Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Apparently climate change deniers still exist


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 January 2015 - 05:46 PM

I was reading an assigned article about being open-minded and not being gullible for school and stuff, and I came across this curious quote:

Be Skeptical When Little or No Evidence is Given

My general rule of thumb is that extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence.

On the issue of global warming, for example, the statement is that the actions of people can, in essence, cause massive disruption to the planet. That kind of statement needs extraordinary evidence.

The only evidence offered, however, is computer models that can’t even reproduce the past and one kind of temperature measurement (surface temperatures) that are the least reliable on a global scale.


Apparently the author forgot about the whole 97% of scientists agree that climate change is happening, and that it is caused by humans. I am frankly disappointed that my school is promoting this bull, and I find it just a bit ironic that an article about being open-minded is so close-minded on a monumental issue that affects us today.

 

Also, this quote comes up a bit later, which literally made me facepalm.

 

Be skeptical of “lone gunmen”

While a single individual might very well be right about an issue, it is easier for such a person to end up being wrong, because he or she just doesn’t have all the expertise necessary to tackle an issue. Groups with a variety of experts are more likely to be correct than a single individual.

Kent Hovind makes a lot of mistakes in his presentations because he does not subject himself to peer review. For example, he talks about a dinosaur fossil being carbon dated as tens of thousands of years old to show that carbon dating is wrong, but the carbon that was dated was NOT from the fossil.



#2 Adam

Adam
  • Coffee God


  • 4,361 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 January 2015 - 05:48 PM

Great quote bro.

 

What school do you go to? I'll make sure to not attend that institution. 



#3 Swar

Swar
  • com muito orgulho, com muito amor <3


  • 9,100 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 January 2015 - 05:48 PM

Interesting quote.



#4 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 January 2015 - 05:50 PM

Interesting quote.

In what way is it interesting? :p



#5 Swar

Swar
  • com muito orgulho, com muito amor <3


  • 9,100 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 January 2015 - 05:51 PM

In what way is it interesting? :p

 

Oh, nevermind. It isn't so interesting anymore.



#6 Adam

Adam
  • Coffee God


  • 4,361 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 January 2015 - 05:52 PM

In what way is it interesting? :p

It wasn't there for a minute or two, that's how interesting it was. 



#7 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 January 2015 - 05:53 PM

Oh, nevermind. It isn't so interesting anymore.

Reminder: my computer is really weird and doesn't let me format stuff properly when I first post a topic. I have to fix it later after I post a topic, which means there's a 1-2 minute delay between posting a topic and having everything typed out.



#8 DonValentino

DonValentino
  • Neocodex Handegg League Champion/Daddy

  • 2,462 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 January 2015 - 06:04 PM

It's good to be skeptical and question everything and make conclusions for yourself, they're not wrong about that. But not being an idiot is also a good idea.



#9 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 January 2015 - 06:34 PM

It's good to be skeptical and question everything and make conclusions for yourself, they're not wrong about that. But not being an idiot is also a good idea.

I know, and the first statement in the first quote was right on. It just turns out that he is completely and utterly wrong about climate change.


Also, I basically ended up writing a research paper on climate change on the one paragraph that I was supposed to write in response to the article :p 



#10 Kway

Kway
  • Proud to be a Brony

  • 1,200 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 January 2015 - 09:13 PM

Double standards... how do they work?

 

cold.png



#11 Jess

Jess
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴



  • 9,218 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 January 2015 - 08:32 AM

And we all know scientists are never wrong.



#12 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 January 2015 - 01:19 PM

I don't think 97% of scientists, experts on climate control, used varied scientific studies and standards over decades are wrong.

Unless you're one of these

"All science is bad because it's backed by big pharma, blah blah Jesus christ"

#13 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 January 2015 - 03:30 PM

And we all know scientists are never wrong.

Do you have evidence to the contrary regarding climate change? :p

#14 Hawk

Hawk
  • hawk·ish·ly

  • 9,682 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 January 2015 - 04:27 PM

Throwing this out there right now, I have not thoroughly researched climate change research, and therefore do not have a stance for this debate.  While it is well outside my area of expertise, a few things have rubbed me the wrong way.

 

The only evidence offered, however, is computer models that can’t even reproduce the past and one kind of temperature measurement (surface temperatures) that are the least reliable on a global scale.

A claim like that requires a published, peer reviewed paper.  I do not know if one exists, I'm not going to look for it now.

 

Apparently the author forgot about the whole 97% of scientists agree that climate change is happening, and that it is caused by humans. 

Without further information about those scientists, that statistic is worthless. My biggest problem with that statement, without knowing more about that statistic, is that you're reaching into the "Appeal to authority" fallacy territory.  I did look into it, though, and will address it later on.

 

I am frankly disappointed that my school is promoting this bull, and I find it just a bit ironic that an article about being open-minded is so close-minded on a monumental issue that affects us today.

I find humor in that.  You're being as equally close-minded and have not sourced your 97% statement yet.  I dug into it for all of thirty seconds and found a good article you may want to read.  A quick excerpt:

 

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

The whole article is pretty good, and I suggest you give it a quick look over.  You may need to Google "97% Climate Change" to see the full article.

 

Anyways- Climate change is such a muddy topic, and has a whole host of issues:

  • Is the climate actually doing anything abnormal?  The earth has been around a hell of a lot longer than we've been keeping records.  Once again, I have not researched it enough - I'm sure we can have a good idea of previous climates based on ice core records and geology, but I do not know.
  • If it is acting abnormal, is it our fault?  If it is our fault, how was that determined?
  • If you're a researcher - Who is funding this research, and what do they want to hear?

Just some stuff to consider.



#15 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 January 2015 - 09:06 PM

Without further information about those scientists, that statistic is worthless. My biggest problem with that statement, without knowing more about that statistic, is that you're reaching into the "Appeal to authority" fallacy territory.  I did look into it, though, and will address it later on.

 

I find humor in that.  You're being as equally close-minded and have not sourced your 97% statement yet.  I dug into it for all of thirty seconds and found a good article you may want to read.  A quick excerpt:

 

The whole article is pretty good, and I suggest you give it a quick look over.  You may need to Google "97% Climate Change" to see the full article.

 

Anyways- Climate change is such a muddy topic, and has a whole host of issues:

  • Is the climate actually doing anything abnormal?  The earth has been around a hell of a lot longer than we've been keeping records.  Once again, I have not researched it enough - I'm sure we can have a good idea of previous climates based on ice core records and geology, but I do not know.
  • If it is acting abnormal, is it our fault?  If it is our fault, how was that determined?
  • If you're a researcher - Who is funding this research, and what do they want to hear?

Just some stuff to consider.

Funny enough, the article I read itself advocated appeal to authority, so that's what I did. Here is the quote from the article again:

 

Be skeptical of “lone gunmen”

While a single individual might very well be right about an issue, it is easier for such a person to end up being wrong, because he or she just doesn’t have all the expertise necessary to tackle an issue. Groups with a variety of experts are more likely to be correct than a single individual.

My source for the 97% stat is from the NASA website. In addition, this 97% figure has been repeatedly affirmed by multiple scientists. See quote:

 

Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence.  For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004 Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research.  Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts.  Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.

In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus.  Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming.  Only one has ever rejected the consensus - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.

In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade.  It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial.

Source

 

CO2 levels have been skyrocketing, and yes it is because of humans. You can check the CO2 levels on this website. There are also ice core records.

Temperatures have risen a couple of degrees. Here is a good chart representing average temperatures in the US, on the EPA website.

 

And also, xkcd points out that it doesn't matter what you or I believe. 

global_warming.png

 

There are literally hundreds of more studies and peer reviewed scientific papers on climate change. These are just some sources I found in a short time. 



#16 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 January 2015 - 02:05 AM

The only thing that's debatable on climate change is the cause. The climate is definitely changing but whether it's all down to human activity, a combination of human activity and natural change (like albedo changes, volcanic eruptions, Milankovitch cycles etc) or whether it's all a natural phenomenon I'm undecided on. I tend to lean towards the middle of those options because there's no doubt the Earth's climate has changed dramatically on its own in the past but the current rate over the last 100 years or so is pretty scary.



#17 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3,638 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 January 2015 - 06:09 AM

The only thing that's debatable on climate change is the cause. The climate is definitely changing but whether it's all down to human activity, a combination of human activity and natural change (like albedo changes, volcanic eruptions, Milankovitch cycles etc) or whether it's all a natural phenomenon I'm undecided on. I tend to lean towards the middle of those options because there's no doubt the Earth's climate has changed dramatically on its own in the past but the current rate over the last 100 years or so is pretty scary.

