David Attenborough disappointed with and sick of the USA's head in the sand attitude to global warming

[JFSOCC]

You can't point at this storm or that and put it on global warming. Show statistical correlation instead, then we would have something.

5 el niño years in the last 10 years where before they'd be 5 every few decades, and never twice in a row.

 

Half truths and junk science typical of the warmists.

But there was also evidence of cycles as short as three years from the late 1800s to about 1920. The cycles settled into their current pattern around 1955.

http://abcnews.go.co...d=119847&page=1

"Warmist?" hah.

Look congrats on the recessess of google you've managed to find a site that says something different than all the rest.

Fact is there is consensus. I cannot stress this enough. You guys are so desperate for this not to be true that you've got your head stuck up your own ass. I'm clearly not going to convince you with facts and figures. You'll only believe me when god descends from heaven and tells you so himself or something.

A few extra El Niño years in a period might not prove a change in trends, but we're talking about more than just a few. In 10 years time, when there is STILL an El Niño every 2 years on average, maybe then you'll believe me.

I'm getting sick and tired of the "too soon to tell" mentality.

that would work if you had a single piece of evidence standing on it's own. But we have a large, no, humongous body of evidence that Global warming is real, AND man-made.

Btw, Even your own link clearly states :

the warming of the Pacific since the late 1970s “is unique over the entire 155-year record” and suggests global warming is playing a role."

 

About the 100 million years comment.

So, it's not going to be 100 million years on the dot. but the fact is that by then the sun will be so hot that most water will have evaporated. I think we can establish from this that there will be no chance for intelligent life.

Edited November 1, 2012 by JFSOCC

[Moose]

Just a quick poll - does anyone here actually not believe in global warming? I'm not talking about the greenhouse effect, or man made global warming - just a belief that the global climate is steadily getting hotter.

[Volourn]

Global warming (and cooling) exists but the human effect on it is very exaggerated and cannot be scientically proven and those who claim they can be are silly. We can't even perfectly accurately predict weather and intelligent scientists have even been wrongly sent to jail for 'manslaughter' ebcause they couldn't accurately predict the strength of an earthquake. Of course, on the other side, those whoc laim humans have no effect on global warming and/or claim global warming doesn't exist at all are also delusional.

[Hurlshort]

I believe regardless of global warming, we should be doing everything we can to lessen our negative impact on the environment. I am realistic to the fact that you can't force everyone out of business to do so though. You need to balance progress and profit with preservation.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Hurlshot

[Gorgon]

As mentioned there is one school of though that advocate that climate change is lowering the temperature, not raising it. I don't know what to think. We have only been measuring temperatures for a few hundred years, before that all we have to go on are permafrost segments. They can only tell us so much.

 

That doesn't mean it's not a better idea to play the odds and reduce emissions as much as possible.

[Amentep]

"This overwhelming consensus [that humans are causing global warming] among climate experts was confirmed by an independent study that surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus position. It found that 97-98% of climate experts support the consensus. Moreover, the study found that the small number of scientists rejecting the consensus had published, on average, around half as many papers each as the large majority of scientists accepting the consensus position." [1]

 

Well there we have it.

 

What, only good researchers publish a lot and bad researchers don't?

 

Now I'm not a climate change denialist because the climate does change, hence 'climate change'. So please don't brand me as some denialist or other, because scientists should be questioning and examining the facts, and not be in the business of 'believing doomsday prophecies predictions'.

 

No, you are a damn denialist.

 

...

 

Leave this thread. Dishonesty is not welcome in it.

 

To those reading this thread, I will not respond further to Hiro's denialist manipulations...

 

Not to be unfair, I understand you're passionate about this subject, but if your goal is to try to get people to understand the impact of humans on the global environment (as opposed to just berating people who may not agree with you and/or may not be as well informed as you) dismissing out of hand the people who initially disagree with you isn't going to win anyone over to your cause who isn't already a part of it.

 

One of your own links - http://www.npr.org/2...scientists-sure - is about how uninformed the US public is about consensus on global warming; I'd presume that this wouldn't actually be uncommon worldwide. And yet rather than treat another poster as being uninformed and use that moment to try to educate them on the issues you feel so passionate about, you attack him and demand he leave your thread.

 

[Hiro Protagonist]

Leave this thread. Dishonesty is not welcome in it.

 

To those reading this thread, I will not respond further to Hiro's denialist manipulations, but he says that the evidence and consensus don't exist.

