"Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

[macdoc]

cali and stars mea culpa

wrong board
have a toe over at rational skepti and got the two boards tangled as there are so many cross over members..

Calilasseia

was in blue here which back on dawks was reserved for mod status..but is his butterfly colour
...and he was mod on the evo thread there...and Stars ( Made of Stars is here as well ).

tis all too confusing....

Thanks for the mod support here....note signature

[Fact-Man]

So in other words, we're approaching "Peak Heat". Interesting.

"Peak heat" doesn't hardly amount to a hill of beans. It only took a 7C rise in earth's mean annual temperature (MAT) to bring an end to the last Ice Age.

Nevertheless it might be an interglacial "peak heat" right now except the fossile fuel indsutry has dumped millions of megatons of C02 into our atmosphere, pushing its concentration up from its preindustrial level of around 280ppm to 390 ppm and rising. In turn, that's caused earth's MAT to quite literally shoot up in an historically unprecedented manner and is driving it toward somewhere between +2C and +6C over 1970 levels a mere 90 years from today.

Hence, so-called "peak heat" will remain that and grow worse as time passes.

All the talk we hear about the cost of reducing emissions and mitigating global warming is at this point just so much hot air, much of it shot through with money making schemes created by nefarious parties, e.g., cap and trade.

Hey! That's my line! And I was soooo looking forward to saying "Don't blow smoke up my arse and tell me it's global warming".

Ya gotta be quick around here, dude.

The denialosphere has produced a lot of scary scenarios on this front as they try to browbeat people into doubting the science of AGW.

As scary as the propagandasphere?

This is about a quarter of an inch from trolling.

But I'll not rise to the bait and will say instead that you'd have to show some evidence of AGW scientists or adherents to it actually propagandizing with scare mongering before I'll award your remark any merit.

And should you'd like to see some evidence that a "denialosphere" exists, just ask, I've got megabytes of the stuff.

And thanks, Isopod for that David Bellamy article (even if it was in the Daily Mail ). I remember reading that at the time. (In a different newspaper!)

Mr. Bellamy has been thoroughly debunked, in case you hadn't noticed.

Cheers!

[ginckgo]

And thanks, Isopod for that David Bellamy article (even if it was in the Daily Mail ). I remember reading that at the time. (In a different newspaper!)

I'll repeat my question:

In the past I've been reading articles like this....
http://www.stopcambridgewindfarm.org.uk ... arming.htm

Does anyone know the actual bibliographic reference for the article he cites as "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over The Last Glacial Termination". Google it, and just about every instance only comes up with a direct quote from Bellamy's post.

Is he just making up a publication title that doesn't exist to support his assertions?

Up and down, up and down - that is how temperature and climate have always gone in the past and there is no proof they are not still doing exactly the same thing now. In other words, climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.

In fact, a recent scientific paper, rather unenticingly titled 'Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over The Last Glacial Termination,' proved it.

It showed that increases in temperature are responsible for increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.

[macdoc]

It showed that increases in temperature are responsible for increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.

not sure of context but author clearly does not understand that C02 levels are a feedback when they are not a forcing

[Reverend Blair]

Okay, somebody needs to start a death banjo band named the Hip Valley Jack Rafters. This is imperative. Read your carpentry text and all will be clear.

In the meantime:


And now that the requisite tuneage is out of the way...

Can somebody please, please explain the denialist mindset to me? I mean, I understand the whole politics/greed thing, and I even have a bit of a grasp of the whole "Man has dominion because god said so," thing.

Even so, for fuck sakes, it really isn't that complicated. Greenhouse gas traps heat in the atmosphere. We're spewing ghg's into the atmosphere. Things are heating up. The science behind it has more data than a Star Trek convention.

So what the hell is with these denialists? Peak heat? What's that? Sounds like a Sunny Day movie set in the mountains. It sure as hell isn't science though. If you can spell Milankovich, or even if you can't, that becomes clear pretty damned quick.

[macdoc]

Just look over yonder at the evo denialist mindset...peas in a pod.....and here's the proof

as we were saying

March 3, 2010
Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets
By LESLIE KAUFMAN

Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools.

In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”

continues

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/scien ... nted=print

climate change deniers now getting into the comedic relief zone....

[piscator]

Can somebody please, please explain the denialist mindset to me? I mean, I understand the whole politics/greed thing, and I even have a bit of a grasp of the whole "Man has dominion because god said so," thing.

Even so, for fuck sakes, it really isn't that complicated. Greenhouse gas traps heat in the atmosphere. We're spewing ghg's into the atmosphere. Things are heating up. The science behind it has more data than a Star Trek convention.

So what the hell is with these denialists? Peak heat? What's that? Sounds like a Sunny Day movie set in the mountains. It sure as hell isn't science though. If you can spell Milankovich, or even if you can't, that becomes clear pretty damned quick.

this does a pretty good job explaining the mindset...





http://www.waronscience.com/home.php

[Reverend Blair]

this does a pretty good job explaining the mindset...

Excellent. I'll put that on my list of things to buy.

[Mysturji]

First
viewtopic.php?p=353333#p353333 (Delusions of modhood)
- the on topic aspect was cleared with the Mods - it was stickied and is the result of a couple years work behind the scenes at dawkins - you may confirm that with mods here stars, prins etc. and your post was moved.
Bottom line you have your hackles up for no good reason and instead of discussing the issues you are discussing the boards structure and modding.

I must pull you up here Macdoc.

The two individuals you mention are not mods here. They never have been.

We agreed to stickying the thread and making sure that it stayed on topic. I am not very happy personally with that topic being so restrictive but, as long as this thread exists for all other relevant discussion aside from that narrow focus, I can live with it.

The initial antagonism here stemmed from that initial restriction on discussion. It is not the usual Ratz way of doing things and it was perhaps naïve to expect all of our existing members to simply accept it without complaint.

I think everyone understands the set up as it stands now, so please keep to the topic - which is GW and CC.

Thanks.

Thank you XC

[Luis Dias]

[Fact-Man]

Fact-man's definition of climate will do for me. I don't know where "30 years" came from - I would have said "a long period of time" - but I have no problem with it.

The 30-year period came from the World Meteorological Society. It is used as a benchmark for differentiating between weather and climate and although it could probably be seen as being a somewhat arbitrary span of time we do need a benchmark and this one's been in place for many, many years.

Generally, we cannot control weather, albeit we can seed clouds to cause rainfall.

But we can and are "controlling" climate, although doing so blindly and ignorannty. The GHGs we emit today will affect climate for hundreds of years to come because many of them are long-lived residents of the atmosphere.

[piscator]

there's a lot of empirical evidence to suggest that we can and do control "weather", whether we like it or not
despite the circular reasoning of denialists

[Fact-Man]

there's a lot of empirical evidence to suggest that we can and do control "weather", whether we like it or not despite the circular reasoning of denialists

I don't seem to hear many denialists referring to weather except in cases where they mistakenly point to it as an indicator of no warming. For the most part, denialists seek to either deny that warming is hapening at all or, if they agree that warming is indeed happening, they deny that's its cause is anthropogenic and attempt to attribute the cause to some other factor, such as changes in the sun's radiance.

My reference to humans being unable to control the weather pertained to any conscious or purposeful attempt to do so, which is I think where Mysturgi was coming from as well. There may well be unconscious things we do that have an affect on weather, emitting aerosols for example or particulates, but those are not things we do as part of any intended effort to control weather and are, rather, byproducts of other things we do purposefully.

[piscator]

there's a lot of empirical evidence to suggest that we can and do control "weather", whether we like it or not despite the circular reasoning of denialists

I don't seem to hear many denialists referring to weather except in cases where they mistakenly point to it as an indicator of no warming. For the most part, denialists seek to either deny that warming is hapening at all or, if they agree that warming is indeed happening, they deny that's its cause is anthropogenic and attempt to attribute the cause to some other factor, such as changes in the sun's radiance.

are you in he US?

My reference to humans being unable to control the weather pertained to any conscious or purposeful attempt to do so, which is I think where Mysturgi was coming from as well. There may well be unconscious things we do that have an affect on weather, emitting aerosols for example or particulates, but those are not things we do as part of any intended effort to control weather and are, rather, byproducts of other things we do purposefully.

my response was not directed at your post, but at the argument that is often made of, "Well, we can't change the weather, so let's not get too worked up about climate change"
and while it's true that we don't have much control over weather, it does not necessarily follow that we have no control over climate in the long term and that we should stick to the practices and business models that evidently have caused some concern in the science community

[Reverend Blair]