Climate Alarmists Are Doing it Wrong

[Poki]

Oh. Ok then. That's not really being against climate change. But then why not just say that rather than try to debunk everything? It's not making the best argument for distinguishing differences.

Just thinking aloud. Ok. If that is the case, which scientific studies ARE credible is a better question?

and then the next step...how do we properly move our society in the right direction. we are dealing with people...its gonna be complicated and its gonna require a skillset on how to deal with different groups of people. each one you HAVE to treat different, etc. life is not fair, equality will fail because we are not equal. we have different wants, and desires, and the list goes on and on.

even goes back to people like IJs who are awesome at taking on the stress to try and balance things before shit hits the fan. i swear we are people stupid as a society.

 

[Jaguar]

right wing Bloomberg articles

It was written by a columnist named Megan McArdle with a disclaimer at the end: This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

None of the models I've seen explicitly predict catastrophe in just a few very short decades. I don't think anyone here disagrees with climate change happening (alarmists often conflate skepticism with outright 'denial' in order to appear to be more reasonable than the skeptic - strawman essentially). I think most people, on the Right and Left, accept that man-made pollution has some degree of influence (the precise degree is not settled science yet) but I think the biggest rift is the alarmism itself. It's the doomsayers that scream the 'revelation' from Patmos and the only way we can save the planet, ourselves, our children, and life on the planet is if we surrender a significant degree of freedom to international governmental organizations not directly accountable to regular citizens in the different countries of the world.

IMO alarmism has actually done climate change activism a great disservice. The bully tactics of the alarmists and the witch hunt-like admonishment of 'deniers' has repelled more ordinary people from what would otherwise be a worthy cause. I can see no scenario where having a high regard for the cleanliness of the environment is actually a bad thing. But this ' agree with me or be doomed stupid denier' attitude is just static and screechy noise that has no place in civil public discourse.

Ok. Then both sides aren't addressing the issue of climate change.

If climate change is an issue, and both sides are in agreement it is, why not attempt to bridge the gaps, rather than cry louder over the other?

Even talking about policy.

A better title of this thread should be:

What policies (if any) should be enacted to protect our environment? Explain your reasoning.

That would be more interesting to me.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

i think its more of a "the sky is falling" technique that ones who challenge but still believe in science have issues with. prove the world is gonna end from it or that humans will die off, or that we as nature are unadatable to the point that this is a "our children will not be around unless we jump ship to extremism".

most of us that dont believe its a "crisis" are usually for improvement, cleaner air, less pollution. but dont feel like its a life or death situation. we have so much other stuff to worry about that its a blip on the radar just like all the other blips that we need to work on.

from what i remember SFP is not against global warming, but like me, against the extreme "the sky is falling" push.

hence the title "climate alarmists are doing it wrong" and the posts from Thalasa show exactly what they do that isnt working on majority and why they have to "fight" so kmuch.

You got it. As a kid, the hype was global cooling. The global warming folk deny this happened, but I posted a bunch of articles from back then in one of these threads (which were ignored by our alarmists).

Then the data didn't fit their theory, so they switched to global warming.

Ultimately, I think that the science is still developing. For most of the last decade, there was no increase in global warming, which the anti-alarmist folks pointed out, so the alarmists started massaging data and modifying their models, while saying the skeptics are lying.

The entire movement became largely a political tool. The numbers thrown around are largely wrong. The 97% figure does not mean what the alarmists claim it means. Etc.

I believe we need to strongly curtail pollution. I believe we need to change many of agricultural practices. I believe we really need to reduce waste. Old SuperFund sites need to be cleaned up. And so forth. I love clean air and clean water.

But the alarmists plans are basically economic today, as I posted in one article, where the co-chair of the IPCC admitted that current efforts are all about income redistribution from the 1st world to the 3rd.

Exporting our factories to China, allowing them to pollute like mad, then shipping the goods here is much worse for the planet than producing goods here under tight environmental controls and with minimal distribution monetary and carbon costs. Yet these issues are largely ignored.

So many environmental initiatives have a cronistic purpose. Cap and trade has been a profit vehicle for Wall Street. Many solar power boondoggles were gifts to Democratic operatives. Ethanol is a disaster. Etc.