 

It's interesting that you're calling me dishonest and denying things. Can you point to any of my posts where I have been dishonest and denied anything? No I didn't think so. Another attempt by Krezack to go on the attack with no substance to substantiate his claims.

 

The facts remain:

 

FACT

You started pointing out Australia's 'per capita' pollution levels and how bad we are.

I stated that the Falkland Islands puts out more CO2 per capita than Australia and has done so since 1990. And yet no one is working with those countries to help them reduce their carbon emissions. Everyone seems to go for the easy targets like Australia, America, etc. It should be a group effort with all countries, not picking and choosing which countries should reduce their emissions.

 

FACT

Australia spends billions on wasted programs like the desalination plants when our dams are full because Australia's idiot Climate Commisioner appointed by the Labor Party, who then panicked the Labor Government back in 2007 by predicting doomsday prophecies such as Australia wouldn't get the sort of rains they had in the past which were proven to be totally false. Our dams are currently full in our cities. Wouldn't that money be better spent on programs that would be beneficial to the environment?

 

FACT

I stated more meaningful programs should be encouraged and not just 'any program that doesn't do anything for the climate' just so you can say 'look, we're doing something'. How are desalination plants helping the environment and climate change?

 

FACT

Whenever I point out that better programs should be implemented because the current ones I've mentioned that Australia has put in don't do anything for Climate Change, you go on the attack and try to misrepresent me in calling me a denialist? What sort of crazy twisted madman logic is that. You're all for going on the attack against people but offer no suggestions or solutions. The only thing you seem to be able to do is ignore everything you reply to from a post, and use google to find links and copy/paste from websites that have no bearing on what you're replying to in the first place.

 

It sounds like you're all for wasting money on projects that don't do anything for Climate Change but then like to stand in front of everyone and say, 'look world, we're doing something'.

 

Here's an idea: The Australian Government gives millions to an inefficient car industry that otherwise would have been shut down years ago to produce polluting cars including cars that are petrol, diesel and hybrid cars. Why not have the government only give money to the car manufacturuers that make hybrid cars for them to be cheaper? If you make a petrol or diesel car, you won't get any subsidies. If you make a hybrid car, you will get subsisidies. The public wins because the hybrids are cheaper instead of being more expensive than normal cars. The environment wins because we're using less fuel.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Hiro Protagonist

[Wrath of Dagon]

We have only been measuring temperatures for a few hundred years, before that all we have to go on are permafrost segments. They can only tell us so much.

 

Well, there're tree rings too : http://wattsupwithth...s-in-ther-data/

 

 

The problem with claiming scientific consensus is that academics are overwhelmingly leftist, and thus can't be trusted on issues touching public policy. They have a huge confirmation bias. Plus I remember the Y2K panic and the alarmism over Kuwait oil fires, and I'm still waiting for Krezack's giant solar flare to destroy civilization.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Wrath of Dagon

[pmp10]

The problem with claiming scientific consensus is that academics are overwhelmingly leftist, and thus can't be trusted on issues touching public policy. They have a huge confirmation bias.

Are you really suggesting that climate change is scientific community indulging in environmental bias if not outright conspiracy?

[Raithe]

I did see an interesting report a bit back, that actually the panic about Y2K was worthwhile, because a bunch of things did get fixed that would have caused problems if they hadn't been. Not end of the world, but still fairly significant ones.

 

So if there hadn't been the panic, they wouldn't have been fixed... So it makes you ponder at times on how a good panic can achieve results.

[Guest The Architect]

Yeah, shame on the scientific community and their confirmation bias. As if deforestation, overpopulation, greenhouse gas emissions and the burning of fossil fuels have anything to do with global warming. It's clearly the reptilians spraying chemtrails in the air that are the true instigators behind this. Oh and God's wrath against New York liberals for supporting gay marriages.

Edited November 2, 2012 by The Architect

[Wrath of Dagon]

The problem with claiming scientific consensus is that academics are overwhelmingly leftist, and thus can't be trusted on issues touching public policy. They have a huge confirmation bias.

Are you really suggesting that climate change is scientific community indulging in environmental bias if not outright conspiracy?

Yes, and Climategate proves it.

 

I did see an interesting report a bit back, that actually the panic about Y2K was worthwhile, because a bunch of things did get fixed that would have caused problems if they hadn't been. Not end of the world, but still fairly significant ones.

 

So if there hadn't been the panic, they wouldn't have been fixed... So it makes you ponder at times on how a good panic can achieve results.

