12 Jun 15
4 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse"...Climate change denial in public discourse may encourage climate scientists to over-emphasise scientific uncertainty.."
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-science-denial-affects-scientific.html
I think it does, and that's the basic problem. That over-emphasis of scientific uncertainty would only fuel even more climate change denial in public discourse and so on. It is a trap climate scientists shouldn't allow themselves to get into. They should instead be at pains to emphasize the fact that basic physics tells us that CO2 should cause global warming and it would be a huge scientific mystery if it didn't for we would then have to throw out most of known proven physics! This fact they certainly cannot over-emphasize!
They also should state clearly that none of that such basic physics relies on climate simulations but rather the climate simulations is what relies on that basic physics. It seems to me that, for some reason, many laypeople don't know that.
12 Jun 15
Originally posted by humy"They also should state clearly that none of that such basic physics relies on climate simulations but rather the climate simulations is what relies on that basic physics. It seems to me that, for some reason, many laypeople don't know that."
"...Climate change denial in public discourse may encourage climate scientists to over-emphasise scientific uncertainty.."
I think it does, and that's the basic problem. That over-emphasis of scientific uncertainty would only fuel even more climate change denial in public discourse and so on. It is a trap climate scientists shouldn't allow themselves to get ...[text shortened]... ies on that basic physics. It seems to me that, for some reason, many laypeople don't know that.
That is absurd logic. Show us how basic physics tells us how much warming CO2 has on the atmosphere. It doesn't and you are talking out of your ass again. Climate simulations are completely dependent on the projected warming caused by CO2. If that input is wrong everything else is wrong and that is why they fail so often.
If you think anybody knows how much warming CO2 causes in the atmosphere prove it. When you fail stop spouting crap about physics working like magic. You are lying again. All you do is bluff about the wonders of physics that do not exist. It is like you fool yourself into believing such crap like a religious fanatic!
13 Jun 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhy do climate deniers do so? At least with those pushing ID/creationism, the motivation is clear: their religion. By what do climate change deniers hope to get of denying it? What's the motivation? Why climate change in particular?
"They also should state clearly that none of that such basic physics relies on climate simulations but rather the climate simulations is what relies on that basic physics. It seems to me that, for some reason, many laypeople don't know that."
That is absurd logic. Show us how basic physics tells us how much warming CO2 has on the atmosphere. It doesn' ...[text shortened]... at do not exist. It is like you fool yourself into believing such crap like a religious fanatic!
Also, why do most climate change deniers also seem to be religious, right-wingers? Does climate change go against their religion somehow?
13 Jun 15
Originally posted by vivifyWith some people I have talked to, it is about the carbon tax or other perceived costs to do with doing something about global warming. If they deny that global warming is happening then they don't need to pay to do something about it without feeling guilty.
Why do climate deniers do so? At least with those pushing ID/creationism, the motivation is clear: their religion. By what do climate change deniers hope to get of denying it? What's the motivation? Why climate change in particular?
Also, why do most climate change deniers also seem to be religious, right-wingers? Does climate change go against their religion somehow?
Recognition of this is why politicians have shifted away from the whole carbon tax issue and are now focussing on ideas that can deal with global warming without a direct cost.
Also there is a correlation between religious right-wingers and conspiracy theories. Not surprising when your own party relies on lying as its main political strategy. If you lie non-stop you soon begin to think everyone else must be doing so too.
13 Jun 15
Originally posted by vivify"By what do climate change deniers hope to get of denying it?"
Why do climate deniers do so? At least with those pushing ID/creationism, the motivation is clear: their religion. By what do climate change deniers hope to get of denying it? What's the motivation? Why climate change in particular?
Also, why do most climate change deniers also seem to be religious, right-wingers? Does climate change go against their religion somehow?
Denying what? You have to be clear about that. This is why I am so convinced you don't know what you are talking about. Intelligent people don't use retarded terms like "climate deniers".
Have I ever denied there is a climate?
Don't use the term "climate change denier" either. Have I ever denied the ice ages?