As long as it is hyper political, we will not actually solve anything. But the solution isn't for those that oppose the alarmists to give up. No, it is for the alarmists to stop treating science as a religion and tone down the scare tactics.

The more an effort attempts to bully the opposition, the more the opposition will resist.

Instead of dogmatism and convert or die alleged consensus, it would be better to calmly discuss the matters. The skeptics are bright people who easily see the holes in the propaganda. The alarmists have been trying to dismiss them as shills for oil companies, but that just allows the alarmists to feel good in ignoring the skeptics' very valid points.

Nothing can't be solved, but alarmists keep with the act that we must act immediately or we will all die and kill the planet. Such talk is extremely counterproductive....

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Oh. Ok then. That's not really being against climate change. But then why not just say that rather than try to debunk everything? It's not making the best argument for distinguishing differences.

Just thinking aloud. Ok. If that is the case, which scientific studies ARE credible is a better question?

The problem here is that this a political not a scientific matter today. In real science, no one would say, "We got a 97% consensus so admit you are wrong and join us." Science is moved by those that doubt the accepted narrative, not by those who strive for consensus.

So, it is the heterodox with their divergent views that should be supported, not suppressed. They might be wrong, but they also push the envelope of knowledge. They question rather than conform.

But, since this a political issue, with exaggerated consequences, calm reason is ignored.

Why poke holes in the theories? Why show error in the models? Why point out mistakes? Because that strengthens the theories. Every time an error is pointed out, then the theory must be addressed. This makes it stronger.

As more people understand the politics of the matter, they can better understand the barriers to improvement.

Instead, the alarmists scientists want to suppress those that disagree. They have altered data to fit their theories, rather than alter theories to fit the data.

Bjorn Lomborg, who had been on the Greenpeace board, went about 20 years ago or so to justify the scare tactics. Instead, he found that much simplier solutions would address many real world environmental issues. I read his Skeptical Environmentalist when it came out, as well as other works questioning. He has many solutions listed in that book that cost a fraction of what has been done.

I do believe we need to stop subsidizing big agriculture and big food. Changing what and how we eat will leave us healthier and with a cleaner environment. We need further pollution controls. I read some stuff on just one industry a few years ago (steel) about how new mills use a fraction of the energy and have a fraction of the waste, but we don't build them here.

We can improve many things and live much better lives and with less damage to the environment.

I believe we need to fix the ethical standards of the country first, in order to actually fix the other problems. Now, everything quickly becomes corrupted and ineffective.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I see that show is on the road again and since I took a part in all of them so far I think that I will skip it this time. However I will leave these videos here as "random thoughts".

I think that the the guy forgot the changes is planet's albedo as an extra variable but the main point should be valid.

 

[Empyrean]

Hi SFP, just a few questions:

1. Do you have a preferred definition for science, and/or the scientific method?
2. How and why do changes in various scientific models change in time?
3. Do you subscribe to a general philosophical theory of what science is in general? E.g., the proposal of Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, or Paul Feyerabend?

The reason I ask these questions is because you made some pretty strong claims about the fact that a "belief" in science (I believe this is what you called it?) is wrong or incorrect.

If we should not believe in either science or the scientific method (under whatever definition or philosophical theory you want to define them as), then how should we mentally 'connect' our sense of certainty to the truth or falsity of science/scientific method?

Maybe I can clarify (I'm trying hard to articulate clearly).

In order for science, or any theory or methodology to be determined as sound, there needs to be a high degree of certainty of the truth of its embedded propositions. So, propositions within a scientific model should be verifiable regarding their truth or falsity.

But since science is fundamentally an inductive endeavor (unless you disagree with this, of course), absolute certainty; that is, 100% deductive power for airtight conclusions that cannot be false, are impossible to achieve.

So ultimately, it seems to me, any scientific theory, hypothesis, and their embedded propositions require a certain level of belief.

Now, the degree of certainty of belief may be extremely high due to the inductive probability of those arguments' or propositions' conclusions being true, and the epistemic probability of individual propositions within arguments being true. Or the degree of certainty of belief could be low due to low inductive or epistemic probability.

However, that ultimately falls back upon problems or issues within foundations of knowledge. What I'm trying to present here is that science has historically always been an inductive enterprise, and inductive enterprises require a level of faith. To discount this would be akin to using circular logic, or begging the question.