US passed laws which made someone go through every line of code looking for any date references, because that's how they were required to certify the software. 10's if not 100's of billions of dollars were wasted. Meanwhile, some other countries did nothing about Y2K, and guess what, nothing happened. Yes, you can always use a hammer to kill a fly, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

[Hurlshort]

We have only been measuring temperatures for a few hundred years, before that all we have to go on are permafrost segments. They can only tell us so much.

 

Well, there're tree rings too : http://wattsupwithth...s-in-ther-data/

 

 

The problem with claiming scientific consensus is that academics are overwhelmingly leftist, and thus can't be trusted on issues touching public policy. They have a huge confirmation bias. Plus I remember the Y2K panic and the alarmism over Kuwait oil fires, and I'm still waiting for Krezack's giant solar flare to destroy civilization.

 

It's more concerning that there is a real lack of academics on the right. Academics by definition are highly educated, so it should concern the right that few academics support rightwing policies.

[Guest The Architect]

Nah they just think that academics are brainwashed by Satan.

 

And **** off Facebook, get out of this thread.

Edited November 2, 2012 by The Architect

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, with the strength of the religious right in the US it's pretty much inevitable that scientists will be seen as 'leftist' because from their perspective reality itself is leftist. There's also the plethora of bought and paid for corporate pseudo science which is anything but leftist. It's a lot more balanced outside the US.

 

Really though it's all just labels people can hide behind so as not to actually address issues. "You raise an otherwise cogent point, sir, but I'm afraid you're a leftist/ rightist/ whatever and as such I win again"

[JFSOCC]

The problem with claiming scientific consensus is that academics are overwhelmingly leftist, and thus can't be trusted on issues touching public policy. They have a huge confirmation bias.

Are you really suggesting that climate change is scientific community indulging in environmental bias if not outright conspiracy?

Yes, and Climategate proves it.

I can't even begin to expain how stupid that is. You are basically saying that the VAST MAJORITY of ALL scientists in relevant fields, IN THE WORLD are conspiring so that you have to pay more taxes.

 

I can't even express how retarded I think that thought is. it's utter bull****. it's an extremely myopic view.

And that's the real problem. The real problem is that there is a significant amount of people, like yourself, that will try to fit anything into a narrative that they prefer. Not only does the media have a liberal bias, but clearly so does science. it's absolute nonsense.

 

What possible reason do thousands, no tens of thousands of scientists have, to all be part of this large scheme to deceive you? Science doesn't care about politics, it is going to be true whether or not it is pleasant. A scientist is not going to lose his job for bringing good news or bad. a scientist is only really at risk of losing his job for deliberately not telling the truth.

So either there is this incredible conspiracy going on, including most of the world scientists, (except for this brave minority group out to protect your interests)

or the vast majority of published and peer reviewed scientists are incompetent.

 

I want you to think about that for a moment. please, please come to the realisation how ridiculous this is.

 

I think the problem with accepting man-made global warming (because the globe is warming, even if localised effects might mean colder temperatures, this still come from a warmer planet on the whole) is that there is much evidence that if you do not understand the science, seem counter-intuitive.

People see a cold spell in the US in 2011 and go "well so much for global warming" despite this being exactly because of global warming.

 

And look I'm trying to be respectful, I am, I promise. But you got to understand how frustrating it is to have a vocal minority stand in the way of necessary policy (yes, necessary, not nice, but necessary) because there exists a fear of having to give up on living how we always have lived. There seems to be a mentality of "Ignore it, maybe it will go away" and while we dawdle and debate something which really isn't in dispute any more, we're cruising towards destruction, depletion of resources, economical devastation, societal collapse and environmental collapse. Luckily many governments ARE beginning to do things about it. Unfortunately, as stated by David Attenborough, the United States is lagging behind, and while Americans complain about all time high gas prices fail to realise that in Europe we still pay per litre what they pay per gallon. (4.52 litre)

It's unpopular because it requires the US to invest in new infrastructure, to change its habits, and to accept that their current held beliefs don't fit reality, which is never easy to admit. But it was no less so in Germany, or France, or Japan or South Korea, or Brazil, yet all of those nations are moving towards a more ecologically friendly infrastructure, because they realise its necessity.

 

I'll say it once more and clearly so I won't have to say it again.

 

(man-made) Climate Change deniers are standing in the way of essential progress. They base their argument on wishful thinking, fringe science, and misinterpretation of the data. You are wrong, both scientifically, and ethically.

Edited November 2, 2012 by JFSOCC

[Pope]

Wrath of Dagon is from Texas, can you blame him?

The problem with claiming scientific consensus is that academics are overwhelmingly leftist, and thus can't be trusted on issues touching public policy. They have a huge confirmation bias.