 

Yep. But there's little evidence to suggest that volcanism has had an appreciable impact on contemporary warming (some are concerned that increased volcanic aerosols in the atmosphere might be masking recent warming, since GHGs have longer residence times in the atmosphere than aerosols), albedo changes tend to be a result of icemelt (warming), and one would expect the planet to currently be cooling based on Milankovitch cycles. :p We have a surprisingly good understanding of the Earth's past climate, and the current atmospheric GHG levels are unprecedented, not to mention projections for the future.



#18 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 January 2015 - 06:59 AM

Yep. But there's little evidence to suggest that volcanism has had an appreciable impact on contemporary warming (some are concerned that increased volcanic aerosols in the atmosphere might be masking recent warming, since GHGs have longer residence times in the atmosphere than aerosols), albedo changes tend to be a result of icemelt (warming), and one would expect the planet to currently be cooling based on Milankovitch cycles. :p We have a surprisingly good understanding of the Earth's past climate, and the current atmospheric GHG levels are unprecedented, not to mention projections for the future.

 

I was just giving examples of things which affect the climate naturally as opposed to human activities, I wasn't commenting on their current impact on the global climate. ;)



#19 Hawk

Hawk
  • hawk·ish·ly

  • 9,682 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 January 2015 - 05:08 PM

The only thing that's debatable on climate change is the cause. The climate is definitely changing but whether it's all down to human activity, a combination of human activity and natural change (like albedo changes, volcanic eruptions, Milankovitch cycles etc) or whether it's all a natural phenomenon I'm undecided on. I tend to lean towards the middle of those options because there's no doubt the Earth's climate has changed dramatically on its own in the past but the current rate over the last 100 years or so is pretty scary.

Basically what I got at with the first two bullet points I had at the bottom of my previous post.

 

Nitro -

Apparently you're massively invested into proving human made climate change is real.  If that's what you're into, more power to you.  By nearly all metrics I would agree the climate is changing, but you've done little to convince me that climate change is directly attributable to mankind's actions (And if a portion is attributable, how much).

 

Let's just take a step back and look at historical trends determined from ice core sampling.  The following image is EPA provided, but similar data can be found elsewhere.

1-3-temp-CO2.gif

The trend repeats itself about four times over the last 400,000 years.  The last Ice Age wrapped up about 10,000 years ago, and we very well could still be in the rising temperatures part of the trend.  The timescale you're looking at when you post links to plots that only extend back 115 years and 57 years, respectively, is laughable.  I'm glad the data is being collected, but we need far more data than what is present now to make any strong decision one way or another.  I want the models to exist to show mankind's contribution, if any, to climate change.  Unfortunately, that's terribly complex and the models thus far relatively inaccurate.

 

Finally, to quote the late George Carlin, "We're so self-important. So arrogant. Everybody's going to save something now. . . . And, by the way, there's nothing wrong with the planet in the first place. The planet is fine. The people are fucked!"



#20 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3,638 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 January 2015 - 05:47 PM

I was just giving examples of things which affect the climate naturally as opposed to human activities, I wasn't commenting on their current impact on the global climate. ;)

 

Oh. Uh. Right. :p

 

Basically what I got at with the first two bullet points I had at the bottom of my previous post.

 

Nitro -

Apparently you're massively invested into proving human made climate change is real.  If that's what you're into, more power to you.  By nearly all metrics I would agree the climate is changing, but you've done little to convince me that climate change is directly attributable to mankind's actions (And if a portion is attributable, how much).

 

Let's just take a step back and look at historical trends determined from ice core sampling.  The following image is EPA provided, but similar data can be found elsewhere.

1-3-temp-CO2.gif

The trend repeats itself about four times over the last 400,000 years.  The last Ice Age wrapped up about 10,000 years ago, and we very well could still be in the rising temperatures part of the trend.  The timescale you're looking at when you post links to plots that only extend back 115 years and 57 years, respectively, is laughable.  I'm glad the data is being collected, but we need far more data than what is present now to make any strong decision one way or another.  I want the models to exist to show mankind's contribution, if any, to climate change.  Unfortunately, that's terribly complex and the models thus far relatively inaccurate.

 

Finally, to quote the late George Carlin, "We're so self-important. So arrogant. Everybody's going to save something now. . . . And, by the way, there's nothing wrong with the planet in the first place. The planet is fine. The people are fucked!"

 

The cyclical nature of climate has been well-established for nearly 100 years, now.The fact that we've recently entered a deglaciation doesn't change that current CO2 levels (400ppm+) are unprecedented in the last several million years, that CO2 increase has be inexorably linked to temperature increase (in case anyone brings up the time lag), and that anthropogenic climate change poses a dire threat to billions of people. 

 

Developing models for future change is difficult (in large part due to the uncertainty of future CO2 emissions), but I trust the hundreds of climate scientists working with the IPCC more than you when it comes to their accuracy.



#21 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 January 2015 - 05:55 PM

 

 

Apparently you're massively invested into proving human made climate change is real.  If that's what you're into, more power to you.  By nearly all metrics I would agree the climate is changing, but you've done little to convince me that climate change is directly attributable to mankind's actions (And if a portion is attributable, how much).

@Hawk How have I not convinced you that man made climate change is happening? Please reread this quote:

 

Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence.  For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004 Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research.  Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts.  Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.

In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus.  Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming.  Only one has ever rejected the consensus - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.

In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade.  It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial.

 

Source

 

All of these organizations, all of these studies, all of these peer reviewed journals, all of these stats don't indicate that scientists think that man made climate change is happening? 

 

Also, your graphic regarding CO2 is a bit misleading. The entire graph never exceeds 300ppm in 400,000 years of cyclical nature. Right now we are at 400ppm, a historical outlier.



#22 HiMyNameIsNick

HiMyNameIsNick
  • Shitlord


  • 1,719 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 January 2015 - 06:13 PM

I don't believe in climate change either. I have made a bit of research (not just on the internet) but I will not post it yet. 

By the way, CO2 have nothing (or little) to do with climate change.



#23 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 January 2015 - 06:46 PM

I don't believe in climate change either. I have made a bit of research (not just on the internet) but I will not post it yet. 

Huh. Did you do a scientific study or something? 



#24 HiMyNameIsNick

HiMyNameIsNick
  • Shitlord


  • 1,719 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 January 2015 - 06:50 PM

Huh. Did you do a scientific study or something? 

 

 

Yes. With a physicist, electronic engineer, ambiental engineer and a geographer.



#25 Hawk

Hawk
  • hawk·ish·ly

  • 9,682 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 January 2015 - 07:00 PM

@Hawk How have I not convinced you that man made climate change is happening? Please reread this quote:

Source

 

All of these organizations, all of these studies, all of these peer reviewed journals, all of these stats don't indicate that scientists think that man made climate change is happening? 

 

Also, your graphic regarding CO2 is a bit misleading. The entire graph never exceeds 300ppm in 400,000 years of cyclical nature. Right now we are at 400ppm, a historical outlier.

@ortin

 

Since you're still pressing the issue using NASA - I'll address my problems with the cited studies they give for 97% consensus, starting with the most recent:

 

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

  • I disagree with the way they binned viewpoints, which is outlined here.  The way it is presented is a consensus, "Humans caused climate change", when in reality the scientists could be saying "Humans contributed to climate change", or "Humans helped accelerate climate change", or "Humans may play a part in climate change."
  • The methodology may not have been the best, but I do not know a better way at this time to deal with the issues brought up here.

 

Second article:

 P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

  • It's not a study.  It's a poll that is being cited as a reason to indiscriminately believe humans are the cause of climate change.
  • My biggest problem is they polled 10,257 scientists, received 3,146 replies, and used 77 respondents (Limited to 'Expert Climatologists') to come up with the 97.4% statistic.  For reference, there are over 8,000 climatologists in the U.S. alone.

Third:

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

  • I actually like this source, but the author comes up with 75% of the publications either explicitly or implicitly agreeing with the consensus.  The none directly opposing the consensus is a nice statistic, but once again, the way this source was referenced in your above quote, proves there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

 

I didn't want this to turn into a research session for me.  It's beyond my field of expertise, but all scientific claims should be met with skepticism.  To say climate change is directly due (Meaning 100%, no help from any outside source) is most likely false.  With most things in life, the reality is likely in the middle (Natural + Man Made).  You are playing with an off-on light switch when in reality you need a dimmer switch. 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users