So I'm really curious; if you don't think we believe in science or the scientific method, then what is the relationship between human thought and science? If you could clarify your position, that would be great. How should we approach science, if belief in science is altogether bad, given that we cannot ground science in any sort of deductive logical system?

Thanks!

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Hi SFP, just a few questions:

1. Do you have a preferred definition for science, and/or the scientific method?
2. How and why do changes in various scientific models change in time?
3. Do you subscribe to a general philosophical theory of what science is in general? E.g., the proposal of Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, or Paul Feyerabend?

The reason I ask these questions is because you made some pretty strong claims about the fact that a "belief" in science (I believe this is what you called it?) is wrong or incorrect.

If we should not believe in either science or the scientific method (under whatever definition or philosophical theory you want to define them as), then how should we mentally 'connect' our sense of certainty to the truth or falsity of science/scientific method?

Maybe I can clarify (I'm trying hard to articulate clearly).

In order for science, or any theory or methodology to be determined as sound, there needs to be a high degree of certainty of the truth of its embedded propositions. So, propositions within a scientific model should be verifiable regarding their truth or falsity.

But since science is fundamentally an inductive endeavor (unless you disagree with this, of course), absolute certainty; that is, 100% deductive power for airtight conclusions that cannot be false, are impossible to achieve.

So ultimately, it seems to me, any scientific theory, hypothesis, and their embedded propositions require a certain level of belief.

Now, the degree of certainty of belief may be extremely high due to the inductive probability of those arguments' or propositions' conclusions being true, and the epistemic probability of individual propositions within arguments being true. Or the degree of certainty of belief could be low due to low inductive or epistemic probability.

However, that ultimately falls back upon problems or issues within foundations of knowledge. What I'm trying to present here is that science has historically always been an inductive enterprise, and inductive enterprises require a level of faith. To discount this would be akin to using circular logic, or begging the question.

So I'm really curious; if you don't think we believe in science or the scientific method, then what is the relationship between human thought and science? If you could clarify your position, that would be great. How should we approach science, if belief in science is altogether bad, given that we cannot ground science in any sort of deductive logical system?

Thanks!

I didn't see your response until now.

Science for me must remain the open ended quest for knowledge about how life, the Earth, and the universe works.

I believe we can up to a general understanding, but often are accepting the theory that mostly works rather than the law that we don't have a good handle on. We don't know as much as we believe we know and what we believe we know is "truth" might be proven entirely wrong later.

As such, avoiding the politicization of science is all costs, because it often empowers theories and distorts research and funding. Now forcing a paradigm with jackboots is extremely anti-science.

There is a vast difference in mastering scientific theories and developing a strong confidence level in them vs. believing in the idea of science without any understanding.

So, we should respect generally accepted scientific principles, but be wary of any attempts to suppress opposing views.

Too many lay people give science the status of a religion they worship. Scientific principles are not worthy of such status and scientists are not worthy of veneration as high priests, saints, or prophets.

Again, unfortunately, it seems that many in the environmental movement especially do this.

I get that not everyone feels comfortable reading academic papers in areas where they lack personal knowledge. They want to rely on the wisdom of the expert.

But they seem to lose their skepticism, if they had any at all.

But skepticism and questioning in the basis for the growth of knowledge. Any attempt to silence heterodox views is really anti-science.

We can't just protect the existing narrative, especially if the real world evidence proves otherwise.

Scientists are not often good real world problem solvers, anyway. They can't always prioritize and see ways to a solution that benefits the most while harming the least, because they mostly don't think about the human element much.

So, I love science, but I don't worship it. I fully believe we have a very stilted and flawed view about many things.

 

[mystik_INFJ]

Source: Scientists have found a perfect illustration of how the climate is spiraling ‘out of control’ - The Washington Post

When I was a kid I don't remember summers to be this hot. I could stay all day in the Sun and run all day without becoming overheated. Back in the day, high temperature was 34C and that was one or two day max in July. We now have these temperatures in June and late August, for extended periods of time. Winter snow? Forget it. It snows a few days a year and it melts quickly. There is scientific evidence and I see it too.