Are you really suggesting that climate change is scientific community indulging in environmental bias if not outright conspiracy?

Yes, and Climategate proves it.

I can't even begin to expain how stupid that is. You are basically saying that the VAST MAJORITY of ALL scientists in relevant fields, IN THE WORLD are conspiring so that you have to pay more taxes.

 

I can't even express how retarded I think that thought is. it's utter bull****. it's an extremely myopic view.

And that's the real problem. The real problem is that there is a significant amount of people, like yourself, that will try to fit anything into a narrative that they prefer. Not only does the media have a liberal bias, but clearly so does science. it's absolute nonsense.

He's from Texas, can you blame him?

[Amentep]

I can't even begin to expain how stupid that is. You are basically saying that the VAST MAJORITY of ALL scientists in relevant fields, IN THE WORLD are conspiring so that you have to pay more taxes.

 

I can't even express how retarded I think that thought is. it's utter bull****. it's an extremely myopic view.

 

And again I point out that instead of telling people how stupid they are, explaining to them why the evidence is right makes more sense. If you're not willing to educate people who disagree with you...you're wasting your time yelling at them.

 

And that's the real problem. The real problem is that there is a significant amount of people, like yourself, that will try to fit anything into a narrative that they prefer. Not only does the media have a liberal bias, but clearly so does science. it's absolute nonsense.

 

What possible reason do thousands, no tens of thousands of scientists have, to all be part of this large scheme to deceive you? Science doesn't care about politics, it is going to be true whether or not it is pleasant. A scientist is not going to lose his job for bringing good news or bad. a scientist is only really at risk of losing his job for deliberately not telling the truth.

 

EDIT - to explain why someone might feel this way -

 

There is money in alarmism. Alarmist reactions tends to flood money into fields. Therefore being an alarmist can get you money.

 

Academia does have a leftist bent; Academia is the primary market for research journals. Research journals are the primary venue for Researchers to publish their research. Ergo the argument could be made that the market is going to sell more journals if they play to the preconceived notions of academics.

 

Given that we've had a few scandals over the past decade over articles published in supposedly peer reviewed journals that actually didn't have any sort of review, given that people on the right will have a natural distrust over information provided by the left...is it really THAT hard to see why people in the US - where the left/right divide is a gaping chasm - don't always have a full understanding of something as complex as global warming?

 

And just yelling at people calling them stupid for not understanding what is so obvious to you isn't going to help convince anyone to see what the evidence tells us.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Amentep

[JFSOCC]

I can't even begin to expain how stupid that is. You are basically saying that the VAST MAJORITY of ALL scientists in relevant fields, IN THE WORLD are conspiring so that you have to pay more taxes.

 

I can't even express how retarded I think that thought is. it's utter bull****. it's an extremely myopic view.

 

And again I point out that instead of telling people how stupid they are, explaining to them why the evidence is right makes more sense. If you're not willing to educate people who disagree with you...you're wasting your time yelling at them.

I don't want to foul more words at this. But I've been trying to explain some of the evidence, I guess I'm not so good at communicating what to me seems rather obvious and in your face. I believe I've provided some convincing arguments and directed to where you could find more.

And that's the real problem. The real problem is that there is a significant amount of people, like yourself, that will try to fit anything into a narrative that they prefer. Not only does the media have a liberal bias, but clearly so does science. it's absolute nonsense.

 

What possible reason do thousands, no tens of thousands of scientists have, to all be part of this large scheme to deceive you? Science doesn't care about politics, it is going to be true whether or not it is pleasant. A scientist is not going to lose his job for bringing good news or bad. a scientist is only really at risk of losing his job for deliberately not telling the truth.

 

EDIT - to explain why someone might feel this way -

 

There is money in alarmism. Alarmist reactions tends to flood money into fields. Therefore being an alarmist can get you money.

But you can't sincerely believe that more than 90% of all the researchers in this field are alarmist.

 

Academia does have a leftist bent;

That's just not true. Science does not care for politics. well, political science does, I guess. science is about finding the truth. Whether that would fit an ideology or not.

 

Academia is the primary market for research journals. Research journals are the primary venue for Researchers to publish their research. Ergo the argument could be made that the market is going to sell more journals if they play to the preconceived notions of academics.

This would be averaged out by dissent. In the end, false beliefs won't last. So far there has been only minor dissent, and most notably not from scientists in the fields pertaining to climate science.

