Climate Change Denial (5 Viewers)

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
13,088
Reaction score
17,678
Offline
Sticky Post
I just read about this island in Louisiana that has nearly disappeared. You all may already know about this, but this is new to me.

One of the worst things about this administration is it’s science denial. Trump isn’t very smart nor is he well educated. This has permeated the entire administration. It’s yet one more way Trump is hurting the very people he says he is helping.

I know we had a thread an this originally, but it was past two pages back, so I decided to start a new one. I know this case isn’t completely due to climate change, but as the article points out, in the future there will be many cases like this.

http://www.businessinsider.com/isle-de-jean-charles-climate-change-refugees-2018-4
 

onthurdays

All-Pro
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
544
Age
36
Offline
Haven’t gotten a clear answer on why I should care about your conspiracy theories since the earth has not warmed or turned more acidic in the last 150 years.
Correlation doesn’t equal causation and you don’t even have correlation.
Keep thinking it’s an evil cabal of rich men plotting to keep you poor.
I’m Buddhist bro.
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,128
Reaction score
17,637
Offline
Haven’t gotten a clear answer on why I should care about your conspiracy theories since the earth has not warmed or turned more acidic in the last 150 years.
Correlation doesn’t equal causation and you don’t even have correlation.
Keep thinking it’s an evil cabal of rich men plotting to keep you poor.
I’m Buddhist bro.
No one has accused rich men of conspiring to achieve climate change because it keeps us poor.

You must be thinking of the people who think George Soros funded a group of miagrants to walk/hitchhike thousands of miles to rape our freedom with socialism.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,961
Reaction score
8,665
Offline
Haven’t gotten a clear answer on why I should care about your conspiracy theories since the earth has not warmed or turned more acidic in the last 150 years.
Correlation doesn’t equal causation and you don’t even have correlation.
Keep thinking it’s an evil cabal of rich men plotting to keep you poor.
I’m Buddhist bro.
Sure you have, you just choose to play ignorant and trollishly sea-lion the forum. You've been linked and had explained to you every scientific question you insincerely begged and now you are just being blatantly inflammatory.

You refused to engage on even basic questioning back to yourself(6 days and you still haven't answered if you can explain how the greenhouse effect works) and every time one of your ignorant talking points was explained away you just asked another dumb ignorant question that a 2 minute Google search could answer for you. Then when seemingly you exhausted your list you have just doubled back to square one and declared something rooted in a process and relationship we have 150 years of scientific consensus settled on as conspiracy.
 
Last edited:

onthurdays

All-Pro
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
544
Age
36
Offline
There is no consensus. Even if there was, science is not measured by consensus, and history has shown us how terrible of an idea that is.
And those 150 years of evidence show that the earth and oceans have not warmed and acidified.

To attack CO2 as if it is a pollutant is obviously ridiculous when there is actual real pollution and poisons in the air and water that the climatepocalypsers love to ignore while obsessing with a building block of life.

What a conspiracy that would be. That something all life needs is poison and poison is meh. That even when science shows the massive amounts of more CO2 in the past 150 years have done zilch for temperature and acidification, but it’s somehow still scary.
That stating the obvious and proving it with science means you are inflammatory. That linking charts that do nothing to disprove facts means your opponent is dumb troll. That refusing to answer questions means Your opponent refuses to answer questions.
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,128
Reaction score
17,637
Offline
There is no consensus. Even if there was, science is not measured by consensus, and history has shown us how terrible of an idea that is.
And those 150 years of evidence show that the earth and oceans have not warmed and acidified.

To attack CO2 as if it is a pollutant is obviously ridiculous when there is actual real pollution and poisons in the air and water that the climatepocalypsers love to ignore while obsessing with a building block of life.

What a conspiracy that would be. That something all life needs is poison and poison is meh. That even when science shows the massive amounts of more CO2 in the past 150 years have done zilch for temperature and acidification, but it’s somehow still scary.
That stating the obvious and proving it with science means you are inflammatory. That linking charts that do nothing to disprove facts means your opponent is dumb troll. That refusing to answer questions means Your opponent refuses to answer questions.
How would you define consensus?

What percentage of scientists would have to agree before you would call it a consensus?
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
42,891
Reaction score
35,579
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
There is no consensus. Even if there was, science is not measured by consensus, and history has shown us how terrible of an idea that is.
And those 150 years of evidence show that the earth and oceans have not warmed and acidified.