I saw that people spoke about "believing" in science is like a religion. Religion can only wish. Science has no problem being proven wrong and it will correct itself. Now try to suggest that religion is wrong. Observe the results and draw your own conclusion. That statement is pretty naive. But the phrasing that people "believe" in science takes the crown. Science is not a belief system. It doesn't care about your petty beliefs. Science works. The fact that this forum exists and that people can post stupid things like that isn't because someone believed in science and prayed for science. It is because science works.

 

[Virtual ghost]

When I was a kid I don't remember summers to be this hot. I could stay all day in the Sun and run all day without becoming overheated. Back in the day, high temperature was 34C and that was one or two day max in July. We now have these temperatures in June and late August, for extended periods of time. Winter snow? Forget it. It snows a few days a year and it melts quickly. There is scientific evidence and

I have personally experianced exactly the same thing.

 

[Thalassa]

You got it. As a kid, the hype was global cooling. The global warming folk deny this happened, but I posted a bunch of articles from back then in one of these threads (which were ignored by our alarmists).

Then the data didn't fit their theory, so they switched to global warming.

Ultimately, I think that the science is still developing. For most of the last decade, there was no increase in global warming, which the anti-alarmist folks pointed out, so the alarmists started massaging data and modifying their models, while saying the skeptics are lying.

The entire movement became largely a political tool. The numbers thrown around are largely wrong. The 97% figure does not mean what the alarmists claim it means. Etc.

I believe we need to strongly curtail pollution. I believe we need to change many of agricultural practices. I believe we really need to reduce waste. Old SuperFund sites need to be cleaned up. And so forth. I love clean air and clean water.

But the alarmists plans are basically economic today, as I posted in one article, where the co-chair of the IPCC admitted that current efforts are all about income redistribution from the 1st world to the 3rd.

Exporting our factories to China, allowing them to pollute like mad, then shipping the goods here is much worse for the planet than producing goods here under tight environmental controls and with minimal distribution monetary and carbon costs. Yet these issues are largely ignored.

So many environmental initiatives have a cronistic purpose. Cap and trade has been a profit vehicle for Wall Street. Many solar power boondoggles were gifts to Democratic operatives. Ethanol is a disaster. Etc.

As long as it is hyper political, we will not actually solve anything. But the solution isn't for those that oppose the alarmists to give up. No, it is for the alarmists to stop treating science as a religion and tone down the scare tactics.

The more an effort attempts to bully the opposition, the more the opposition will resist.

Instead of dogmatism and convert or die alleged consensus, it would be better to calmly discuss the matters. The skeptics are bright people who easily see the holes in the propaganda. The alarmists have been trying to dismiss them as shills for oil companies, but that just allows the alarmists to feel good in ignoring the skeptics' very valid points.

Nothing can't be solved, but alarmists keep with the act that we must act immediately or we will all die and kill the planet. Such talk is extremely counterproductive....

You are grossly uninformed and run on with very little facts into huge hypothesis and hyperbole and it's extremely grating because in 1970, we had not yet overshot our global resources, and the global cooling theory was short lived by one major scientist and HAS BEEN DISPROVEN SINCE 1980.

It's like listening to someone rambling on about the illuminati, but with much more dangerous consequences.

 

[Thalassa]

Ok. Then both sides aren't addressing the issue of climate change.

If climate change is an issue, and both sides are in agreement it is, why not attempt to bridge the gaps, rather than cry louder over the other?

Even talking about policy.

A better title of this thread should be:

What policies (if any) should be enacted to protect our environment? Explain your reasoning.

That would be more interesting to me.

There is no "alarmism" ...there is only science and people who deny it because their fears outweigh their ability to quit living in denial, or because their value attachment to right wing libertarianism outweighs their reason. The global cooling that Bozo and Friends keep bringing up was a short magazine article and mild controversy in the mid-to-late 70s, and now has over 35 years of scientific research on top of that (which is one of the reasons ExxonMobil is being sued, because they had knowledge of warming since 1980, and have gone out of their way to conceal the evidence).

The NASA web site is a great place to start with facts instead of right wing conspiracy theories, barring actually taking classes.

To answer your question, though, everything which destroys our earth in concrete terms (land waste, air and water pollution, water waste, exhaustible and non-renewable resource overshoot) are the same things which cause global warming, which is why every other sane first world country outside of the United States isn't even having this debate, because even if you are a skeptic, if you deny things like air and water pollution or resources shortages, you probably should be flown back to the 19th century in a time machine (not you, specifically, you generally).

So anything that can be enacted to protect land, air, water and resources will help counteract global warming anyway (though some scientists maintain its too late, and there's some amazing research being done on how to store or recycle carbon emissions).

 

[Thalassa]

Source: Scientists have found a perfect illustration of how the climate is spiraling ‘out of control’ - The Washington Post

When I was a kid I don't remember summers to be this hot. I could stay all day in the Sun and run all day without becoming overheated. Back in the day, high temperature was 34C and that was one or two day max in July. We now have these temperatures in June and late August, for extended periods of time. Winter snow? Forget it. It snows a few days a year and it melts quickly. There is scientific evidence and I see it too.

I saw that people spoke about "believing" in science is like a religion. Religion can only wish. Science has no problem being proven wrong and it will correct itself. Now try to suggest that religion is wrong. Observe the results and draw your own conclusion. That statement is pretty naive. But the phrasing that people "believe" in science takes the crown. Science is not a belief system. It doesn't care about your petty beliefs. Science works. The fact that this forum exists and that people can post stupid things like that isn't because someone believed in science and prayed for science. It is because science works.

Global warming is only a "theory" in as much as evolution is a "theory" (meaning it's about 99.9999 percent)...the people in this thread who are denying global warming speak as though it's a recent hypothesis, rather than a tested and researched and constantly updated, almost 40 year old scientific theory. They're discussing it as though it were a single event that happened in the 90s, rather than a condition ongoing daily, which is bizarre, not only for the reasons which you state, but due to photographic evidence of not only severe drought or images of global carbon cover, but also images of arctic and anarctic ice, with explanations of the two kind of ice on each pole, as well as destroyed coral reefs and rising sea levels. You can concretely look at global warming in photographs, and it's become dramatically worse just since 2002. We are living in the hottest global year in recorded human history.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

You are grossly uninformed and run on with very little facts into huge hypothesis and hyperbole and it's extremely grating because in 1970, we had not yet overshot our global resources, and the global cooling theory was short lived by one major scientist and HAS BEEN DISPROVEN SINCE 1980.

It's like listening to someone rambling on about the illuminati, but with much more dangerous consequences.

I posted dozens of articles on the global cooling era. I can repost them again in this thread. It was a big deal back then, a widely held belief.

Again, dropping the Chicken Little act would be best for the extremists. One can only cry wolf for so long.

Perhaps you should give skeptics the benefit of the doubt, that they are acting in good faith. Perhaps you can accept that they have scientifically reasonable basis for opposing the climate exchange agenda. Perhaps you can even read articles on the subject from opponents.

Oh, well. You seem to just want to push an agenda. Have fun, but I suspect your converts here will be limited...

 

[Thalassa]

I posted dozens of articles on the global cooling era. I can repost them again in this thread. It was a big deal back then, a widely held belief.

Again, dropping the Chicken Little act would be best for the extremists. One can only cry wolf for so long.

Perhaps you should give skeptics the benefit of the doubt, that they are acting in good faith. Perhaps you can accept that they have scientifically reasonable basis for opposing the climate exchange agenda. Perhaps you can even read articles on the subject from opponents.

Oh, well. You seem to just want to push an agenda. Have fun, but I suspect your converts here will be limited...

Oh Jesus give me patience. The articles you post are all from ridiculous, unscrupulous or politicized sources, while I've offered nothing but information collected daily by the world's largest hub of environmental science.

Trust me, bub, I'd be happier than anyone here to see that global warming had suddenly reversed, and that I could spend my life on resources management.

If by "agenda" you mean posting facts that are accepted by 97 percent of the world's scientists, and explaining there's not only theoretical but concrete evidence for man made global warming, to override possibly the most destructive form of stupidity known to man with the exception of war itself, then yes by all means I have an agenda.

But in the way you mean it, no, I have no agenda. It's like you're saying gays have an agenda, that's how ridiculous what you're saying sounds. I profit on this in no way financially, and likely never will, because I am going to do hands on conservation, management and teaching, so I would still have a job ahead of me if global warming reversed tomorrow. HOWEVER, the people who are telling you that global cooling is a viable theory are profiting from people being denial, because they use it to justify continuing to destroy the earth.

I mean, bloody hell man, what part of hottest global year in recorded human history don't you understand? Or do you not "believe" in temperature?

 

[Thalassa]

In fact, how about you compare this to Pascal's wager...except that in this case the odds are stacked in tangible terms against the "non believers" to closing in on 100 percent.

If you are willing to throw your progeny and humanity away to the shittiest odds you could possibly have if you were a betting man, I'm obviously not the one with an "agenda."

 

[Virtual ghost]

Oh Jesus give me patience. The articles you post are all from ridiculous, unscrupulous or politicized sources, while I've offered nothing but information collected daily by the world's largest hub of environmental science.

Trust me, bub, I'd be happier than anyone here to see that global warming had suddenly reversed, and that I could spend my life on resources management.

If by "agenda" you mean posting facts that are accepted by 97 percent of the world's scientists, and explaining there's not only theoretical but concrete evidence for man made global warming, to override possibly the most destructive form of stupidity known to man with the exception of war itself, then yes by all means I have an agenda.

But in the way you mean it, no, I have no agenda. It's like you're saying gays have an agenda, that's how ridiculous what you're saying sounds. I profit on this in no way financially, and likely never will, because I am going to do hands on conservation, management and teaching, so I would still have a job ahead of me if global warming reversed tomorrow. HOWEVER, the people who are telling you that global cooling is a viable theory are profiting from people being denial, because they use it to justify continuing to destroy the earth.

I mean, bloody hell man, what part of hottest global year in recorded human history don't you understand? Or do you not "believe" in temperature?

I think that the guy can't get one fact. Which is that for the last few million years we are in the ice age that has warmer periods and one of them is this last 10 000 years in which human civilization was created. However naturally we should return into the full ice age and that would be normal to expect.

But instead we got the second half of 20th century when energy consumption and population went through the roof. Therefore we changed the properties of the atmosphere and now we have unnatural turn of events, that we will not like in the end at all. Since it leads to redefinition and change of everything we know.


He is probably right about ice age stuff but that is under current circumstances irrelevent for the story. Since natural order no longer exists, because we are digging carbon wherever we find it and therefore we made the fundamental change to the system.

 

[Thalassa]

I think that the guy can't get one fact. Which is that for the last few million years we are in the ice age that has warmer periods and one of them is this last 10 000 years in which human civilization was created. However naturally we should return into the full ice age and that would be normal to expect.

But instead we got the second half of 20th century when energy consumption and population went through the roof. Therefore we changed the properties of the atmosphere and now we have unnatural turn of events, that we will not like in the end at all. Since it leads to redefinition and change of everything we know.


He is probably right about ice age stuff but that is under current circumstances irrelevent for the story. Since natural order no longer exists, because we are digging carbon wherever we find it and therefore we made the fundamental change to the system.

Thank you for adding your scientific voice to this thread. In person I tend to stay fairly calm when discussing these things, but it's usually because I'm either in a teaching capacity or within a class room where I am a student, or with friends. I don't typically socialize with the sort of person who denies climate science, because. ..why would I. I believe it's more effective to teach children, young people and open minded adults, since I'm so easily annoyed by the "but you think it's hotter because of air conditioning" (one of the number one reasons I no longer live in the South, just because the style of thinking, not the environment specifically). I also get perturbed by the "just because I'm skeptical it makes me a scientific thinker" argument, because technically paranoid schizophrenics are also "skeptical" (just in the extreme, of agreed upon human reality, of which climate change qualifies, at this point, though maybe not in the 70s/80s in earlier stages of research). Also I think there tends to be an attitude online of "my opinion is as valid is yours" which is fine for discussion of diet, marriage, politics, sex, clothes or music, but becomes absolutely ludicrous when discussing certain scientific matters. In these cases, appeal to authority actually is the most intelligent option. So thank you for your expertise...though I think people like "that guy" are unmoved by calm, rational expertise which is ironic, because then it absolutely requires more evangelical types like me to throw a rubber ball at their head to get their attention. It's obviously a waste of time in this case.