Given that we've had a few scandals over the past decade over articles published in supposedly peer reviewed journals that actually didn't have any sort of review, given that people on the right will have a natural distrust over information provided by the left...is it really THAT hard to see why people in the US - where the left/right divide is a gaping chasm - don't always have a full understanding of something as complex as global warming?

While it's true that my politics lean to the left, I sincerely believe that this should not at all be tied to politics. it's simple science fact. There's climate deniers on both sides of the political spectrum, though I suppose there might be more on one side than the other.

The fact that some people make this political is telling however.

And just yelling at people calling them stupid for not understanding what is so obvious to you isn't going to help convince anyone to see what the evidence tells us.

So I have to play nice to everyone, despite them spouting nonsense and propagating fallacy?

I guess I could have been nicer, that doesn't mean I have to respect bull****, however.

[pmp10]

There is money in alarmism. Alarmist reactions tends to flood money into fields. Therefore being an alarmist can get you money.

And how is it any different than making money from denial?

Because there are groups of people who made their entire scientific carers denying things like harmful effects of passive smoking and have now moved onto climate change.

That argument goes both ways.

[alanschu]

A scientist is not going to lose his job for bringing good news or bad.

 

Sadly, I don't think this is true. Receiving grant funding is a lot easier depending on what type of buzzwords you have in your proposal. This is according to many friends of mine that are actually researchers at the local university.

 

a scientist is only really at risk of losing his job for deliberately not telling the truth.

 

By the same token, sometimes a scientist is put on the cover of TIME Magazine and universally lauded due to cherry picking his data. Or how the USDA basically kept looking for Doctors until they eventually found one that agreed with their dietary recommendations and then went forward with their food guide with a ton of lobbyist support, while scientists that were opposed were effectively ignored.

 

In the past couple of years I've become exceptionally jaded towards the impartiality of science.

[Amentep]

And how is it any different than making money from denial?

Because there are groups of people who made their entire scientific carers denying things like harmful effects of passive smoking and have now moved onto climate change.

That argument goes both ways.

 

There isn't any difference. And its a fair point that big business with a vested interest in things being the same will want people confused over the issue, because confused people are apathetic.

 

But you can't sincerely believe that more than 90% of all the researchers in this field are alarmist.

 

I'm only giving possible reason as to why people are confused, not making a value judgement on the reason.

 

That's just not true. Science does not care for politics. well, political science does, I guess. science is about finding the truth. Whether that would fit an ideology or not.

 

Science may not care about politics, but once research goes out there, people are able to use it to represent what they want; a research scientist may not care about anything but the truth of his research; the research university he's working for cares about the next big grant they're going to get if they spin the research results in the right way.

 

This would be averaged out by dissent. In the end, false beliefs won't last. So far there has been only minor dissent, and most notably not from scientists in the fields pertaining to climate science.

 

Any dissent will confuse the layperson, hence the reason why...people are confused over global warming.

 

While it's true that my politics lean to the left, I sincerely believe that this should not at all be tied to politics. it's simple science fact. There's climate deniers on both sides of the political spectrum, though I suppose there might be more on one side than the other.

The fact that some people make this political is telling however.

 

Any big issue is going to be made political (and financial)

 

So I have to play nice to everyone, despite them spouting nonsense and propagating fallacy?

I guess I could have been nicer, that doesn't mean I have to respect bull****, however.

 

Depends on your goal; do you want to convince people of the correctness of your views? If so you might want to consider that you'll not convince anyone by yelling at them and calling them names. What they'll take away from it is not that you're right in your view of global warming; in fact they'll be less likely to listen to the next person who comes along talking about global warming.

[Volourn]

"A scientist is not going to lose his job for bringing good news or bad."

 

Kiddin' right? Scientists were just sent to prison because they got blamed for deaths b/c they didn't predict how bad an earthquake was going to be accurately. so, yeah, a scientist can lose his job and worse, Don't be ignorant if youa re gonna accuse others' of ignorance.

[JFSOCC]

There is no way in hell those italian scientists are not going to have their case revisited, there is worldwide outrage at their treatment.

But you're right. Even in the world of science there are problems based on human weaknesses. But the vast majority of scientists are on the same side of the issue, despite them still getting quite a bit of flak for holding that position.

Edited November 2, 2012 by JFSOCC

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

It's more concerning that there is a real lack of academics on the right. Academics by definition are highly educated, so it should concern the right that few academics support rightwing policies.

Because they feel superior to everyone else and feel like there needs to be a ruling class, namely them. Engineers on the other hand are one of most conservative groups in society, think about that. Edited November 2, 2012 by Wrath of Dagon