To attack CO2 as if it is a pollutant is obviously ridiculous when there is actual real pollution and poisons in the air and water that the climatepocalypsers love to ignore while obsessing with a building block of life.

What a conspiracy that would be. That something all life needs is poison and poison is meh. That even when science shows the massive amounts of more CO2 in the past 150 years have done zilch for temperature and acidification, but it’s somehow still scary.
That stating the obvious and proving it with science means you are inflammatory. That linking charts that do nothing to disprove facts means your opponent is dumb troll. That refusing to answer questions means Your opponent refuses to answer questions.
We breathe oxygen, yet if we have too high of a concentration of oxygen is can poison us.

So, yeah, too much of something essential to life can be bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,961
Reaction score
8,665
Offline
Prob 95ish%
So then its safe to say every single published study sans 40 or so that were found to contain some critical errors or reproducibility problems is a consensus? Though of course something tells me you are about to crawfish or evade.....


There are a few scientists—and even a very few who actively publish in the peer-reviewed literature on climatology—who reject or play down the human role in recent climate change. In the second part of the C13 paper, we asked the authors of the articles whose abstracts we had analyzed to rate their own papers. We received self-ratings on 2141 papers, among which 39 (1.8%) were self-rated as rejecting AGW. Of the 1189 authors who responded, 28 (2.4%) wrote papers that rejected AGW to some degree or other. The dissenters are but a small percentage of the many thousands of scientists working on climate change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.
But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)
Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.​
Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.​
“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote.
One of Hayhoe’s co-authors, Rasmus Benestad, an atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, built the program using the computer language R—which conveniently works on all computer platforms—to replicate each of the papers’ results and to try to understand how they reached their conclusions. Benestad’s program found that none of the papers had results that were replicable, at least not with generally accepted science.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​
And to be clear, when I originally wrote consensus I was referring to the greenhouse effect. There is literally no credible scientist that disputes the basic relationship of the greenhouse effect.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,961
Reaction score
8,665
Offline
He's going to post this national review article next...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/

It doesn't really say what the headline says, but I guarantee this was his next move
Thats why I think it is better to look at the actual submitted peer-review seeking work.

There is rightly some wiggle room to question consensus in voluntary and somewhat less reliable(from a statistical perspective) surveys. It is much harder to handwave away the fact that when push comes to shove, very few, if any scientists have managed to submit and have held up under scrutiny their starkly deviating views.
 
Last edited:

onthurdays

All-Pro
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
544
Age
36
Offline
And what do these papers say? That there is warming? Yes we are still coming out of an ice age. That CO2 and humans play a part? Yes, a part, obviously.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
25,101
Reaction score
13,216
Age
51
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
And what do these papers say? That there is warming? Yes we are still coming out of an ice age. That CO2 and humans play a part? Yes, a part, obviously.
They say that the warming is happening much too quickly for species to adapt. The creatures and conditions us humans rely on.
They also say that the part us humans play is to add that extra percentage of CO2 that can't be handled by natural means. We're the part that's tipping it all over.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,961
Reaction score
8,665
Offline
And what do these papers say? That there is warming? Yes we are still coming out of an ice age. That CO2 and humans play a part? Yes, a part, obviously.
So again:

But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)
Not so, according to a review published inthe journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.

There is this problem here where doubters/trolls like yourself want to proposition a hypothesis, that humans are not a major driving force of the current change we see, but literally that argument can’t seem to really pass muster in the scientific community when held up under scrutiny.

See the problem you are poised with is we can measure this stuff, and we know how processes work, and we know how much humans are putting out into the atmosphere and we are doing a pretty good job identifying and measuring the ways it gets absorbed by sinks like the ocean. We have had predictive modes that so far have at worse under-estimated the rate of change but not the rise in temperatures. For an alternative theory to be viable, aside from just needing to not be critically flawed in its methodology, as so many seem to be, one has to not only explain why all of the change we can measure is not a notable or primary cause of the change we currently see, but also what other force it is that is responsible. But not just that, it also requires some explaintion for why what we see from humans isn’t doing what every measurement and understanding of atmospheric science has been proven to show.

It’s a large ask and so far no real credible alternative theories seem to be holding up while also having the credible scientific backing to match. Which is the camp you seem to have firmly planted your feet.

You have no real credible backing for your hypothesis in the relevant scientific community, you have no real credible alternative theory that has any scientific validity at this point in time, but you are persisting on standing behind that argument.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)



New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

Headlines

Top Bottom