winters, but usually with a warming trend. The melting of the ice sheets is thought to be weakening the gulf stream. The gulf stream transfers hot air from Mexico to Western Europe. As a result, its weakening will bring less hot air to Europe from Mexico, this may or may not somewhat offset generally warmer air temperatures in Europe. However, it will most definitely lead to hotter temperatures in the gulf of Mexico as hot air moves away more slowly. No one claims to fully understand humanity's impact on weather patterns, there are too many interconnected mechanisms and systems that we don't fully understand. However, that global temperatures are rising at a rate never before seen is not up for debate and human activity is the only variable that explains it. It's easy to point out where climate science has been wrong in the past, climate scientists do it all the time, but just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean we should entirely disregard what we do understand. If you get a few questions wrong in an exam, does that mean your entire knowledge and understanding of the subject should be ignored/laughed at? Of course not. You obviously did not read my previous post, which linked and was posted as an alternative reasoning. p2pindependentforum.com/post/343220/thread
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 8:44:18 GMT
I didn't say that at all. To try and link to your idea. I might have said failing to look at the evidence and supporting arguements of the vast majority of the earth's scientist takes a certain way of thinking.
Stepping off that position is tough and is unlikely to occur in what here is a series of monologues. Better to do a more in depth piece of work. I recommend the MOOC from the university of Champagne , ( in the states). Good course material and a lot of opportunity to chat to other people trying to learn with deniers included.
Good luck the planet/humanity needs you on its side.
|
|
|
|
Post by propman on Aug 22, 2019 9:46:24 GMT
The trouble deniers have in the argument is that they believe, they believe they are right and as much evidence as you offer them it will not satisfy them. If you believe the earth is flat or the earth is only 5000 years old you believe and evidence is just a test of faith. Changing you position on this suggests that, in the past, you were wrong. It takes a strong person to accept that. All I now suggest to all such people is go do a MOOC on climate change and let education change your views. When I used to run change programmes we knew 25% of the staff would buy into whatever we suggested and 25% would reject whatever we said. So we just focused on the core 50%. Those with open minds who are prepared to learn. I recommend it to you. Pushing has no value. Letting people be educated in the subject has fantastic value. Trust me the Daily Mail and Lawson are not sources of education. I note with interest that studies show that while a denier struggles to make a step towards accepting the truth, good quality arguments in social media will influence waverers and others reading the thread. So it is vital to make a good case even to strong deniers. So yes climates have always changed but not at this unprecedented rate and not because of the actions of man to this extent. Human action far exceeds volcanic action on the climate at the moment. Employment opportunities within most green deals far exceeds coal mining and processing employment opportunities and in far safer conditions. Oil does have a place in a modern industry but as raw material for some lubricants and medical materials but not wasted by chucking on a fire. However unreasonable the souyrce of the reporting,arguments cannot be refuted merely by association of the information with an unreliable channel. Are you saying that you have looked into the claims made and found that the proposed data is made up or are you acting in the same way as you are claiming Martin is by shoulting "denier" and assuming nothing further is required? If the latter, then i suggest you are in the other 25%!
I am not aware of data that justifies the statement that warming is at the quickest rate ever. It is the quickest in recent history, but there is evidence that there were rapid fluctuations in the past although the data is incomplete and clearly not global.
If the claims made in the "denier" were true, then all this is saying is that there may be other mechanisms not human in origin that might have a similar impact. he is suggesting that the warming may have been partially caused by man, but that the effects aren't unprecedented. Interestingly it also avoids the issue of human scale impacts. 14 degree increase may be sustainable for the planet, but he does not suggest that the planet would be the same as today as a result. he does rather skate over the mass flooding and changes in the productive capacity of different regions and fresh water availability that would result. So yes, there probably is truth that some trees in large areas of the country would be hapier in a world with double the current CO2 content of air, but how many species would go extinct and how mankind would need to operate are another issue.
The one statement he made that didn't sound right to me was his statement that fracking was unlocking the carbon in limestone and similar rocks. As a former chemist, the carbon would be released as carbon dioxide so not useful as a fuel at all. any carbon release would be from dissolving the limestone and increasing CO2 directly without any energy release! Any other obvious weaknesses that I missed?
Personally I am very skeptical of the climate change models. Like most models they produce spurious precision. They are based upon all of the data known and incorporate innumerable variables that are adjusted so that the actual results today are within the expected outcomes the models produce. This does not mean that their predictions will be correct. I do share his concerns that the climate scientists are required to go along with the consensus. truly radical thinking doesn't pay off for decades and most of them would struggle to pay the bills in the meantime. As a result, I do like to stay in touch with the alternate views while being equally skeptical of them. There is no such thing as an objective view so a degree of cynicism is required.
- PM
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 14:49:55 GMT
I claim to be in the 25%+ that has done research and studied the data. I recommend it to everyone.
Climate change rapidity, well during major meteor strike. But let's not compare global catastrophies.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Aug 24, 2019 20:47:20 GMT
I didn't say that at all. To try and link to your idea. I might have said failing to look at the evidence and supporting arguements of the vast majority of the earth's scientist takes a certain way of thinking. Stepping off that position is tough and is unlikely to occur in what here is a series of monologues. Better to do a more in depth piece of work. I recommend the MOOC from the university of Champagne , ( in the states). Good course material and a lot of opportunity to chat to other people trying to learn with deniers included. Good luck the planet/humanity needs you on its side.I doubt neither the planet nor humanity needs me on its side, what it needs is a balanced and coherent view coupled with balanced data based on LOOOONG term study... not data from the last 50? years or so... i doubt the earths so called "emergency" climate position has been caused over such a minutia period of 50 years. For every bit of study on climate change you have read, i can produce a link to an opposing opinion, IMHO global climate change is indeed happening, to put the blame squarely at the feet of human activity is not only "the easy way out for the eco warriors" it is quite simply infantile, and i might add that being a skeptic does not make a denier.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Aug 25, 2019 11:01:34 GMT
martin44 would you advocate doing nothing other than making a study of the climate >50 years, in which time life on earth may have become impossible for Humans in some parts of the world and unpleasant in others, or would you advocate the "insurance policy" of everyone making changes to their lifestyles in case there is actually a crisis that only immediate action might avert?
|
|
|
|
Post by samford71 on Aug 25, 2019 12:01:20 GMT
We seem to have a increasinging tendency to attack scientific method. Science can never discover the truth. It's based to a large degree on the Popper falsification hypothesis. We postulate a theory, we compare it with the empirical data, we adjust the theory, we compare again. It's an iterative process. We never attain the absolute truth since that is a meaningless concept but we do have an idea what is conditionally true (based on current data, with some form of error bounds) and what is definitely false.
Now regard to climate change. We know that the planet can only dissipate heat through IR radation. We also know that every economic process requires energy usage and that all energy usage will generate waste energy. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In any process we start of with low entropy, concentrated energy, that is used to do some work and we are left with high-entropy, waste energy (typicaly waste heat). The high entropy waste heat cannot be radiated into space due to it wavelength. Therefore the entropy of the planet can only rise and that statement is independent of technology. It's a fundamental physical law. So it's virtually impossible to argue against the idea that human energy usage will not cause the temperature of the planet to rise. You'd have to violate the 2nd law for that not to occur.
The only question then is how fast will that rise be and what will the climate impact be. On the first point, how fast, we can see that the recent warming post industrial revolution is completely incompatible with orbital or geological causes. The first derivative is far too high to be explained by such factors. It has the clear signs of being an exponential function and this fits with our exponentially increasing use of energy. We cannot prove this is the truth but, honestly, what other hypothesis fits the data?
On the second point, what will be the climate impact? Well this is where there is the most uncertainty. Modelling such a process is complex and the error bounds will be large. In reality, what we can clearly say is that we run an increased risk of climate volatility. This is where it moves from science to risk management. We currently have one and only one viable planet to live on. We have no diversification. It's pure concentration risk. So if you think climate change is happening and the impact is likely to be negative, you clearly want to do something about it. If you think the balance of probabilities is that climate change isn't happening or that the impact will be modest, then you should still want to do something about because the tail-risk you're wrong is lethal. Even if it's a 1% chance, you need to hedge it out because if you're wrong and it happens, the downside is just too big. You've got nowhere else to go. Hedging risks costs money and that is painful but when alternative is being wiped out you need to learn just to pay up and move on.
Climate change deniers make me despair since they believe that they hold the absolute truth. That's what makes them so dangerous. They are no different from religious fanatics. The world seems to be increasingly in the grip of people who operate on belief, feelings, gut instinct, superstition and, most useless of all, 'common sense'. This seems to be replacing logic, rationality, scientific method and mathematics. Honestly if that is the path of travel for the human race then it's better we go exinct or at least let AI take over the world.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,707 
Likes: 2,983
|
Post by michaelc on Aug 25, 2019 13:16:17 GMT
The phrase "climate change denier" is unfortunate. I may be wrong but the phrase "<event> denier" had previously mostly been used as in "holocaust denier".
