• 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!

Some help in battling the deniers

Sir Loin said:
There is a modest consensus that AGW is at work. The predictions associated with the same are outside all realms of the rational, for anyone who has followed them all. I recall another now infamous scientific "consensus" that was pushed not too long ago. It was based upon research, modeling and supported by peer reviewed research papers. According to it, the world quite literally would by this date be over populated and famine running rampant across the globe. Go figure.:roll:

The doom and gloom 'the sky is falling' approach has failed. Utterly and by all manner of measure. Period. Thankfully.;)

The majority of the charges and issues many so called "deniers" have pointed to for some time now, have been proved and legitamized this last year. Particularly as related to the IPCC. So much so that some voices of reason, from the pro climate change side of the equation, have recognized the obvious and began to suggest the AGW acolytes smell the coffee as it were................;)

Freeing Energy Policy From The Climate Change Debate by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger: Yale Environment 360

Except:
Freeing Energy Policy From
The Climate Change Debate
Environmentalists have long sought to use the threat of catastrophic global warming to persuade the public to embrace a low-carbon economy. But recent events, including the tainting of some climate research, have shown the risks of trying to link energy policy to climate science.
By Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger

The 20-year effort by environmentalists to establish climate science as the primary basis for far-reaching action to decarbonize the global energy economy today lies in ruins. Backlash in reaction to “Climategate” and recent controversies involving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s 2007 assessment report are but the latest evidence that such efforts have evidently failed.

While the urge to blame fossil-fuel-funded skeptics for this recent bad turn of events has proven irresistible for most environmental leaders and pundits, forward-looking greens wishing to ascertain what might be salvaged from the wreckage would be well advised to look closer to home. Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy.

The Endless Weather Wars

The habit of overstating the current state of climate science knowledge, and in particular our understanding of the relationship between global warming and present-day weather events, has been difficult for environmentalists to give up because, on one level, it has worked so well for them.

Global warming first exploded into mass public consciousness in the summer of 1988, when droughts, fires in the Amazon, and heat waves in the United States were widely attributed as warning signs of an eco-apocalypse to come. Former U.S. Senator Tim Wirth held the first widely covered congressional hearing on the subject that summer and admits having targeted the hearing for the hottest day of the year and turned off the air conditioning in the room to ensure that the conditions would be sweltering for the assembled media.End excerpt.


BTW- The backlash against Nordhaus and Shellenberger has been very predictable too. Go figure.:roll:
Nordhaus and Shellenberger: Two Environmentalists Anger Their Brethren

In fact in a delicious twist of fate, precisely who it is that are actually "deniers" or laboring under a sense of denial, has been made quite clear. Much to their chagrin. In fact, I recall several threads with former DP Asshat Champ jfuh about all the issues highlighted by the Yale piece, about two years ago or so. Chuckle.
Click to expand...


Nordhaus and Shellenberger do not deny ACC, they simply promote a different path for dealing with it.
 
jallman said:
I would answer that question had I made any indication whatsoever that climate change in this instance was natural only. Reading is FUNdamental.
Click to expand...

Well good thing we got that cleared up!
 
jallman said:
It was never unclear to those who actually managed to read the post. :shrug:
Click to expand...

So, we are back to the scientific consensus on ACC. Glad you concur. :)
 
Catawba said:
What do you think it all means?

Here is an excellent documentary where National Geographic "visualizes in spectacular HD the devastating ecological impact each single degree increase in temperature could have on our planet over the next century."

Six Degrees Could Change the World | National Geographic Channel
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what I think it all means because it would be the same as anyone else saying what it means: an opinion.


That visualization also relies on modeling technology and a whole lot of guess work. The thing about climate and ecology on a global level is that it is mostly all guesswork. There's a certain chaos factor involved in climate and ecology: it's not a well oiled machine that works in an ordered structure all the time. A single circumstantial event can alter the ecological balance and whole new problems and benefits arise from it.

We don't know what will happen but I do know one thing: cataclysm because of a rise in temperature is unlikely unless the rise in temperature is extreme and sudden. This isn't extreme and sudden.
 
jallman said:
It doesn't matter what I think it all means because it would be the same as anyone else saying what it means: an opinion.

That visualization also relies on modeling technology and a whole lot of guess work. The thing about climate and ecology on a global level is that it is mostly all guesswork. There's a certain chaos factor involved in climate and ecology: it's not a well oiled machine that works in an ordered structure all the time. A single circumstantial event can alter the ecological balance and whole new problems and benefits arise from it.

We don't know what will happen but I do know one thing: cataclysm because of a rise in temperature is unlikely unless the rise in temperature is extreme and sudden. This isn't extreme and sudden.
Click to expand...

It is more extreme and sudden than any in man's history!

Models are used in all areas of science. They are what made space explorations possible. The only flaw found in the world climate change models to date that I am aware of are that they have underestimated the speed with which climate change is happening.

Do you have evidence of flaws in the climate change models?
 
Catawba said:
It is more extreme and sudden than any in man's history!

Models are used in all areas of science. They are what made space explorations possible. The only flaw found in the world climate change models to date that I am aware of are that they have underestimated the speed with which climate change is happening.

Do you have evidence of flaws in the climate change models?
Click to expand...

Uhh, the fact that it's a model and that means, by definition, that it's guesswork.
 
jallman said:
Uhh, the fact that it's a model and that means, by definition, that it's guesswork.
Click to expand...


No, a model is putting together all the scientific knowledge that has been learned and projecting a course forward.

Again, you are welcome to provide evidence of any flaws in the climate change models to date.
 
Late into the post, but thanks deuce for your post. BUt It seems if someone is a denier, they will be a denier for life! :)

P.S. I'm not a denier.
 
Catawba said:
No, a model is putting together all the scientific knowledge that has been learned and projecting a course forward.

Again, you are welcome to provide evidence of any flaws in the climate change models to date.
Click to expand...

Projecting...which means predicting. The weather report every day is predicted based off modeling and it is not 100% accurate.

You need to read up and understand exactly how climate modeling (or any scientific modeling for that matter) works and what risks and limitations are involved with it when using it to make predictions.

Most important about models is that it is a trial and error process. When using them to predict, there is no certainty that you aren't getting an error.
 
jallman said:
Projecting...which means predicting. The weather report every day is predicted based off modeling and it is not 100% accurate.

You need to read up and understand exactly how climate modeling (or any scientific modeling for that matter) works and what risks and limitations are involved with it when using it to make predictions.
Click to expand...


Excellent article:

"most climate scientists agree that while climate models are not perfect, they are currently pretty good and better models would not change the conclusion that Earth’s average temperature is warming."

The only flaws that have been found in the climate change models are they have underestimated the speed with which it is occurring.

Here is a great historical perspective on the development of the climate change models:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm
 
Last edited:
ricksfolly said:
Actually, a denier is a skeptic, and as an unapologetic life-time skeptic I accept nothing as fact until I prove it to myself, including global warning.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Another self-assessment question: How much legitimate effort have you put into doing so?
 
Catawba said:
Excellent article:

"most climate scientists agree that while climate models are not perfect, they are currently pretty good and better models would not change the conclusion that Earth’s average temperature is warming."

The only flaws that have been found in the climate change models are they have underestimated the speed with which it is occurring.

Here is a great historical perspective on the development of the climate change models:
Simple Models of Climate
Click to expand...

That's all fine and well. But it doesn't change the fact that modeling technology is imperfect and it only gives an idea of what may happen but it is still a trial and error process.
 
jallman said:
Uhh, the fact that it's a model and that means, by definition, that it's guesswork.
Click to expand...

By definition!? Really? You proclaim that with such certainty. Which is funny because you're wrong. The models are based on what we've learned and tested, over and over. Test, observe, update. You can verify by running the model backwards against known temperatures.
 
Deuce said:
By definition!? Really? You proclaim that with such certainty. Which is funny because you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Except I have already proven I am right earlier in this very thread. :thumbs:
 
I don't think your "battle" will do much to those who think and understand of the complexity of the universe.

First, your most accurate temperature measurements account for .000000001+% of the life of the earth.
Second, Ice core samples, usually, account for .01% of the life of the earth.

You're not going to get an absolute picture of the earth from those kind of numbers.

And then there are the other problems never considered.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_precession]Apsidal precession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal]Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


A big one here.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformation_bias]Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Plus the potential for thousands of other variables scientists/you/I have never considered/were aware of.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't think your "battle" will do much to those who think and understand of the complexity of the universe.

First, your most accurate temperature measurements account for .000000001+% of the life of the earth.
Second, Ice core samples, usually, account for .01% of the life of the earth.

You're not going to get an absolute picture of the earth from those kind of numbers.

And then there are the other problems never considered.
Apsidal precession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A big one here.
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plus the potential for thousands of other variables scientists/you/I have never considered/were aware of.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why modeling is just guess work. It's sort of like saying, "Let's see how these particular equations work in a vacuum."
 
jallman said:
Which is exactly why modeling is just guess work. It's sort of like saying, "Let's see how these particular equations work in a vacuum."
Click to expand...

Not only that but each potential cause is weighted by the people who write the modeling program.
So they could have anything "cause" global warming.
It could be based on the amount of Twinkies on the planet.

You're absolutely right though, there is no way with any certainty that this young science can realistically predict what causes it or what helps deter it.

I was reading something that said we could be experience this for the next 50k years solely based on the proximity of the earth to the sun and then we would be plunged into one of the big ice ages.

For me, as far as the planet is concerned, I'm more worried about the moon leaving in about 10k years and the potential chaos that can cause.
 
Partisan said:
I wonder how one would model this:
Iceland's volcanic ash halts flights across Europe
With respect to AGW.....:roll:
Click to expand...

Err, the same way we did for the other major eruptions over the last few decades which tracked very closely with what the models predicted? There's a measurable drop in temperatures from a major eruption as high-altitude volcanic ash reflects sunlight back into space. It usually lasts a year or two, depending on the size of the eruption. (I haven't tracked the size of this one and i'm sure it's too early to even try to model it since the eruption isn't even over yet)

Edit: Models aren't guesswork, and that link you posted jallman actually says pretty much the opposite of what you think it says. The models aren't perfect but they're pretty darn good.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
For me, as far as the planet is concerned, I'm more worried about the moon leaving in about 10k years and the potential chaos that can cause.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. Not!

Worry more about something that may happen 10k years from now and ignore that your house is filling up with your own ****?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not only that but each potential cause is weighted by the people who write the modeling program.
So they could have anything "cause" global warming.
It could be based on the amount of Twinkies on the planet.

You're absolutely right though, there is no way with any certainty that this young science can realistically predict what causes it or what helps deter it.

I was reading something that said we could be experience this for the next 50k years solely based on the proximity of the earth to the sun and then we would be plunged into one of the big ice ages.

For me, as far as the planet is concerned, I'm more worried about the moon leaving in about 10k years and the potential chaos that can cause.
Click to expand...

No, these models are based on measured physical behaviors of the atmosphere. It's not some dude arbitrarily assigning values. It's not a young science, we've been doing this for a century. Whatever you were reading is wrong: our orbital situation is well measured. There will be a cooling period about 16000 years from now. It goes on a pretty regular cycle.

The moon has stuck around for a while, I think it'll stick around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom