• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Headlines in Climate Science

jmotivator said:
No, I was discussing the dubious attempts to equate weather events with global climate. But they keep making the same mistake you do and trying to make global claims off of anecdotes, as displayed in the news reports you provided. But then it's understandable that they would take that highly emotional, unscientific approach because the actual global average of these events has not shown a dramatic increase. It's hard to scare people with the truth that extreme flooding is generally random and unpredictable.
Click to expand...

sometimes I am not convinced that you can read.

I have on many occasions stated that while weather events may be indicative of a changing climate, they are not in themselves proof.

If we look at recent events we can see that in the last ten years there have numerous events that show more severe flooding in specific locations than has been previously recorded.

This MAY be indicative of climate change, but anyone with the capacity to think could argue that these events can be caused by a number of other factors, or may be part of natural cycle (and based on earlier reading I have done I believe that some of these events are part of a long cycle in weather patterns).

but the argument that there has not been an increase in flooding GLOBALLY is irrelevant. Global measurements are an aggregate, and as increased drought is ALSO one of the events which may be associated with climate change, it may well cancel any increase in flooding from a global perspective.

Your paper DOES say there is increased flooding in some places, and decreases in others.

so why is it even relevant?
 
KLATTU said:
More like...
Those that can,do. Those that can't, teach.
Click to expand...

of course. in other words, education is a librul conspiracy.

self respecting conservatives should stay dumbed down!

Duh!
...and wait-your not going to believe this. The WaPo and the Nytimes are house organs for the DNC.
Click to expand...

I'll believe anything you say ... you obviously know your stuff!
 
KLATTU said:
More like...
Those that can,do. Those that can't, teach.

.
Click to expand...

Funny. I went from teaching at the University level, to 'doing' in private industry, and will eventually return to teaching, I'm sure. In fact, I occasionally teach now, which would be both 'doing' and teaching. And I am constantly trying to recruit people out of Acadia because they tend to be smart, capable and qualified individuals.

My life experience trumps your pithy phrase. But them again, I know academics, whereas you seem to be hanging with the Creation school graduates...
 
marywollstonecraft said:
sometimes I am not convinced that you can read.

I have on many occasions stated that while weather events may be indicative of a changing climate, they are not in themselves proof.
Click to expand...

No, you can't get away with using words like "may" in your claims when the foundation of your claims don't even remotely support your claims. It's still a baseless argument even if you admit that your claim might be wrong. You've drawn illogical conclusions from the data and that is as far as it goes.

Where have you said that these lists of floods you post are not proof? You certainly present them as proof.


If we look at recent events we can see that in the last ten years there have numerous events that show more severe flooding in specific locations than has been previously recorded.
Click to expand...


So? Weather is variable. Every year you can find a region of the globe that is having some weather that is not normal for the region, that is not a global trend. In fact, there is no global trend. You have simply assume the outcome and picked the data that fits your assumptions.


This MAY be indicative of climate change, but anyone with the capacity to think could argue that these events can be caused by a number of other factors, or may be part of natural cycle (and based on earlier reading I have done I believe that some of these events are part of a long cycle in weather patterns).
Click to expand...


They MAY be indicative of a lot of things. The problem begins when you start using them as anecdotal evidence of a specific thing like global warming, which you have done. It's erroneous use of the data. It is the definition of cherry picking. Some places on the globe have higher than normal flooding, others have less, and still others have about what is expected. This is the expected outcome of a global climate system.


but the argument that there has not been an increase in flooding GLOBALLY is irrelevant. Global measurements are an aggregate, and as increased drought is ALSO one of the events which may be associated with climate change, it may well cancel any increase in flooding from a global perspective.
Click to expand...


Wrong. Global trends are the only thing that are relevant when discussing the effects of a global warming trend. When there is no global trend in more severe flooding or drought you can't use local extremes as evidence of global warming because the global trend doesn't exist. Why do I need to explain this basic logic to someone who claims to be a scientist?


Your paper DOES say there is increased flooding in some places, and decreases in others.
Click to expand...