No doubt those on that side of the debate are trying to escalate the importance of their argument but to me it seems to have the effect of reducing in impact the phrase "holocaust denier" which refers to an event over which there is zero argument over whether or not it took place.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Aug 25, 2019 16:56:10 GMT
The phrase "climate change denier" is unfortunate. I may be wrong but the phrase "<event> denier" had previously mostly been used as in "holocaust denier". No doubt those on that side of the debate are trying to escalate the importance of their argument but to me it seems to have the effect of reducing in impact the phrase "holocaust denier" which refers to an event over which there is zero argument over whether or not it took place. If there is zero argument about whether an event took place, then there are by definition no "<that event> deniers". As to whether use of the phrase "Climate change denier" reduces the impact of the phrase "holocaust denier", well what do you mean by this? That the phrase "Holocaust Denier" should be accorded some kind of unique importance? Even though you think nobody actually does it?
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Aug 25, 2019 17:48:10 GMT
Came across this recently, made interesting reading assuming most people believe in man-made climate change and its possible (bad) effects:
Ipsos MORI's second Aviation Index survey for NATS ( here): -More agree than disagree that airport expansion in the UK is the right thing to do -Three in five think reducing emissions should be the priority for the aviation industry -However, comparatively few are willing to change their own behaviour -And by a margin of more than two to one, the UK public do not believe people should be discouraged from flying if they want to (47% against 22%) , even if this might have a negative impact on the environment
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Aug 26, 2019 11:33:02 GMT
Only a Buffon would suggest that climate change isn't taking place. Climate change is supposed to be wide variation in temperature year to year but with average temperatures moving upwards. That's beyond doubt. Feel free to disagree on the cause. Personally I am happy to see a little less waste. Do people really need that many clothes? (particularly women) I include myself in that. Although I buy mine mainly second hand on eBay.....I am so tight!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2019 14:59:55 GMT
I didn't say that at all. To try and link to your idea. I might have said failing to look at the evidence and supporting arguements of the vast majority of the earth's scientist takes a certain way of thinking. Stepping off that position is tough and is unlikely to occur in what here is a series of monologues. Better to do a more in depth piece of work. I recommend the MOOC from the university of Champagne , ( in the states). Good course material and a lot of opportunity to chat to other people trying to learn with deniers included. Good luck the planet/humanity needs you on its side.I doubt neither the planet nor humanity needs me on its side, what it needs is a balanced and coherent view coupled with balanced data based on LOOOONG term study... not data from the last 50? years or so... i doubt the earths so called "emergency" climate position has been caused over such a minutia period of 50 years. For every bit of study on climate change you have read, i can produce a link to an opposing opinion, IMHO global climate change is indeed happening, to put the blame squarely at the feet of human activity is not only "the easy way out for the eco warriors" it is quite simply infantile, and i might add that being a skeptic does not make a denier. So I guess ice crystal shapes (hence temp and gases trapped) from glacier cores that go back more years might interest you. I really don't think you can read Google snippets to learn this subject I recommend the MOOC from Univ of Illinois Champagne just because I thought the quality good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2019 15:00:38 GMT
Came across this recently, made interesting reading assuming most people believe in man-made climate change and its possible (bad) effects:
Ipsos MORI's second Aviation Index survey for NATS ( here): -More agree than disagree that airport expansion in the UK is the right thing to do -Three in five think reducing emissions should be the priority for the aviation industry -However, comparatively few are willing to change their own behaviour -And by a margin of more than two to one, the UK public do not believe people should be discouraged from flying if they want to (47% against 22%) , even if this might have a negative impact on the environment
Yeah, boiled frog...
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Aug 26, 2019 19:22:24 GMT
I doubt neither the planet nor humanity needs me on its side, what it needs is a balanced and coherent view coupled with balanced data based on LOOOONG term study... not data from the last 50? years or so... i doubt the earths so called "emergency" climate position has been caused over such a minutia period of 50 years. For every bit of study on climate change you have read, i can produce a link to an opposing opinion, IMHO global climate change is indeed happening, to put the blame squarely at the feet of human activity is not only "the easy way out for the eco warriors" it is quite simply infantile, and i might add that being a skeptic does not make a denier. . I really don't think you can read Google snippets to learn this subject I recommend the MOOC from Univ of Illinois Champagne just because I thought the quality good. how many more years? and a link please. There's a challenge for the fringes. 
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Aug 26, 2019 19:33:15 GMT
martin44 would you advocate doing nothing other than making a study of the climate >50 years, in which time life on earth may have become impossible for Humans in some parts of the world and unpleasant in others, or would you advocate the "insurance policy" of everyone making changes to their lifestyles in case there is actually a crisis that only immediate action might avert? i doubt a study of 50 yrs would come up with a legitimate result that would (as you quote) "in which time life on earth may have become impossible for Humans"
|
|
