Dear climate change nonbelievers

[DashingAmerican]

60ish years ago you "skeptics" would be running around calling people that listened to the bulk of scientific research that smoking caused lung cancer "sheep" while basing your views on American Tobbaco research.

Except that they can show smoking takes years off your life. They can not show that global warming is happening to any unusual extent.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Well that's all very zen, but personally I tend to be concerned with what affects humans and things that humans eat.

Because I'm a human and I need to eat. I don't care that dinosaurs saw higher temperatures or higher CO2 levels or saw a larger climate shift. I'm not a dinosaur and none of the things I eat are dinosaurs.

And when climate shifted in the past, mankind just stopped eating ?

Perhaps people and crops just shift with the prevailing weather. :roll:

 

[Deuce]

And when climate shifted in the past, mankind just stopped eating ?

Perhaps people and crops just shift with the prevailing weather. :roll:

You're probably right. We should just assume that there can't possibly be any adverse effects because humanity did not go extinct. Is that really your measuring stick? "Life survived?" Live survived a massive asteroid too, but I don't think we should deliberately smash giant rocks into the earth.

There's 7 billion people on the planet now. Many of them already have trouble feeding themselves. A few percentage points off of average crop yields can still affect a lot of people.

Except that they can show smoking takes years off your life. They can not show that global warming is happening to any unusual extent. View attachment 67126940

Oh hey it's another one of those guys who thinks Time Magazine is a scientific publication.

Here's something you might not be aware of: there was never a scientific consensus that expected an impending ice age. Not now, not in the '70s. New York Times and Time Magazine are not science journals, and their writers are not scientists. You shouldn't use them as a measuring stick of scientific opinions. It''s not your fault, the media really did play up that "coming ice age" thing in the 70's, and that's what most people remember. Nobody read actual scientific papers on the subject. Some papers did predict cooling in the near-term, but not an ice age. Those papers were a minority, though, the majority predicted warming and a substantial number said "we don't have enough information yet."

And yes, actually, they can show that the world is warming in an unusual manner.

 

[iliveonramen]

Except that they can show smoking takes years off your life. They can not show that global warming is happening to any unusual extent.

It took time to connect smoking with lung cancer and other diseases. Kind of like how people are like "yeah the earth is heating but it's not proven it's manmade" tobacco companies pumped out "research" that said "yeah...people are getting increasing amounts of lung cancer but it's not because of smoking".

 

[Diogenes]

The Godly "science" shows opposite of what you think.

Higher average global temperature = less desertification.

Lower average global temperature = more desertification

A desert is an area that gets very little precipitation, and it can be hot (like the Sahara) or cold (like the north slope of Alaska's Brooks Range). Please, let's not waste any more bandwidth on AlGorista nonsense.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

............ Oh hey it's another one of those guys who thinks Time Magazine is a scientific publication ............

As opposed to thinking Al Gore is a scientist ? :lamo

 

[Somerville]

Do those who deny global warming think the new Heartland Institute campaign is a good idea



Houston Chronicle

The Heartland Institute, an anti-climate science think tank, has launched a billboard campaign to defame those who agree with the position that humans have had a significant influence on climate.

The series of billboards, like the one shown above, appear in the Chicago area and feature Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber; Charles Manson, a mass murderer; and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Heartland's 'justification' for the billboards

2. Why did Heartland choose to feature these people on its billboards?

Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the “mainstream” media, and liberal politicians say about global warming. They are so similar, in fact, that a Web site has a quiz that asks if you can tell the difference between what Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, wrote in his “Manifesto” and what Al Gore wrote in his book, Earth in the Balance.

The point is that believing in global warming is not “mainstream,” smart, or sophisticated. In fact, it is just the opposite of those things. Still believing in man-made global warming – after all the scientific discoveries and revelations that point against this theory – is more than a little nutty. In fact, some really crazy people use it to justify immoral and frightening behavior.

I think this may be the denialist's moment, the time that they have 'jumped the shark'. Those who created this ad program know that there are no "scientific discoveries and revelations that point against this theory" of human-accelerated global climate change but they get a lot of money from corporations who profit greatly from the present system, groups making money now with zero regard for the consequences of their actions. The longer such groups can stall the necessary cleanup actions, the longer they can make money. Once the inevitable is realised by the nations of the world, those who made the money will be gone and our descendents will suffer the consequences.