All that being said, to any interested parties, I still have zero agenda about global warming except for the saving of human and animal life. I'm not personally invested in it continuing to exist. If experts found it had reversed a year from now, I would be happier to be wrong than I ever have been in my life, I think.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Thank you for adding your scientific voice to this thread. In person I tend to stay fairly calm when discussing these things, but it's usually because I'm either in a teaching capacity or within a class room where I am a student, or with friends. I don't typically socialize with the sort of person who denies climate science, because. ..why would I. I believe it's more effective to teach children, young people and open minded adults, since I'm so easily annoyed by the "but you think it's hotter because of air conditioning" (one of the number one reasons I no longer live in the South, just because the style of thinking, not the environment specifically). I also get perturbed by the "just because I'm skeptical it makes me a scientific thinker" argument, because technically paranoid schizophrenics are also "skeptical" (just in the extreme, of agreed upon human reality, of which climate change qualifies, at this point, though maybe not in the 70s/80s in earlier stages of research). Also I think there tends to be an attitude online of "my opinion is as valid is yours" which is fine for discussion of diet, marriage, politics, sex, clothes or music, but becomes absolutely ludicrous when discussing certain scientific matters. In these cases, appeal to authority actually is the most intelligent option. So thank you for your expertise...though I think people like "that guy" are unmoved by calm, rational expertise which is ironic, because then it absolutely requires more evangelical types like me to throw a rubber ball at their head to get their attention. It's obviously a waste of time in this case.

All that being said, to any interested parties, I still have zero agenda about global warming except for the saving of human and animal life. I'm not personally invested in it continuing to exist. If experts found it had reversed a year from now, I would be happier to be wrong than I ever have been in my life, I think.

Well "The guy" is basically just the outcome of my bluntness and clumsy English. To be honest SfP doesn't strike me as a person with bad intentions, however he obviously isn't a scientist and observes the problem from more political point of view. (just as majority of people) However when you go into that perspective you can't understand the problem since media on both sides are saying all kinds of things, however this isn't science but dirty political struggle. Suggested solutions to the problems are also bad or incomplete, but that doesn't change the fact that we have the problem in geochemical sense. (as videos that I posted suggest)

 

[Thalassa]

Well "The guy" is basically just the outcome of my bluntness and clumsy English. To be honest SfP doesn't strike me as a person with bad intentions, however he obviously isn't a scientist and observes the problem from more political point of view. (just as majority of people) However when you go into that perspective you can't understand the problem since media on both sides are saying all kinds of things, however this isn't science but dirty political struggle. Suggested solutions to the problems are also bad or incomplete, but that doesn't change the fact that we have the problem in geochemical sense. (as videos that I posted suggest)

I don't know. I mean I don't think he's an evil environmental terrorist and am sure he loves his children, but he has a rather offensive emphasis on touting absurd and easily debunked claims about global cooling, etc ...it's excessive. Like. ..most people who don't care, who are just selfish, or maybe oblivious, or simply uncertain of whom to trust, don't really talk about climate science at all. If they do, it's in passing, like maybe a couple of comments, but they don't start multiple threads or attempt to persuade others. It strikes me as politically odd, even, coming from someone who backed Bernie Sanders, as he was universally recognized as the only major American candidate who had a solid and truly ethical stance on environmental policy. Clinton does not, she spread hydraulic fracturing throughout the world, accepts bribes from oil companies in the form of campaign donations, and has been blamed for the murder of indigenous environmental activist, Berta Caceres, whose daughter came up from South America JUST TO PROTEST THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTIONS. SFP isn't your typical disengaged self absorbed oblivious person who simply doesn't know or care, he isn't even on the American right wing...the whole business is extraordinarily bizarre. In the beginning I thought he might be trolling me, now I'm just at a loss to what his motivation could possibly be, because it does not even make sense. It strikes me as some one with an axe to grind to egoistic purposes.

There's a difference between saying "yes but some environmentalists are hypocritical" (the inconvenient truth is that Al Gore needs a smaller house) or arguing about SOLUTIONS ...and actively attempting to wage a forum crusade against climate science.

But anyway, overall, you are correct of course.