I'm an atheist. I am not a right winger either. You are making irrational assumptions much like humy does.
13 Jun 15
Originally posted by twhitehead"Also there is a correlation between religious right-wingers and conspiracy theories. Not surprising when your own party relies on lying as its main political strategy. If you lie non-stop you soon begin to think everyone else must be doing so too."
With some people I have talked to, it is about the carbon tax or other perceived costs to do with doing something about global warming. If they deny that global warming is happening then they don't need to pay to do something about it without feeling guilty.
Recognition of this is why politicians have shifted away from the whole carbon tax issue and are ...[text shortened]... itical strategy. If you lie non-stop you soon begin to think everyone else must be doing so too.
That is the most absurd claim I have heard in a very long time. Not only is it impossible to prove it is just plain wrong. As I pointed out before, leftists who are also global warming alarmists believe there is a conspiracy to suppress renewable technologies. Humy is a good example of that. She just cannot accept that solar is far from being able to compete with fossil fuels. Not even close!
13 Jun 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe question was, where are you coming from in this debate? You are clearly not religious, you are probably not right wing, maybe libertarian, not sure. I get the feeling that climate change deniers, and not the ones who know there were ice ages, but the climate change going on today comes down to the idea that those folks don't want anything that effects them personally, even if the great grandchildren are the ones to suffer the consequences of inaction. 'Don't expect ME to give one dollar to support the evil Goreians'.
"Also there is a correlation between religious right-wingers and conspiracy theories. Not surprising when your own party relies on lying as its main political strategy. If you lie non-stop you soon begin to think everyone else must be doing so too."
That is the most absurd claim I have heard in a very long time. Not only is it impossible to prove it i ...[text shortened]... st cannot accept that solar is far from being able to compete with fossil fuels. Not even close!
14 Jun 15
6 edits
Originally posted by C HessTo be fair to him, you could have an assertion that is both "wrong" and "can't be proven" if it IS wrong. But the fundamental problem with his assertions is that he just idiotically unintelligent shouts them out either with no premise, as in this case, or without rational premise i.e. using false inference.
How can you know "it is just plain wrong" if it can't be proven?
In this case, just as twhitehead said, there is a correlation between religious right-wingers and conspiracy theories (obviously, and probably contrary to metal brain logic, this doesn't in anyway imply ALL people with conspiracy theories are right-wingers! ). I don't remember from where but I distinctively remember reading some statistical studies showing this. So there is evidence that this is true and no evidence, at least none I am aware of, that it is false. Clearly then, its apparently not "just plain wrong" (as metal brain said ) and not impossible to prove if it is right.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
14 Jun 15
Originally posted by humyObviously that's true, but you can't know "it is just plain wrong" without first testing the claim, making nonsense of xyr entire sentence.
To be fair to him, you could have an assertion that is both "wrong" and "can't be proven" if it IS wrong.
14 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessHis assertion was wrong, but I think you knew that is what I was talking about. Just another of your digression tactics because you know she made a false assertion.
How can you know "it is just plain wrong" if it can't be proven?
If you think anybody knows how much warming CO2 causes in the atmosphere prove it. You know it is not possible and that is why you attempt to digress.
16 Jun 15
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainRead this, it is a brief explanation of the refinements of CO2 heating effects, published in 1998. It says the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was 360 PPM ATT.
His assertion was wrong, but I think you knew that is what I was talking about. Just another of your digression tactics because you know she made a false assertion.
If you think anybody knows how much warming CO2 causes in the atmosphere prove it. You know it is not possible and that is why you attempt to digress.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/
They are not saying directly it causes heating, it is a scientific study of how CO2 absorbs heat.
http://co2now.org/
This shows the present day concentration, 403.7 PPM, an increase of about 11% in just 17 years,
I guess that doesn't bother you in the slightest.
Here is a summery of the changes already seen:
http://co2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Climate/Climate-Changes/abrupt-climate-change.html
Don't worry, be happy, suck down a beer and shoot darts. In ten years it will all reverse, right?