 

[Deuce]

As opposed to thinking Al Gore is a scientist ? :lamo

Couldn't say. I've often said you shouldn't listen to politicians, spokesmen, or journalists on a scientific topic. Problem is, without bloggers and paid spokesmen, what does your side even have?

 

[Deuce]

Do those who deny global warming think the new Heartland Institute campaign is a good idea

View attachment 67126946

Houston Chronicle


Heartland's 'justification' for the billboards


I think this may be the denialist's moment, the time that they have 'jumped the shark'. Those who created this ad program know that there are no "scientific discoveries and revelations that point against this theory" of human-accelerated global climate change but they get a lot of money from corporations who profit greatly from the present system, groups making money now with zero regard for the consequences of their actions. The longer such groups can stall the necessary cleanup actions, the longer they can make money. Once the inevitable is realised by the nations of the world, those who made the money will be gone and our descendents will suffer the consequences.

And yet the right-wingers put so much faith into these guys.

Hey, climate "skeptics," this one guy in the KKK thinks climate change isn't our fault. Why are you on the same side as THE KKK!? :lamo

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Couldn't say. I've often said you shouldn't listen to politicians, spokesmen, or journalists on a scientific topic. Problem is, without bloggers and paid spokesmen, what does your side even have?

Common sense. Experience. A lack of liberal knee pads. That's the first three that came to mind.

 

[Deuce]

Common sense. Experience. A lack of liberal knee pads. That's the first three that came to mind.

Ahh. Al Gore isn't a scientist, so we shouldn't listen to him. Instead, you should use your gut?

I mean, really? You think "common sense" and personal "experience" are better than decades of scientific research? Do you really dismiss the entire discussion because your gut tells you to?

"Humanity survived climate changes in the past, therefore climate change can't possibly be a bad thing ever" isn't common sense, it's stupid.

 

[Somerville]

Well - that didn't take long

Update from Discover Magazine

Heartland has decided to pull down the billboard ad... of course, they're claiming it "got attention" but somehow neglect to mention this attention was overwhelmingly negative and disgusted. But you can expect Heartland to continue their skeevy campaign against reality; I'll note that they not only do not apologize for the ad, but state outright they won't apologize for it. Lovely. Science writer and humanitarian Shawn Otto has posted a list of names and links of companies that support Heartland, just so's you know.]

Still, there’s one thing I do want to highlight. The press release is a non-stop firehose of misinformation and spin, but among the venom-dripping things they say, one bit of crazy stands out:

The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.

 

[Deuce]

Well - that didn't take long

Update from Discover Magazine

Climate "skeptics" have to stoop to tactics like this, but it's us darn warmers who have the weak argument. :lamo

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Part of the reason why I given an open ear to arguments for global warming is because doing just the opposite - given extreme behavior against it - is exactly how people reacted to many other things in the past.

The discovery of the Vacuum
Theory of Evolution
Plate Techtonics
Round-World Theory
We're not the center of the Universe
Glaciation Theories

All these things were disaproved of, shunned and sometimes there was serious extreme harsh penalties for the scientists who first encroached on the ideas or even proved these beliefs to be true! Some scientists have sacrificed their lives just to bring us knowledge.

so for me to look at evidence of global change / warming and scoff emptily - I think - puts me (and others) into the stupidity pot.

Isn't the purpose of knowing history to make it possible for us *not* to repeat it? So why are so many people determined to repeat it anyway!

 

[Deuce]

Part of the reason why I given an open ear to arguments for global warming is because doing just the opposite - given extreme behavior against it - is exactly how people reacted to many other things in the past.

The discovery of the Vacuum
Theory of Evolution
Plate Techtonics
Round-World Theory
We're not the center of the Universe
Glaciation Theories

All these things were disaproved of, shunned and sometimes there was serious extreme harsh penalties for the scientists who first encroached on the ideas or even proved these beliefs to be true! Some scientists have sacrificed their lives just to bring us knowledge.

so for me to look at evidence of global change / warming and scoff emptily - I think - puts me (and others) into the stupidity pot.

Isn't the purpose of knowing history to make it possible for us *not* to repeat it? So why are so many people determined to repeat it anyway!

There's quite a bit of psychological musings out there about climate science and the reactions to it. Basically, there's a lot of aspects of AGW that make it inherently difficult to accept.

Long-term threat rather than immediate
Indirect threat rather than direct
Effects not easily visible
Too complicated to fit into bullet points
Involves some level of personal responsibility/contribution to the threat
Fix involves inconvenient lifestyle changes
etc.

 

[Matt Foley]

Part of the reason why I given an open ear to arguments for global warming is because doing just the opposite - given extreme behavior against it - is exactly how people reacted to many other things in the past.

The discovery of the Vacuum
Theory of Evolution
Plate Techtonics
Round-World Theory
We're not the center of the Universe
Glaciation Theories

All these things were disaproved of, shunned and sometimes there was serious extreme harsh penalties for the scientists who first encroached on the ideas or even proved these beliefs to be true!

That's the Hollywood fictional version of history.

 

[Matt Foley]

A desert is an area that gets very little precipitation, and it can be hot (like the Sahara) or cold (like the north slope of Alaska's Brooks Range). Please, let's not waste any more bandwidth on AlGorista nonsense.

...and higher global temperatures = more global evaporation = less global desertification, duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh

 

[Matt Foley]

Except that they can show smoking takes years off your life. They can not show that global warming is happening to any unusual extent.

There's a common theme here: "F*CKING ARTIC ZONES!!!"

*raises fist in anger*

 

[Matt Foley]

Your answer doesn't make much sense. I'll ask more clearly:

Do you think the fact that climate has changed naturally means humans can't possibly affect climate?

Do you think the fact that climate has changed naturally means climate change can't possibly be bad for us?

You know we're being enslaved by globalization (Free Trade and Open Borders).

 

[Aunt Spiker]

There's quite a bit of psychological musings out there about climate science and the reactions to it. Basically, there's a lot of aspects of AGW that make it inherently difficult to accept.

Long-term threat rather than immediate
Indirect threat rather than direct
Effects not easily visible
Too complicated to fit into bullet points
Involves some level of personal responsibility/contribution to the threat
Fix involves inconvenient lifestyle changes
etc.

Which is why the stats just presented are great: here's the water levels as far as we know, here's the glaciation evidence, and so on. Charts - stats - facts. If I wanted to I can verify all of it in person.

No opinions or conclusions. . . that's what I prefer.

Today in my geology class he went into a bit of the projections into the future - I had issues with his future-outlook that went something like this: "it took an extensive amount of computer power - numerous computers hooked together - working day and night - to take into account all of our information that was put into it - to project the future predictions of our changing climate and average year round temperatures" . . . and showed a chart.

There - a chart - that's the future - a chart built on calculations so complex that only *those* few scientists can verify it?

My interest ends there. I'll listen to supportable and qualifiable evidence = where if I read enough, listened enough, and learned enough I'd understand *how* they arrived at their conclusion. . . but once it's "out of my capability" - I sort of stop. I'll still *listen* - but I won't incorporate it heavily into any of my views or beliefs unless there's more there that's solid and not just super uber complicated sciency stuffs.

 

[Deuce]

Which is why the stats just presented are great: here's the water levels as far as we know, here's the glaciation evidence, and so on. Charts - stats - facts. If I wanted to I can verify all of it in person.

No opinions or conclusions. . . that's what I prefer.

Today in my geology class he went into a bit of the projections into the future - I had issues with his future-outlook that went something like this: "it took an extensive amount of computer power - numerous computers hooked together - working day and night - to take into account all of our information that was put into it - to project the future predictions of our changing climate and average year round temperatures" . . . and showed a chart.

There - a chart - that's the future - a chart built on calculations so complex that only *those* few scientists can verify it?

My interest ends there. I'll listen to supportable and qualifiable evidence = where if I read enough, listened enough, and learned enough I'd understand *how* they arrived at their conclusion. . . but once it's "out of my capability" - I sort of stop. I'll still *listen* - but I won't incorporate it heavily into any of my views or beliefs unless there's more there that's solid and not just super uber complicated sciency stuffs.

And that, precisely, is what the climate denial industry is counting on. It's too complicated to understand now and you'll never put in the required effort. (because it would probably involve a PHD) People want the cliff notes version. Problem is, the cliff notes version doesn't exist in a topic this complicated. Especially when it comes to projections about the future, it is something that has to be calculated. There's no simple "A + B = C" that can be shown to you. The only "solid" way to verify these projections is to sit there and watch it happen. Wait and see.

Remember, these people don't need to actually convince you of anything. All they need to do is seed enough doubt so that you don't make any effort to change your lifestyle. So you'll get all these superficially plausible arguments that are easily disproven if you just look into it. But nobody does that. Global warming stopped in 1995! (no it didn't) CO2 lags temperature, it can't possibly cause temperature changes! (yes it can) Look, the IPCC projections are wrong, look at this chart (that Christopher Monckton completely fabricated).

It seems to me that you want to be open-minded about this, but you've set a standard that can't actually be reached.

 

[Diogenes]

I'll listen to supportable and qualifiable evidence = where if I read enough, listened enough, and learned enough I'd understand *how* they arrived at their conclusion. . . but once it's "out of my capability" - I sort of stop. I'll still *listen* - but I won't incorporate it heavily into any of my views or beliefs unless there's more there that's solid and not just super uber complicated sciency stuffs.

Agreed. The problem with forecasts is that they are based on computer models, the models are based on assumptions and speculations, and none of the models have had any success in forecasting: 18th century data doesn't predict 19th century climate, 19th century data doesn't predict 20th century climate, and why should we then believe that 20th century data correctly predicts future climate?

OwlGore and others have made fortunes exploiting the observation of P. T. Barnum that there's a sucker born every minute. Michael Crichton pointed out that science is testable hypotheses, so it's obvious that there is no science in the global warming arguments. Crichton's footnotes in his novel State of Fear make for very interesting reading.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Imagine for a second that there was some piece of evidence brought forth which proved that the planet was warming and pollution was its root cause. Imagine that this piece of evidence also proved that the repercussions of ignoring the problem would be just as bad as Al Gore says.

What policies would you propose to fix it?

I would instate a fascist government complete with reeducation camps to ensure that everybody understands the importance of reducing co2.

Then I would limit the capacity for the average person to be able to afford to use technologies that produce co2 through obscene taxation. This way only my richest and closest friends would be able to live in luxury.

Then to make sure the people don't fight back against this type of oppression I would create some form of gladiatorial events to demonstrate the power of my state.

Oh wait, that's more or less what the UN proposes through documents like agenda 21 and the biological diversity assessments... But we aren't supposed to talk about that.

 

[Deuce]

Agreed. The problem with forecasts is that they are based on computer models, the models are based on assumptions and speculations, and none of the models have had any success in forecasting: 18th century data doesn't predict 19th century climate, 19th century data doesn't predict 20th century climate, and why should we then believe that 20th century data correctly predicts future climate?

OwlGore and others have made fortunes exploiting the observation of P. T. Barnum that there's a sucker born every minute. Michael Crichton pointed out that science is testable hypotheses, so it's obvious that there is no science in the global warming arguments. Crichton's footnotes in his novel State of Fear make for very interesting reading.

There's no science in global warming arguments, so check out this fictional novel!

Remember how Chrichton told you in that book "in the 1970's, all the scientists thought we were headed for an ice age?"

Straight up false. Like many, he was remembering Time Magazine covers, not scientific publications. State of Fear was just a compilation of the usual, easily disproven bullet points from the "skeptics." Don't believe me? Post any of them.

I would instate a fascist government complete with reeducation camps to ensure that everybody understands the importance of reducing co2.

Then I would limit the capacity for the average person to be able to afford to use technologies that produce co2 through obscene taxation. This way only my richest and closest friends would be able to live in luxury.

Then to make sure the people don't fight back against this type of oppression I would create some form of gladiatorial events to demonstrate the power of my state.

Oh wait, that's more or less what the UN proposes through documents like agenda 21 and the biological diversity assessments... But we aren't supposed to talk about that.

:lamo

He's literally picturing the futuristic dystopia trope found in any number of movies.
Can you show me where it talks about building arenas in Agenda 21? *insert scary music*

 

[Diogenes]

There's no science in global warming arguments, so check out this fictional novel!

Try reading for understanding. The footnotes contain links that are very enlightening.

Remember how Chrichton told you in that book "in the 1970's, all the scientists thought we were headed for an ice age?"

As demonstrated by the Time Magazine covers previously posted. The magazine relied on "scientists" with credentials at least as good as the global warming gurus.