USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
climate change times are a changin'
- Thread starter huskyfan
- Start date
- Status
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: climate change times are a changin'
No, the one side has stopped saying "Shut up and stop talking." They've realized it's like talking to a fourth grader and transitioned to "Fk it. Ok, you guys go sit in the corner and pout while the adults start actively working on a solution that actually works."
75% of America and 97% of scientists have moved on.
No, the one side has stopped saying "Shut up and stop talking." They've realized it's like talking to a fourth grader and transitioned to "Fk it. Ok, you guys go sit in the corner and pout while the adults start actively working on a solution that actually works."
75% of America and 97% of scientists have moved on.
Re: climate change times are a changin'
If we're going to reduce each side to their most shrill members, then yes, that is what side A is doing. But applying the same rule to the other side, what they do is summarily dismiss anything that says something they don't like by suggesting it was manufactured in self interest. "Oh those frauds are just trying to line up their next grant."
If we're going to reduce each side to their most shrill members, then yes, that is what side A is doing. But applying the same rule to the other side, what they do is summarily dismiss anything that says something they don't like by suggesting it was manufactured in self interest. "Oh those frauds are just trying to line up their next grant."
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: climate change times are a changin'
If only..........................................
*sigh*
If only..........................................
*sigh*
P
Priceless
Guest
Maybe if we pray to Yellowface He will tell us the answer.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: climate change times are a changin'
The current state of the climate debate, summed up by an expert ...
Now I was somewhere out on Riverside
By the El Royale Hotel
When a stranger appeared in a cloud of smoke
I thought I knew him all too well ...
"Today, I made an appearance downtown
I am an expert witness because I say I am
And I said, 'Gentlemen, and I use that word loosely
I will testify for you, I'm a gun for hire, I'm a saint, I'm a liar'"
"'Because there are no facts, there is no truth
Just data to be manipulated
I can get you any result you like
What's it worth to you?'"
"'Because there is no wrong, there is no right
And I sleep very well at night
No shame, no solution, no remorse, no retribution
Just people selling T-shirts'"
Just opportunity to participate in the pathetic little circus
And winning, winning, winning'"
Don Henley - "The Garden Of Allah"
The current state of the climate debate, summed up by an expert ...
Now I was somewhere out on Riverside
By the El Royale Hotel
When a stranger appeared in a cloud of smoke
I thought I knew him all too well ...
"Today, I made an appearance downtown
I am an expert witness because I say I am
And I said, 'Gentlemen, and I use that word loosely
I will testify for you, I'm a gun for hire, I'm a saint, I'm a liar'"
"'Because there are no facts, there is no truth
Just data to be manipulated
I can get you any result you like
What's it worth to you?'"
"'Because there is no wrong, there is no right
And I sleep very well at night
No shame, no solution, no remorse, no retribution
Just people selling T-shirts'"
Just opportunity to participate in the pathetic little circus
And winning, winning, winning'"
Don Henley - "The Garden Of Allah"
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: climate change times are a changin'
That is the main thing that blows my mind on this issue. Scientists love controversy. It is what breeds advances. They just go about it in a way that is not easily accessible to the layman public. Scientists battle it out in published literature and at scientific conventions, not on talk radio, the internet or 24 hour news networks.
The published literature on this issue overwhelmingly supports climate change. Models vary in scope, but humans are involved. The reason most scientists get *****ly about this issue is because the opponents criticize models but provide no viable alternative to fit the data. You could win a ****ing Nobel Prize if you published a cohesive global climate model that drastically changed current models, that better fit the data, and was more predictive.
The fallacy of the argument from authority is often overused when you are talking about scientists in their respective field. It is often the case that you need to be an authority, have years of rigorous training, a solid publication record and understand the context of data (and the previous data and assumptions) to even comment on certain issues. Most scientists are not charismatic people; they will not convert the masses. However, if a stronger argument comes along in the published literature, it is only a matter of time until it is generally accepted.
Wishful thinking is a dangerous thing. I would love for homeopathy, faith healing, etc to be efficacious. I love medicine that works. Unfortunately, reality and the laws of physics, chemistry and biology as we understand them indicate these treatments to be false and no better than placebo. Show me better, convincing data and I will gladly change my tune.
That is the main thing that blows my mind on this issue. Scientists love controversy. It is what breeds advances. They just go about it in a way that is not easily accessible to the layman public. Scientists battle it out in published literature and at scientific conventions, not on talk radio, the internet or 24 hour news networks.
The published literature on this issue overwhelmingly supports climate change. Models vary in scope, but humans are involved. The reason most scientists get *****ly about this issue is because the opponents criticize models but provide no viable alternative to fit the data. You could win a ****ing Nobel Prize if you published a cohesive global climate model that drastically changed current models, that better fit the data, and was more predictive.
The fallacy of the argument from authority is often overused when you are talking about scientists in their respective field. It is often the case that you need to be an authority, have years of rigorous training, a solid publication record and understand the context of data (and the previous data and assumptions) to even comment on certain issues. Most scientists are not charismatic people; they will not convert the masses. However, if a stronger argument comes along in the published literature, it is only a matter of time until it is generally accepted.
Wishful thinking is a dangerous thing. I would love for homeopathy, faith healing, etc to be efficacious. I love medicine that works. Unfortunately, reality and the laws of physics, chemistry and biology as we understand them indicate these treatments to be false and no better than placebo. Show me better, convincing data and I will gladly change my tune.
Re: climate change times are a changin'
That sounds like a pretty reasonable summary of the current state of debate. Those who claim there is anthropogenic global warming are found out manipulating data and trying to suppress those who disagree with them; those who claim there is not are pointing out the excesses without (in many but not all) cases offering up their own models.
At this point, I find neither "side" very credible. The doomsayers have already put forward testable hypotheses that have been found wanting; the naysayers haven't really put forward much of anything.
As I said earlier, to me one of the most important inputs in any climate model would be the rate of deforestation / reforestation. Trees can trap and hold tremendous amounts of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] as wood. Consequently the rate of disappearance of trees from rain forests would have a significant effect on how much warming there would be, and due to compounding effects, a minor adjustment in this variable would have a significant impact on the model's output. It also is a variable over which we (human beings) have substantial control. and it is far more effective economically than trying to get people world-wide to stop using carbon.
In other words, recycling!
More aluminum today comes from recycling than from mining.
One solution is to stop putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. that is not the only solution. another solution is to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. and that we already have easily at hand.
even if the "science" of global warming is "settled" the presciption of what to do about it certainly is not. i don't trust any government to use money they collect in carbon taxes to do anything viable with it: just look at how much of the tobacco settlement funds have been used to fight smoking, for example (about 5% to 10%??)
That sounds like a pretty reasonable summary of the current state of debate. Those who claim there is anthropogenic global warming are found out manipulating data and trying to suppress those who disagree with them; those who claim there is not are pointing out the excesses without (in many but not all) cases offering up their own models.
At this point, I find neither "side" very credible. The doomsayers have already put forward testable hypotheses that have been found wanting; the naysayers haven't really put forward much of anything.
As I said earlier, to me one of the most important inputs in any climate model would be the rate of deforestation / reforestation. Trees can trap and hold tremendous amounts of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] as wood. Consequently the rate of disappearance of trees from rain forests would have a significant effect on how much warming there would be, and due to compounding effects, a minor adjustment in this variable would have a significant impact on the model's output. It also is a variable over which we (human beings) have substantial control. and it is far more effective economically than trying to get people world-wide to stop using carbon.
In other words, recycling!
More aluminum today comes from recycling than from mining.
One solution is to stop putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. that is not the only solution. another solution is to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. and that we already have easily at hand.
even if the "science" of global warming is "settled" the presciption of what to do about it certainly is not. i don't trust any government to use money they collect in carbon taxes to do anything viable with it: just look at how much of the tobacco settlement funds have been used to fight smoking, for example (about 5% to 10%??)
Last edited:
MinnesotaNorthStar
Minding the gap
Re: climate change times are a changin'
Didn't someone post where that 97% number came from earlier in this thread! or another thread? I want to say it was Shirtless Guy or St. clown....
Didn't someone post where that 97% number came from earlier in this thread! or another thread? I want to say it was Shirtless Guy or St. clown....
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: climate change times are a changin'
This is such a good post it should just be linked to whenever this comes up again. Definitive. Bravo.
To quote Buckaroo Banzai, "end of discussion."
This is such a good post it should just be linked to whenever this comes up again. Definitive. Bravo.
To quote Buckaroo Banzai, "end of discussion."
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: climate change times are a changin'
Yes, 97%.
Your myth is a myth.
Speaking of right wing anti-science fuckwittery...
Yes, 97%.
Your myth is a myth.
Speaking of right wing anti-science fuckwittery...
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: climate change times are a changin'
I knew I liked your style.
(Such a fantastic movie.)
I knew I liked your style.
(Such a fantastic movie.)
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: climate change times are a changin'
Why the pollster cherry-picked his respondents was never stated. Why politicians cherry-pick the one answer to spout during their speeches shouldn't be hard to understand.
Regardless, the reports widely touting this guy's "study" fell very short of acceptable statistical practices for using that 97% figure. And regardless of that, people will continue to say twist the 97% number to mean what they want, because it's easier to sell it to the public that way, rather than to delve into nuance.
Yeah, that was me, and I'm pretty sure it was in a different thread. Basically, the guy conducting the poll of scientists received about a 30% response rate, which may or may not be normal - I don't know. Of the thousand-plus responses he received, he held out for 79 responses (I don't remember if he received ~3,400 responses or if he sent out ~3,400 questionnaires), 76 of them said that they agreed global warming exists; it was not a question as to its origins. Then when asked if they thought it was conclusive evidence of anthropogenic global warning, the affirmative response was around 60%.
Why the pollster cherry-picked his respondents was never stated. Why politicians cherry-pick the one answer to spout during their speeches shouldn't be hard to understand.
Regardless, the reports widely touting this guy's "study" fell very short of acceptable statistical practices for using that 97% figure. And regardless of that, people will continue to say twist the 97% number to mean what they want, because it's easier to sell it to the public that way, rather than to delve into nuance.
Re: climate change times are a changin'
You'd do well to read the story Kepler linked to. Your accounting of the 97% consensus issue is, at absolute best, incomplete.
You'd do well to read the story Kepler linked to. Your accounting of the 97% consensus issue is, at absolute best, incomplete.
unofan
Well-known member
I knew I liked your style.
(Such a fantastic movie.)
Such a god awful movie.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: climate change times are a changin'
While reading an interview with Dyson regarding his takes on climate change, I had to take pause at this exchange:
So "real experts" on the subject don't come forward to agree with him. I wonder why that is...they must be shy.
While reading an interview with Dyson regarding his takes on climate change, I had to take pause at this exchange:
e360 said:
Dyson said:
So "real experts" on the subject don't come forward to agree with him. I wonder why that is...they must be shy.
- Status