Because weather is variable. Some places will ALWAYS have increased flooding and others will have less. Do you honestly not understand this?


so why is it even relevant?
Click to expand...


Because your approach isn't scientific and amounts to cherry picking the global data that fits your preexisting assumptions.
 
Threegoofs said:
Funny. I went from teaching at the University level, to 'doing' in private industry, and will eventually return to teaching, I'm sure. In fact, I occasionally teach now, which would be both 'doing' and teaching. And I am constantly trying to recruit people out of Acadia because they tend to be smart, capable and qualified individuals.

My life experience trumps your pithy phrase. But them again, I know academics, whereas you seem to be hanging with the Creation school graduates...
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree that our friend doesn't seem to know much about academia. Perhaps at some time in the past the idea that academics were somehow set apart from those who "do" may have been relevant ... although I am not sure exactly when. Galileo held a post at the University of Pisa and was also a tutor for the Medicis , Newton was a [professor of mathematics, and of course there are many many others throughout history who according to Klaastu "can't" because their roles are academic as well as what we know them for today.

But in any university I have worked in, the crossovers between industry and academia have been present - especially in science related areas, although in a number of other areas teaching also is a secondary role - and one they only have due to being already recognised as expert in their field (eg law, business etc). Not only that, but there are not too many academics who are not involved in research and publishing.
 
Lord of Planar said:
No, but like any politician, she used what she could for an agenda. Her agenda was to promote nuclear energy. Read any material at the time. She was promoting nuclear. I'll bet she regretted her role in using CO2 before her death.
Click to expand...

you can bet what you like .... but it doesn't change the fact that she was both a conservative AND she once said:

"...the danger of global warming is as yet unseen but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations."
 
jmotivator said:
No, you can't get away with using words like "may" in your claims when the foundation of your claims don't even remotely support your claims. It's still a baseless argument even if you admit that your claim might be wrong. You've drawn illogical conclusions from the data and that is as far as it goes.

Where have you said that these lists of floods you post are not proof? You certainly present them as proof.





So? Weather is variable. Every year you can find a region of the globe that is having some weather that is not normal for the region, that is not a global trend. In fact, there is no global trend. You have simply assume the outcome and picked the data that fits your assumptions.





They MAY be indicative of a lot of things. The problem begins when you start using them as anecdotal evidence of a specific thing like global warming, which you have done. It's erroneous use of the data. It is the definition of cherry picking. Some places on the globe have higher than normal flooding, others have less, and still others have about what is expected. This is the expected outcome of a global climate system.





Wrong. Global trends are the only thing that are relevant when discussing the effects of a global warming trend. When there is no global trend in more severe flooding or drought you can't use local extremes as evidence of global warming because the global trend doesn't exist. Why do I need to explain this basic logic to someone who claims to be a scientist?





Because weather is variable. Some places will ALWAYS have increased flooding and others will have less. Do you honestly not understand this?





Because your approach isn't scientific and amounts to cherry picking the global data that fits your preexisting assumptions.
Click to expand...

I'm still thinking that your literacy problems go beyond just low levels of scientific literacy ....
 
marywollstonecraft said:
you can bet what you like .... but it doesn't change the fact that she was both a conservative AND she once said:

"...the danger of global warming is as yet unseen but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations."
Click to expand...
I agree.

Like I said, I'll bet that is a regret in her life.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I agree.

Like I said, I'll bet that is a regret in her life.
Click to expand...

I doubt that she regrets anything much now. but in any case, her stance as an economic liberal was what made her critical of proposed strategies to deal with the issue.

It would be helpful if others would acknowledge that this is the real reason they have problems with proposals to deal with the issue, instead of pretending there are doubts over the science.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
It would be helpful if others would acknowledge that this is the real reason they have problems with proposals to deal with the issue, instead of pretending there are doubts over the science.
Click to expand...

I think it would be useful for honesty here. As long as the climate sciences have politics behind them, there will never be honesty in the climate sciences.

Would you agree that politics should be removed from the topic?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I think it would be useful for honesty here. As long as the climate sciences have politics behind them, there will never be honesty in the climate sciences.

Would you agree that politics should be removed from the topic?
Click to expand...

yes I do agree that politics should be removed from the discussion regarding the science.

It was the so called "skeptics" (more accurately called deniers) who injected politics into the discussion over the science.

The people who argue that human behavior is not implicated, or who pretend that it isn't happening, are either ignorant, or deliberately twisting information for a political agenda.



politics certainly has a place in how to address it though.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
yes I do agree that politics should be removed from the discussion regarding the science.

It was the so called "skeptics" (more accurately called deniers) who injected politics into the discussion over the science.

The people who argue that human behavior is not implicated, or who pretend that it isn't happening, are either ignorant, or deliberately twisting information for a political agenda.



politics certainly has a place in how to address it though.
Click to expand...
Yet it is the alarmist views of climate change being used by the politicians.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yet it is the alarmist views of climate change being used by the politicians.
Click to expand...

is it?

American politicians don't seem to be particularly alarmist on this, and politicians from other countries don't seem to be engaging in alarmist scare mongering from what I can see .... although some seem to produce a lot of hot air making their case about how they plan top address it.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
is it?

American politicians don't seem to be particularly alarmist on this, and politicians from other countries don't seem to be engaging in alarmist scare mongering from what I can see .... although some seem to produce a lot of hot air making their case about how they plan top address it.
Click to expand...

Here is just one example:

Carbon Pricing Proposals of the 113th Congress

first paragraph:

The following table compares the Climate Protection Act of 2013 (S. 332), as introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on February 14, 2013, and the Carbon Pollution Fee discussion draft, as released by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) on March 12, 2013.
Click to expand...
 
marywollstonecraft said:
so how exactly is it alarmist?

you might think it is "alarming" if it means you might have some increased costs ... but that isn't the same thing as being "alarmist"
Click to expand...

LOL...

They use alarmist material to justify more taxes.

Isn't that alarming to you?
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

They use alarmist material to justify more taxes.

Isn't that alarming to you?
Click to expand...

you didn't link to any alarmist material ... you just showed that there were proposals to implement some policies/taxes that might alarm some people .... especially when the likely impact of these policies is exaggerated by people with a particular agenda.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
you didn't link to any alarmist material ... you just showed that there were proposals to implement some policies/taxes that might alarm some people .... especially when the likely impact of these policies is exaggerated by people with a particular agenda.
Click to expand...
Do I need to?

If they didn't have a group out there "alarming" the world about AGW, then they wouldn't have cause. Would they?

How about the IPCC AR4 WG3
 
Actually, all four working groups have a "for policy makers" section.

Welcome to the new world order.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Do I need to?

If they didn't have a group out there "alarming" the world about AGW, then they wouldn't have cause. Would they?

How about the IPCC AR4 WG3
Click to expand...

shrug .... i guess you just get alarmed easily - and your coping strategy is to deny there is an issue, rather than engaging in problem solving.

there are a few therapy techniques that might help. :)
 
marywollstonecraft said:
I'm still thinking that your literacy problems go beyond just low levels of scientific literacy ....
Click to expand...


So you have no response other than ad hominem? Can't say that I am at all surprised.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
you need to look at what I am responding to ....
Click to expand...

I am. You posted an article reporting that "extreme weather is now the norm", I pointed out that you can ALWAYS find extreme weather around the globe at any moment. It's the nature of a global climate system. Some places will be extreme, others won't be. There is never a time where everywhere in the globe was experiencing average weather. Your response to this statement was to post a bunch of local flood stories that did nothing to actually counter my point. My point was that what you showed is what can be done at any time.

As I pointed out then, if you want to find some trend in increasingly extreme weather derived from a global event (in this case global warming) you have to show that he occurrence of those extreme events is actually increasing. The data shows that floods, drought and so on are NOT actually increasing over time and have remained fairly steady.

As I have also shown, even when LOCAL events are studied it turns out that the event -- flooding in this case -- was the product of changes in local land use, not global warming (or even LOCAL warming).

So all you are doing is making unfounded arguments that you have tried to back up with news reports. That isn't science, that is alarmism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom