Climate change debate fueled by 'echo chambers,' study finds

May 26, 2015, National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center
Building blocks of an echo chamber. Credit: Jasney et al. Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2666

A new study from researchers at the University of Maryland (UMD) and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) demonstrates that the highly contentious debate on climate change is fueled in part by how information flows throughout policy networks.

The UMD and SESYNC researchers found that "echo chambers"—social network structures in which individuals with the same viewpoint share with each other—play a significant role in policy communication. The researchers say that echo chambers may help explain why, despite a well-documented scientific consensus on the causes and drivers of global changes in climate, half of U.S. senators voted earlier this year against an amendment affirming that is human-induced.

A peer-reviewed paper based on the study was published online May 25 in the journal Nature Climate Change.

"Our research shows how the echo chamber can block progress toward a political resolution on climate change. Individuals who get their information from the same sources with the same perspective may be under the impression that theirs is the dominant perspective, regardless of what the science says," said Dr. Dana R. Fisher, a professor of sociology at UMD and corresponding author who led the research.

In summer 2010, researchers surveyed the most active members of the U.S. climate policy network, including members of Congress and leaders of non-governmental organizations and business and trade unions. Respondents were asked questions about their attitudes toward and climate policy, as well as questions to establish their policy network connections. For example, respondents were asked to identify their sources of expert scientific information about climate change and with whom they collaborate on a regular basis regarding the issue of climate change.

"This time period was particularly interesting for studying climate policy because legislation regulating carbon dioxide emissions had passed through the House of Representatives and was being considered in the Senate. If passed, this bill would have been the first case of federal climate legislation passing through the U.S. Congress," Fisher said.

The researchers then used an exponential random graph (ERG) model—a complex statistical model for analyzing data about social and other networks—to test for the presence and significance of echo chambers among members of the U.S. network. In the "echo," two people who have the same outlook or opinion on a relevant issue share information, reinforcing what each already believes. In the "chamber," individuals hear information originating from one initial source through multiple channels.

"The model we used gives us a framework for empirically testing the significance of echo chambers," said Dr. Lorien Jasny, a computational social scientist at SESYNC and lead author of the paper. "We find that the occurrences of echo chambers are indeed statistically significant, meaning our model provides a potential explanation for why climate change denial persists in spite of the consensus reached by the scientific community."

The researchers say that echo chambers explain why outlier positions—for example, that climate-warming trends over the past century are likely not due to human activities—gain traction in the political sphere. The answer lies in the disproportionate connections among ideologically similar political communicators.

"Information has become a partisan choice, and those choices bias toward sources that reinforce beliefs rather than challenge them, regardless of the source's legitimacy," Fisher said.

Jasny and Fisher point out that the debate on climate change is not indicative of inconclusive science. Rather, the debate is illustrative of how echo chambers influence information flows in policy networks.

"Our research underscores how important it is for people on both sides of the to be careful about where they get their information. If their sources are limited to those that repeat and amplify a single perspective, they can't be certain about the reliability or objectivity of their information," Jasny said.

Explore further: Climate change attitudes are reflected on social networks

More information: "An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks, Jasney et al. Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2666

Related Stories

Climate change attitudes are reflected on social networks

May 11, 2015

People who believe in climate change have more Facebook friends than those who do not consider climate change a problem. Juha Itkonen's dissertation in economics shows that values and social networks are linked to opinions ...

Recommended for you

Research unlocks secrets of iron storage in algae

December 12, 2018

New research shows that phytoplankton iron storage strategies may determine which species thrive in changing oceans and impact marine food webs, according to a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. ...

Coral larvae found to prefer a noisy environment

December 12, 2018

A team of researchers with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has found that coral larvae prefer to set up a new home in a place noisy with other living organisms over a barren soundless site. In their paper published ...

172 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
2.4 / 5 (14) May 26, 2015
Fox.
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (9) May 26, 2015
I greatly enjoy reading this series of climate change "denialism" cause papers that physorg has recently started running. It's particularly fascinating how the researchers consistently avoid the subject of Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman -- particularly his writings on the subject of "Expert Intuition: When Can We Trust It".

For those that don't know about Kahneman, he created a two-systems-of-the-mind model to explain how and when people think irrationally. And he implicates academic researchers in his talks, which he has given all over the place (including Yale), just as much as laypeople. Keep in mind that he's pointing to fundamental aspects of the mind here, so these aspects could be responsible for thoughts shared by the entire scientific community.

Here is that key section, for those who would like a taste ...

https://plus.goog...tWErjFBW
Pattern_chaser
4.6 / 5 (9) May 26, 2015
Yes! Convincing people is not about facts, it's about how humans operate. This is advancing our understanding of how humans operate, so it's a real-world step toward addressing these issues. Hooray!
MR166
2.1 / 5 (14) May 26, 2015
"The researchers say that echo chambers may help explain why, despite a well-documented scientific consensus on the causes and drivers of global changes in climate, half of U.S. senators voted earlier this year against an amendment affirming that climate change is human-induced."

Right, these echo chambers only apply to non beliverers. The science has been proven!

Gentlemen this is dogma not real science!
MR166
2.5 / 5 (13) May 26, 2015
I like the part about "climate change is human-induced" the best, inferring that until man discovered oil the climate was unchanging.
gkam
2.4 / 5 (17) May 26, 2015
Like Reagan and Dubya, MR166 likes to assume things, which of course, makes them real to him.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (19) May 26, 2015
The dialog is moving away from climate science, which has failed to support the AGW assertions, to social science to find other ways to convince people of AGW.

Persistent irritants.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (15) May 26, 2015
Ah yes, the perfect echo chamber that is the empty space between the ears of the AGW Chicken Littles. It fuels the AGW Cult.
tadchem
5 / 5 (3) May 26, 2015
This is essentially an atomistic approach to the formation of what sociologists have been long calling a 'social reality'. It is a source of many cognitive biases in almost any human endeavor that relies upon interpersonal interactions - especially when politics, religion, and other controversial topics are involved.
marcush
3.8 / 5 (16) May 26, 2015
Yes there is a difference between an echo chamber and the scientific consensus. It is the difference between reading the scientific literature in a non-cherry picked manner vs reading what your favorite blog says. Most of you above are guilty of the latter.
MR166
2.2 / 5 (13) May 26, 2015
"Jasny and Fisher point out that the debate on climate change is not indicative of inconclusive science."

My god, according to them climate science is beyond debate. Do they realize how foolish they sound and how opinions like this among "scientists cast further doubt upon the science which they support?
marcush
3.9 / 5 (17) May 26, 2015
"Jasny and Fisher point out that the debate on climate change is not indicative of inconclusive science."

My god, according to them climate science is beyond debate. Do they realize how foolish they sound and how opinions like this among "scientists cast further doubt upon the science which they support?


Straw man. They are simply pointing out that the web debate has little to do with uncertainty in the scientific literature. However it is true that in the scientific literature there is little debate that AGW is real. While most of you denialists keep jabbering on to yourselves the rest of us take science seriously.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (6) May 26, 2015
"However it is true that in the scientific literature there is little debate that AGW is real."

Granted AGW is real. The problem is quantifying the changes due to man's activities and separating these changes from the changes caused by natural cycles which are beyond man's control.

The biggest problem with the climate models are that very little is known about these natural cycles or the earth's negative feedback loops that keep the climate in check.
DarkLordKelvin
3.9 / 5 (14) May 26, 2015
"However it is true that in the scientific literature there is little debate that AGW is real."

Granted AGW is real. The problem is quantifying the changes due to man's activities and separating these changes from the changes caused by natural cycles which are beyond man's control.

The biggest problem with the climate models are that very little is known about these natural cycles or the earth's negative feedback loops that keep the climate in check.
Can you support that last statement with a literature citation? Which natural cycles and negative feedback loops are you referring to?
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) May 26, 2015
"Can you support that last statement with a literature citation? Which natural cycles and negative feedback loops are you referring to?"

Oh I see there are no natural cycles and only positive feedback loops. Every change that we see today was predicted by the 100% accurate climate models and caused by man.
DarkLordKelvin
4 / 5 (16) May 26, 2015
"Can you support that last statement with a literature citation? Which natural cycles and negative feedback loops are you referring to?"

Oh I see there are no natural cycles and only positive feedback loops. Every change that we see today was predicted by the 100% accurate climate models and caused by man.


It was a question .. you made a claim, I asked you to support it .. that's how science works. Your reception of my question seems to belie a desire to eschew science and focus on politics .. I won't engage in political discussions, so you're on your own there. I also didn't suggest anything about climate model accuracy, or make any claims about feedback loops of any sort, one way or the other .. I just wanted you to expound a bit on your own claims before I responded to them. OK?

If you don't want to do that, then fine, but it makes for a pretty non-constructive discussion.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) May 26, 2015
Oh I see there are no natural cycles and only positive feedback loops. Every change that we see today was predicted by the 100% accurate climate models and caused by man.
@Mr
first off, DLK is right: you made a claim, now support it

because there IS natural as well as human caused feedback loops, and we ARE watching those as well as studying those
that is how we eventually came to the conclusion of AGW over natural methods, BTW
and you already know that, as we have discusses this in the past
in fact, Someone quoted Muller and then was immediately debunked with the following: https://www.youtu...8Dhr15Kw

to make another point: the natural feedback loops are why we are warm enough to support life, but it is also these same loops being exacerbated by human emissions which are causing the problems- see Lacis et al for further details on that one
(I've already linked that study to you as well- so you should have it)
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015
"However it is true that in the scientific literature there is little debate that AGW is real."

Granted AGW is real. The problem is quantifying the changes due to man's activities and separating these changes from the changes caused by natural cycles which are beyond man's control.

The biggest problem with the climate models are that very little is known about these natural cycles or the earth's negative feedback loops that keep the climate in check.
Can you support that last statement with a literature citation? Which natural cycles and negative feedback loops are you referring to?

How do you quantify what you do not know?

The way science should work is that the more one learns, the more one should question and realize how little one really knows.
But scientists today believe they know all with so little data to support their faith.
Eikka
3.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
There are basically three groups of people.

1) "The climate change isn't true or warrants no reaction."
2) "The climate change is true."
3) "The climate change is going to kill us all; buy my snakeoil and/or political opinion."

More subgroups could be named, but that's approximately it. The problem is that the consensus consists of both groups 2 and 3. If we ignore the first group entirely, then the only people left speaking are the hysterical and the political because the middle group can't get a word in edgewise.

And that is the really dangerous echo chamber. Not the ones that say "don't do anything".

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015
If we ignore the first group entirely, then the only people left speaking are the hysterical and the political because the middle group can't get a word in edgewise.
@Eikka
you may have a good point there
the danger with the first group is that they have more political pull (as well as more input for financial resources that are needed to find out what exactly should be done, which is where group 2 gets undermined by group 1)
Then group 3, run by politicians promotes something not supported by scientific studies, which is where a lot of snake oil comes into the mixture

so in a way, a lot of group 3 can be avoided if group 1 will quit undermining funding as well as promoting a known fallacy

but that is strictly IMHO
i've seen this at work in my own state, which is very progressive and tries hard to be ecologically responsible as well

IMHO - it will continue until we (society) are more scientifically literate
Eikka
5 / 5 (5) May 26, 2015
so in a way, a lot of group 3 can be avoided if group 1 will quit undermining funding as well as promoting a known fallacy


It's not a choice to have the group 3 because they choose to be themselves. They serve no purpose except their own, just as the group 1.

The only legitimate group we should be listening to is #2, but we are ill equipped to judge or separate them from the general discourse because of our own lack of competence in the subject, and because a truly unbiased scientist with no interest riding on the outcome wouldn't be trying to sell you any "solutions" one way or the other.

The greatest danger we face is not that we'd miss the opportunity to do anything about the climate change, but that we'd take the first opportunity to do something totally misguided or mismanaged and end up worse for wear when it actually hits us.
Eikka
5 / 5 (6) May 26, 2015
Then group 3, run by politicians promotes something not supported by scientific studies, which is where a lot of snake oil comes into the mixture


A more thorough dissemination of the third group would also reveal perfectly ordinary people who unwittingly operate under all sorts of magical thinking.

It's a psychological phenomenon that goes back ages, where people commit the fallacy of post hoc - ergo propter hoc; they percieve or fear something awful happening and connect it to some arbitrary action as the cause. It's the traditional "the gods are angry with us!" superstition, which leads to social taboos and weird irrational behaviour.

For example, opposing nuclear fusion because "we don't deserve unlimited power", which is a genuine comment I've spotted here, as if wearing a hair shirt would somehow atone the sins of man and help us survive or avert the coming pains.

If this is what drives political decision, then we absolutely need the deniers too.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015
we are ill equipped to judge or separate them from the general discourse because of our own lack of competence in the subject
@Eikka
yep, i can completely agree with you on this one
it is a cultural and social problem that stems from those same cultural issues
... we absolutely need the deniers too
not sure i can agree with this, though
i can agree that we need different opinions, and that having a different perspective is a good thing
however
deniers (especially those here) are not pushing any known science with their rhetoric, only lies, half-truths, cherry picked data and the like
and they have an agenda based upon the right now and $$$$, not science

this is the reason that so many people still actually think there IS a debate

you are right about one thing for sure
the last line of post about
The greatest danger we face...

i can understand and i totally agree
VERY well said

caution is necessary
and Science is VITAL to our success
Yohaku
3 / 5 (2) May 26, 2015
Now, if only they included the contributors to those congressmen's champagne into their data, some more truth about blindness to climate change would be clear to see. Or maybe the new line will be: God hates Texas.
ab3a
3 / 5 (14) May 26, 2015
There are two aspects to the climate change argument. The first is that the climate is changing. Gosh, I don't think many disagree with that. We can argue over how much effect humanity has contributed to this, whether it is changing faster or slower, and many more things. That's okay. That's how a study of climate works.

Where I part ways is when someone gets up and says: The Science Is Settled; We Must Do Something About This! First, this is a chaotic system. The science is NEVER settled.

Second, how? Build a centralize governance of carbon dioxide indulgences? When has anything on that scale ever worked in governance? The opportunity for corruption is unbelievable. Terraform the Earth? Okay, where are the models with enough accuracy to do that? And if we do, who gets what climate? Where shall we set the temperature?

This is not about echo chambers of ideas. This is not about science. This is pure politics.
denglish
2 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
In other words, arm yourself with populist rationalization, and your cause will win.
Wow. Demean and dehumanize your opponent. Nice.

No one argues that the Earth goes through climatic changes. What is questioned is why. Saying it is human induced and calling that conclusion "settled science" is not only lazy, it is criminal in that it has already cost humanity much treasure.

Co2 was a good candidate because no-one can find (or will find) any other reason. Those who posit other potential reasons for climate change are vilified.

Terrorize and Tax. Convince your friends that the "other side" is stuck in an "echo chamber!"

No. Who was that Soviet guy that ran his scientific findings based on state edict? The name escapes me.

Populist Science = Absurd
Bongstar420
1 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015
Really...Climate is now a 50yr scale thing huh?

...and the planet didn't already have wildly swinging climates for all of its history

...and the planet hadn't been warming since the little ice age

...and current temps are not in excess of many previous maximums and are pretty moderate when compared to all historical maximums.

denglish
Saying it is human induced and calling that conclusion "settled science" is not only lazy, it is criminal


No it is not. Climate scientists are of course open to other explanations. We have looked at many other contenders - Milankovich cycles, suns radiation, atmospheric content, albedo effect, vulcanism, etc. At this point - the other alternatives would sugest that we should be cooling. Please offer some other explanations.

Those who posit other potential reasons for climate change are vilified.


Please give some references to support this accusation.

[/q
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
We have looked at many other contenders -


But not all contenders.

Climate scientists are of course open to other explanations.


Not open enough.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 26, 2015
Ryggy
But scientists today believe they know all with so little data to support their faith.


No they don't - what a stupid thing to say. Please show us any scientific work that does not acknowledge how much there is left to know.


Climate 'scientists' keep saying the science is settled. Why do they say such stupid things?

"molecular biologist Gunther Stent suggests that science is reaching a point of incremental, diminishing returns as it comes up against the limits of knowledge"

"Vienna-born thinker Paul Feyerabend objects to science's pretensions to certainty and its potential to stamp out the diversity of human thought and culture. "
I agree with another Austrian.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (9) May 26, 2015
"No. Who was that Soviet guy that ran his scientific findings based on state edict? The name escapes me."
--------------------------------------

Lysenko? Did he not really find Epigenetics when the rest of us were scoffing?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 26, 2015
""When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly... he portrayed to me physics as a highly developed, almost fully matured science... Possibly in one or another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries."
- from a 1924 lecture by Max Planck (Sci. Am, Feb 1996 p.10)

""The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote.... Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."
- Albert. A. Michelson, speech at the dedication of Ryerson Physics Lab, U. of Chicago 1894 "
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 26, 2015
""I have begun to feel that there is a tendency in 20th Century science to forget that there will be a 21st Century science, and indeed a 30th Century science, from which vantage points our knowledge of the universe may appear quite different than it does to us. We suffer, perhaps, from temporal provincialism, a form of arrogance that has always irritated posterity. - J. Allen Hynek, letter to Science magazine, August 1, 1966 "
http://amasci.com...end.html

Why should the author write this letter to Science and why would Science publish such a letter if everyone, every scientist proclaimed how ignorant they were about the universe?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
Which ones have we not looked at?


Good question.

AGWites have limited options and pushed bad science to justify their faith.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 26, 2015
You really do say stupid things.

1966 is not that long ago for Science to say such 'stupid things'.

"Nine times out of 10, when I give my end of science spiel'whether to a Nobel laureate in physics or to some poor soul that I'm trapped at a cocktail party'the response is some variation of, "Oh, come on, that's what they thought 100 years ago." "
http://edge.org/d...e16.html

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 26, 2015
" One of my colleagues was thinking about publishing a paper that challenges the IPCC interpretation of the previous pause during the 1940s to 1970's. My colleague sent a .ppt presentation on this topic to three colleagues, each of whom is a very respected senior scientist and none of whom have been particularly vocal advocates on the subject of climate change (names are withheld to protect the guilty/innocent). Each of these scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics. "
"Peter Webster related a conversation at a professional meeting in 2010 with a young scientist who said something like: 'You know, Judy is REALLY unpopular among the scientists at lab. I'm not sure, but I think she might be right. I can say that to you but of course I wouldn't dare say that at the lab.'"
http://judithcurr...asoning/
patrick2015
1.6 / 5 (7) May 27, 2015
The point of interest is this, the climate of the Earth has been changing ever since the Earth was created, even before man was on the planet ice ages come and went. Bottom line is people are not buying the narrative that paying a global carbon tax will help; if indeed we could ever stop the nature process of climate warming or climate cooling.
patrick2015
1 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015
Also I might ADD Science should not become the NEW RELIGION of the world, where it's suggested finding are excepted without question. The one thing I personal love about Science is the seeking of truth, unlike traditional religions Science should not require Faith!
PhysicsMatter
1.7 / 5 (7) May 27, 2015
Echo chamber or rather dictatorship among scientists. History of science is patient witness to countless published volumes of masquerading as a science, thoughtless panegyrics excreted by top academics in quest for their self-aggrandizement and financial gain and dedicated solely to grandeur of their illustrious sponsors.

The truth is that if you have unique idea in science it is promptly squashed unless you come from so-called "prestigious" institution well endowed by "industry" or have important "non-contributing" contributors ready to benefit or profit from somebody's hard work.

The cancer of corporatism of scientific research and academia makes thing worse since is adding another layer or barrier to overcome corporate interests in addition to egos of "established" authorities.
PhysicsMatter
2.3 / 5 (7) May 27, 2015
The wider problem is catastrophic collapse of funding and erratic scrambling of scientists for leftover bread crumbs of research money sometimes by filing thirty or more research proposal a year everywhere practically begging for just few thousands $ while few scientific moguls command billions $.

Under such duress especially young scientists cannot afford to confront any ideas worshiped by members of proposal review panels. It leads inevitably strait to mediocrity and opportunism both killers of true science while proliferate volumes of incoherent utterances posing as research papers.

Open any scientific journal and examine for yourself mostly re-warmed half-century-old ideas and outright baseless speculations presented as facts. It sadly relates to global warming research as well.

More interesting observations about calcified scientific establishment I found at:
https://contraria...science/

Eikka
5 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015
"No. Who was that Soviet guy that ran his scientific findings based on state edict? The name escapes me."
--------------------------------------

Lysenko? Did he not really find Epigenetics when the rest of us were scoffing?


No. He believed that sowing seeds on the snow before it melts would make for more hardy grains, and plucking leaves off of cotton plants would create a species with less leaves and more cotton. It wasn't epigenetics, it was an even crankier version of Lamarckism, or basically the idea that if you stretch your neck then your babies will have longer necks. It resulted in a disaster, and the guy was tolerated because he had the right opinions about politics while the real scientists were sent to the gulag.

Epigenetics is about suppression of existing genes and features by external forces on the germline cells, not on arbitrary parts of the body.
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015
deniers (especially those here) are not pushing any known science with their rhetoric, only lies, half-truths, cherry picked data and the like and they have an agenda based upon the right now and $$$$, not science

this is the reason that so many people still actually think there IS a debate


There's an equally varied list of reasons for deniers. Don't ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained as ignorance. There's religious reasons, the same magical thinking, cognitive dissonance, money...

The point is that the deniers occupy the hysterics in debate and they both force each other to tone down by throwing the actual facts and evidence at one another. If it hadn't been for the deniers, we'd still be waving the Mann's hockey stick as a sort of religious gospel, like what happened 10 years ago.

Now it's not so kosher to wave it about because later science revealed that much of the actual effect then wasn't man-made afterall.
Eikka
3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015
...much of the actual effect then wasn't man-made afterall...

To elaborate: some of the means with which the climatologists are now trying to explain the slowdown in warming require previously unknown or ignored natural cycles and effects which are of roughly equal magnitude than the climate forcing caused by man, putting the question of man driving the climate in doubt afterall.

10 years ago everyone was pointing at the hockey stick graph and going "look what we've done!", but now it seems that much of that warming was due to the same phenomenon that is temporarily keeping the temperatures from rising further, like a pendulum in a moving railway car going faster than the car at one moment and slower at another to the outside observer.

So you can't take the hockey stick graph and say "look what you did!" anymore, because we didn't, or if we did then why aren't we doing it any more?

Now, if nobody had questioned the graph, what do you think we would have done?
Eikka
3.9 / 5 (7) May 27, 2015
Or a better question yet: how much harm HAS been done by people who took the Hockey Stick as gospel and instituted political change based on their hysteria?

For example, the whole German Energiewende that was sold to the public with the dire predictions of the exponential temperature increase graphs, which resulted in increasing energy poverty and tripling of domestic electricity prices in Germany without actually solving any of the fundamental issues relating to renewable energy.

Well, now the temperature isn't rising so fast anymore, there isn't such a hurry to get things done, and the public is stuck with a bill for hundreds of billions of euros in future subsidies that is slowing down development across the whole field.
slarmas
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2015
I think there is harm being done in this comments section. Many people use the term denier. If I hear that word I move on or stop listening. You can't deny something that is not yet determined. Assuming your side is right and calling everyone a denier is hate speech and generally means you have predetermined your position and are no longer open for discussion. This goes to both sides as I have heard it said by those who believe in anthropogenic climate change and those who do not. It honestly kills the conversation. Don't deny it :)
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
The phys.org echo chamber. First page stories commented:

"What would it take to limit climate change to 1.5 C?"
"Why Aussies aren't buying plug in cars"
This article
"Climate change altering freq/intensity of hurricanes"
"Sudden onset of ice loss in Antarctica detected"
"Morocco's majestic cedars threatened by climate change"
"UN seeks global action on climate change"
"The scientific consensus as a gateway belief for climate change and GMOs"

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015
Science should not require Faith!


It doesn't - it requires evidence.


"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'

Max Planck"

ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015
"Traditional European electrical power companies are losing as well. The wholesale price of electricity is down 50 percent in the last five years and conventional plants can no longer break even. An example is the Irsching high-efficiency natural gas plant in Germany. Built in 2010, it can operate at 60 percent efficiency. But the plant is not profitable as a backup to renewables. In March, the owners announced a shutdown of the plant."
http://dailycalle...-system/
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
"With devastating floods ravaging counties across Texas, the establishment Left isn't waiting for rescue workers to finish cleaning up the mess before they declare the culprit: climate change deniers."

"Prior to the 1950s, the extreme weather still existed as we learn from looking at the Great Texas Floods of 1935.

An article on TexasEscapes.com has details and photos on the floods that ravaged the state. Of course, applying the same 'correlation equals causation' fallacy, one might be tempted to blame that flooding on FDR and The New Deal… but let's just look at facts."
http://www.breitb...al-gain/

How did AGW cause the TX floods in 1869?
MR166
2 / 5 (8) May 27, 2015
The hyperbole that surrounds each and every natural weather event is indicative of political, corporate and media driven push behind the AGW science. Climate activists are fond of blaming the Koch brothers and oil companies for what they think is a huge amount of money funding people who disagree. In fact, funding of the AGW movement and the science that it creates runs in the billions of dollars and funding for dissenters is in the millions. As a scientist you have a choice to go with the AGW crowd and get funded or stand up against them and have your career ruined and then be investigated by congress.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015
...the Hockey Stick
@Eikka
Thanks for the input
The arguments you point to are valid
it also points out that following the political rather than the SCIENTIFIC argument is stupid

Man was a catalyst for the snake oil salesmen & opportunists like gore, but he was also a wake-up call to climate science AND the public, regardless of anything else that happened
You can point to that graph as a focal point & follow how things changed for the better (more open studies and sharing data) & more

the anti-warming crowd are still arguing from a non-scientific argument
NOT a scientific one
case in point:see ANY post by- rygg, antigorical, waterprofit/ALCHE, ab3a, cantdrive etc

all arguments of fear, hate, ignorance, religion, cognitive dissonance, conspiracy, money and politics
NOT science

You can't deny something that is not yet determined
@slarmas
to what are you specifically referring to as being "not yet determined"?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) May 27, 2015
As a scientist you have a choice to go with the AGW crowd and get funded or stand up against them and have your career ruined and then be investigated by congress.
@Mr
your conspiracy theory is showing
and you are also wrong

that is not how science works, and you know it
if you have a viable study that is based upon sound scientific principles as well as contains valid data and provable experiments etc
Then ANY decent scientist will be wanting to read your stuff

in fact, your insistence is indicative of your ignorance in scientific literacy
you cannot have a worldwide conspiracy when half of the nations hate the other half - it would breed a situation where ANY scientists that could prove the scientists from the other country wrong would be HERO's

the world cannot agree on a breakfast food, but you are saying they are conspiring against everyone for ????
you really think scientists are getting rich on climate science?
runrig
5 / 5 (8) May 27, 2015
I think there is harm being done in this comments section. Many people use the term denier. If I hear that word I move on or stop listening. You can't deny something that is not yet determined.

I disagree.
What "deniers" of climate science are doing is indeed denying the veracity of all climate science ..... or at least the vast majority.
To get around the logic that experts (actually multi-disciplined) cannot be wrong (at least in those numbers) and instead gainsaying laymen correct..... they resort to bizarre, otherworldly conclusions such as it's a scam by scientists to gain riches from grants or that the UN is out to take over the world in some sort of socialist conspiracy.
That behaviour says far more about the "denier" than that which is denied.
slarmas
1 / 5 (3) May 27, 2015
@Captain Stumpy

What I mean is if I invited all scientists who were skeptical of AGW to a ball, I would need a very big ball room. If I did a search for scientists who felt their was AGW but that it was not significant and was balanced by feed back mechanisms (say trees, algae and the like), and was blown out of proportion ( hockey sticks, flooding ocean cities, etc) and used for political gain and control; well, I would need a stadium. Climate has so many inputs and outputs it is like trying to figure out how a bunch of rope will tangle years into the future, deduce the reason for the tangle and figure out just where to spend trillions of dollars to have a 10% chance of stopping some of the tangle. As long as you can find a decent number of honest scientists (not the AGW funded ones which are dubious at best) that agree based on rigor, I will redact my statement, but I do not think we are there yet.
slarmas
1 / 5 (3) May 27, 2015
@runrig

I do not deny the science, I only remain unconvinced. By using deny you assume you are right (and you may well be) and are in essence ripping on someone who is unconvinced or has a different view for not sharing yours. I quit reading your comment after the word deny because you already told me what side you are on and that you have a closed mind that will not accept a different sided argument. While this may not be true deny or denier is hate speech. You hate the other side and label them, or are no longer willing to listen. I may be wrong but you imply what "echo chamber" you live in and that you are no longer interested in new information. Take deny out of your diatribe and you may get a bigger audience to your point of view. All IMHO of course.
denglish
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2015
So both proponents and opponents of AGW need to know that opponents are suffering from a psychological phenomena. This is why they believe that it is far too early to believe AGW is real. This is why they believe that the predictions made by the AGW side were wrong. This is why they believe the earth, as a normal course of events (and experienced daily) undergoes climate change independently, for reasons only Mother Nature understands.

Echo chambers are why the opponents don't understand the taxation and the ruining of economies!

Opponents of AGW are suffering from a psychological phenomenon.

Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
...honest scientists (not the AGW funded ones which are dubious at best) ...
@slarmas
1- re-read Eikka's posts and my exchanges with
2- you need to re-think this part
who felt their was AGW but that it was not significant and was balanced by feed back mechanisms
there is a lot of overwhelming evidence supporting AGW
for starters, see: http://www.skepti...nced.htm

i also suggest reading the linked studies

also read this: http://www.skepti...nin.html

Lacis et al is the study i linked which shows how CO2 interacts with WV and other GHG's

lastly, you claim AGW funded scientists are not honest but supply NO studies validating this claim
this is like saying that Fairy semen helps airplanes stay aloft

if you want to argue science use reputable studies etc
don't make conspiratorial claims with no evidence
that is politics and ignorance talking
NOT SCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
last point @ slarmas
you say
I do not deny the science, I only remain unconvinced.
but let me point out that if you are reading the actual science, then you should be convinced of a great deal more than just AGW

another point on that same subject: you are not offering ANY legitimate science supporting ANY other position, either

you don't like the word deny- but you are also not offering any scientific evidence to show a reasonable argument for ignoring the bulk of the climate science published

that is simply reckless
also, reputable evidence is not a blog or an article (unless said article has links and studies that validate it's comments, as i linked above)
reputable evidence comes from REPUTABLE peer reviewed journals publishing studies, not from random points made out of context or completely ignoring or slandering/libeling studies which refute you (ALCHE) or political arguments (RYGG-antig, et al)
MR166
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2015
"@Mr
your conspiracy theory is showing
and you are also wrong

that is not how science works, and you know it
if you have a viable study that is based upon sound scientific principles as well as contains valid data and provable experiments etc.

Capt. as long as governments fund research at universities you can bet that the science is biased towards the political cause de jour.

You can also bet that if your research threatens the universities government funding your office will be moved to the sub basement a few stories below the custodians office.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
Capt. as long as governments fund research at universities you can bet that the science is biased towards the political cause de jour
@Mr
and i can prove that wrong with a simple visit to the local university where the gov't sponsored studies just cost the gov't a lot of dough but also forced them to admit that their policies in our state as well as other natural eco-policies are a**-backwards and need to be revised

the NEW policies are costing our state a lot of $$ in tourist money and have now been re-written to take into account the new findings as determined by the university study
and other states are now visiting our updated facilities to learn from us

perhaps we will make it back (maybe teaching other states?), but as it stands, it directly refutes your claims
(if you want to learn more, contact me on sciforums,com)

Climate science is no different
follow the evidence

MR166
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2015
No government pressure eh!

http://www.huffin...656.html
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2015
faith has nothing to do with the scientific process


"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."

Max Planck

Everyone has faith gravity won't change in the next second. Past performance is no guarantee of the future.

one superstitious scientist

Yes, the father of quantum mechanics.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2015
"Religion provides a sense of meaning and comfort for believers, and studies show that such beliefs intensify during threatening situations. Now research suggests that some people's faith in science may serve the same role."

http://www.scient...s-faith/

It's called 'scientism'.

" Both Bacon and Descartes elevated the use of reason and logic by denigrating other human faculties such as creativity, memory, and imagination. Bacon's classification of learning demoted poetry and history to second-class status. (5) Descartes' rendering of the entire universe as a giant machine left little room for the arts or other forms of human expression. "
http://www.aaas.o...cientism

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2015
"Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. "
"It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can't catch in his nets does not exist (15). Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific."
http://www.aaas.o...cientism
runrig
5 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015
....By using deny you assume you are right (and you may well be) and are in essence ripping on someone who is unconvinced or has a different view for not sharing yours. I quit reading your comment after the word deny because you already told me what side you are on and that you have a closed mind that will not accept a different sided argument...


Excuse me.
What makes you think that being on the side of science means I have a closed mind? (BTW I am a retired Meteorologist - so yes I also understand it).
unless you subscribe to the bizarre conspiracies of the deniers (which is what they are) - then you should realise that science by definition is fair-minded .... unless and until it is overturned by new evidence.
To get your "science" from a "contrarian" Blog will not expose you to the science (just try visting WUWT, Curry's or Spencers Blog) but merely the echo-chamber of deniers cheering themselves on and denegrating/abusing "science" posters. I know I've been there.
denglish
1 / 5 (7) May 27, 2015
Its amazing how much controversy "settled science" can generate.

One would almost think that there is reasonable doubt...enough to make people doubt it!
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
Here's an interesting article. Get past the snarky, un-called for opening comments, and be rewarded by a scientific panels' response to open challenges.

http://wattsupwit...inburgh/

If false, we should expect charges of libel to come shortly, yes?

Its amazing how sharply reasonable doubt bounces about in an echo chamber.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
Its amazing how much controversy "settled science" can generate.

One would almost think that there is reasonable doubt...enough to make people doubt it!

Reasonable people do.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
name me another source of knowledge

Human reason.

demonstrate how it can be proven

Your 'scientism' is showing.

Not all knowledge can be objectively 'proven' to another human. It just IS.

Some call it heuristics and humans have been using heuristics for thousands of years to promote knowledge.
Read up on Billy Koen and Goedell.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2015
Not Goedell, Godel.

"The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F. According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent (assuming it is indeed consistent)."
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
what is true

What IS true?
How do you prove truth from a sample of one individual and one trial?
Science can't but the individual can. The individual KNOWS what is true even if he can't prove it to anyone.
Sagan illustrated this in Contact.
"Ellie finds herself asking the world to take a leap of faith and believe what she and the others say happened to them. "
http://en.wikiped...novel%29
One of the many limits of science.
leetennant
4.5 / 5 (8) May 27, 2015
What IS true?


Do you not understand what an evidentiary system of knowing is? What is true is based on what we have evidence for. What is repeatable.


All knowledge is subjective. But gravity still works, bitches.

Everyone is welcome to their own truth but they have no right to be taken seriously when their "truth" contradicts observable reality. Not "believing" in climate change is akin to claiming gravity isn't real and the only reason planes fly is because you prayed first and God lifted them up by his divine hand. That may be your personal truth. But I'll still happily fly this weekend without worrying God will turn gravity off.
leetennant
4 / 5 (8) May 27, 2015
Of course it is. But in other people's worlds, the Sun is a God. Which is fine, until someone starts claiming you need to sacrifice somebody to make it come up in the morning.

People survived perfectly well for thousands of years believing things we know to be demonstrably false. It's only a problem when that belief affects others. Climate change will kill or displace billions so on this issue people's epistemological processes are going to have to shift a little whether they like it or not.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (4) May 28, 2015
What is repeatable.

If it's not repeatable it can't be true?
What if 'it' can't be repeated?

happily fly this weekend without worrying God will turn gravity off.

It may not be God, but no one has 'the truth' the gravity won't change in the next instant.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 28, 2015
What experiment was accomplished to show e^(i*pi) +1 = 0?
It is true?
How was this determined? Reason?

"And Benjamin Peirce, a noted American 19th-century philosopher, mathematician, and professor at Harvard University, after proving Euler's identity during a lecture, stated that the identity "is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth".[6]"
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 28, 2015
No government pressure eh!
http://www.huffin...656.html
@Mr
1- an article is not a study
2- you are arguing politics and conspiracy theory in a science thread
3- and most importantly - the gov't is used by the public to insure against fraud as well as regulate against lies and attempts to push snake oil for the sake of personal gain

Normally this is done with laws
but when you have people claiming legitimate science (like soon/monckton) but are PAID for their endorsement (by koch or otherwise) then you have a lie being perpetrated as legitimate science

you would expect the gov't to intercede on your behalf if you were being held ransom by a monopoly that was charging $1k for a 3cent item
why would you not also expect them to go after criminal's posting poorly done/illegitimate baseless science which confuses the public and undermines actual science with lies?

IMHO- criminals deserve to be prosecuted
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) May 28, 2015
name me another source of knowledge

Human reason
@rygg
nope
humans have AN ability to logically follow evidence, but only when trained to do so or when allowed to develop naturally without the interference of superstitious adults or clashing idiocy in media

Human Reason is every bit as fallible as human "faith" as well
Mostly because the reasoning process is:
1- subjective and malleable
2- based upon the individual education as well as experiences in life
3- influenced heavily by external factors like culture, peer pressure and various other social adaptations we've come to rely upon for survival

This is one time that Hannes_Alfven needs to post links to his two part thought process, because it is relevant to the process humans use to reason and think in this case

the use of the scientific method (when used properly) regulates and eliminates these outside influences for the sake of knowledge
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 28, 2015
How do YOU decide what is true,

You assert that science is the ONLY way to 'truth' and then I demonstrate how humans discover truth with reason and provide Euler's identity as an example.

What makes science great is a theory can be destroyed by just one example falsifying the theory.
Greenie's theory that science is the only way to revel truth has been falsified.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
"Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You've got to believe that these laws won't fail, that we won't wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour."
"the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way."
" until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0
Squirming?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 28, 2015
I DO NOT HAVE FAITH.


Of course you do. You have beliefs you can't prove.

In science - we use human reason - in interaction with evidence - to expore our universe.


So 'science' is a subset of human reason, and you say 'science', using reason is the ONLY way to discover truth.
I submitted that human reason alone, NOT using science can reveal truth and used Euler's Identity as one example.
Since 'science' is a recent invention, are you asserting there was NO truths before the invention of 'science'?

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
"Faith, on the other hand, involves a stance toward some claim that is not, at least presently, demonstrable by reason. Thus faith is a kind of attitude of trust or assent. As such, it is ordinarily understood to involve an act of will or a commitment on the part of the believer. "
http://www.iep.ut...aith-re/

Greenie has faith in the Regulatory State. It requires faith as the EPA and other agencies continue to fail their stated mission and will always fail their stated mission. (But not their unstated mission, acquisition of more power to control the lives of others.)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
You assert that science is the ONLY way to 'truth'...
@rygg2
no, what i see Green saying is that SCIENCE is the only way to logically verify or validate evidence or claims as being legitimately real, which is pretty much the whole purpose of the method
Greenie's theory that science is the only way to revel truth has been falsified
no it hasn't
you are making an assumption without evidence, just like
Greenie has faith in the Regulatory State
you are ASSuming that all regulatory org's are the same, which is a sweeping blanket accusation which we know isn't true

@Greenonions
sorry about the downvote... spastic built in mouse
WIN8 is giving me problems
you know as well as i do that rygg is here to TROLL
and nothing else

best option is to ignore and give periodic answers
then report off topic rants like most of his BS in science/other non-political threads
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
NO I DON'T.


You can lie to yourself all day.

But as noted, you have faith the Regulatory State will do what you believe it will do, even when presented evidence, data, that is fails.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 28, 2015
How do YOU decide what is true


Why do you care?

I DON'T have beliefs that I cannot prove.


Prove it.

Correction:
"But as noted, you have faith the Regulatory State will do what you believe it will do, even when presented evidence, data, that is fails."

"But as noted, you have faith the Regulatory State will do what you believe it will do, even when presented evidence, data, that it fails.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
"We take each other's consciousness on faith because we must, but after two thousand years of worrying about this issue, no one has ever devised a definitive test of its existence."

https://edge.org/...prove-it

"I'm absolutely certain the laws of large numbers—probability theory—will work and protect me. All of science is based on it. But, I can't prove it and I don't really know why it works. That may be the reason why Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice." It probably is."

Leonard Susskind
Felix Bloch Professor in Theoretical Physics, Stanford; Author, The Cosmic Landscape; The Black Hole Wars
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
Anyone who uses fiat currency has faith.

Faith that the govt issuing the currency will keep its value.

Having faith in a government agency is not what I am talking about.


Faith is faith. Belief without proof.

NOW you want to parse out WHAT you have faith in because you now realize you DO have faith in the Regulatory State and many other things.
Redefining terms is a typical character trait of 'liberals'/socialists. They call themselves 'liberal', but they are not. They call themselves 'progressive' while promoting the opposite of progress.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015

"Back to my point… many professional meteorologists feel like we are fighting a losing battle when it comes to national media and social media hype and disinformation. They will be sure to let you know that weather events they are reporting on are "unprecedented", there are "millions and millions in the path", it is caused by a "monster storm", and "the worst is yet to come" since these events are becoming more "frequent".

You will never hear about the low tornado count in recent years, the lack of major hurricane landfalls on U.S. coasts over the past 10 years, or the low number of wildfires this year. It doesn't fit their story. But, never let facts get in the way of a good story…. there will ALWAYS be a heat wave, flood, wildfire, tornado, tyhpoon, cold wave, and snow storm somewhere. And, trust me, they will find them, and it will probably lead their newscasts. But, users beware…"
https://medium.co...5837d7d9
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
Why must 'liberals' attach the word 'faith' to religion?

You all can lie to yourselves about not having faith, but you do have faith in many things.

Why is it so difficult for you to use the term?

http://www.oxford...sh/faith

One common theme throughout the Bible is faith. God is trying to teach people to have faith. Not just in God, but faith in the future.
'Liberals' want to kill faith in the future. 'Live for today'. 'Abort your babies'. All which lead to the end of humans.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
Societies and cultures that have little faith in a future are hedonistic, libertine and are dying.

So the one positive sign is that greenie and his libertine atheists will die off in a generation or two, like the Shakers, leaving those with faith in God, Mormons, Muslims, Catholics to reproduce.

denglish
2.5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2015
Ironic. AGW'ers have faith in their predictions, despite the predictions not coming about!
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2015
Ironic. AGW'ers have faith in their predictions, despite the predictions not coming about!
@deng
it is nice to know that, regardless of any evidence presented to you that directly refutes your claims, you refuse to learn

http://www.skepti...iate.htm

the reasons you don't accept anything outside your delusional world view or try to find answers that are factual rather than mythological and based upon your political/religious leanings is out of your fear of the unknown as well as your fear of being ostracized from your peers

http://arstechnic...nformed/

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 29, 2015
"Utah, the only majority Mormon state in the Union, has a 2.45 TFR. That's pretty impressive, especially considering Utahans watch the same TV and listen to the same music (both of which encourage libertinism and nihilism) as the rest of America. While cost of living considerations may explain some of the difference in TFR between New York and Utah, they do less to shed light on the disparity between Utah and the rest on the socially conservative and sparsely populated heartland."

"What we can say with certainty is that Dawkins's idea that religion brings nothing to man, or, indeed, harms him, is patently false, whether we see things from the perspective of how long faith has been around or what's happening today to people without it."
http://takimag.co...bZJoya8I
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 29, 2015
"Among whites, the two most fertile groups are by far the mentioned Mormons and the Anabaptists. Though the Old Testament ignores the afterlife, the Hebrews' great reward for pleasing God was that the they could spread their genes. Millennia later, God's chosen are still around, while the Canaanites exist only in word."
"Even if it was granted that the modern world, with its feminism and secularism, produced all the happiness one can imagine, it cannot last. A baby born today may live to see the extinction of the Lithuanians (projected to be a population of 760,000 by 2100, possibly all assimilated into other ethnicities). Any philosophy that guarantees that those that adopt it will be gone within a few generations can only be embraced by nihilists. The patriarchal and god-fearing will inherit the earth, one way or another."
http://takimag.co...bZJoya8I
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
atheism is gaining ground.


So?
Atheists will follow in the path of the Shakers.

Survival of the fittest.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
"The 1960s counterculture slogan "make love, not war" could have been invented for the Hutterites, a conservative, pacifist Anabaptist community in the US and Canada. Numbering 400 at the end of the 19th century, when they moved to Dakota on the point of extinction, there are almost 50,000 Hutterites today, "
"The Mormons continue to grow by 40 per cent every decade, largely thanks to a high birth rate, so much so that by 2080 there will be anywhere between 63 and 267 million Mormons,"
"while the ultra-Orthodox account for 17 per cent of British Jewry, but 75 per cent of children."
"Today we view the ancient world's attitude to infanticide as barbaric and incomprehensible, but perhaps future generations will look at our attitudes to abortion in the same way – that's not because pro-lifers would have won the argument, simply that (in addition to the effect of the Pill) abortion is killing the atheists of tomorrow."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2015
Ironic. AGW'ers have faith in their predictions, despite the predictions not coming about!

Interesting. You've said that you feel it's ok for you to make things up. Is this another made up "fact" of yours? Climate models have done well (http://www.thegua...accurate ). Sea level rise has been at the upper end of the models, but their still within the projections (http://www.skepti...ions.htm ). More generally, climate science predicted that the stratosphere would cool and (over 100 years ago) that the polar regions would warm much faster than the rest of the earth. You would expect some predictions not to come true (not all of climate science is settled, after all), but unlike your anti-science crowd, the science does a very good job (http://www.skepti...ook.html ).
Eddy Courant
1.8 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
The alarmists live in an echo chamber. Were they to come up for air they might notice that their predictions of 40+ years have not materialized.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 29, 2015
Every developed country in the world is becoming more secular

And their fertility rates are below replacement.
But not for the conservative religions.
Atheists will follow the path of the Shakers and die off.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) May 29, 2015
"Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world's total population."
"Four out of every 10 Christians in the world will live in sub-Saharan Africa."
" All the other groups have fertility levels too low to sustain their populations: folk religions (1.8 children per woman), other religions (1.7), the unaffiliated (1.7) and Buddhists (1.6)."
http://www.pewfor...10-2050/
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (9) May 29, 2015
Every developed country in the world is becoming more secular

And their fertility rates are below replacement.
But not for the conservative religions.
Atheists will follow the path of the Shakers and die off.

Actually I think evolutionary trends will make the Atheists smarter and more intelligent where as the conservatives will get dumber and dumber and go the way of neanderthal,
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 30, 2015
"Last summer, the Federalist's Andrew Griswold noted that liberalization – especially on matters of sexual morality – was the single-best way to shrink your church. The numbers he conveys are startling. Few churches have been more aggressively "inclusive" than the Episcopal Church, yet between 2002 and 2012 it lost 18.4 percent of its members, and its church attendance declined 24.4 percent."
"In the short–to–medium term, it means more cultural conflict and more cultural division — with only one certain path to extinction: theological liberalization and cultural conformity. Yes, there are liberals who "long" for the church to change. But that's because they long for it to disappear."

http://www.nation...d-french

Not very liberal.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 30, 2015
'But, as one of these millennials, this is what would work for me, and for a lot of the people I know who have left.

Don't expect a "worship style" to do your dirty work."

"Don't give us entertainment, give us liturgy. " "Follow that simple yet profound formula that's worked for the entire history of the church. Entrance, proclamation, thanksgiving, sending out. Gathering, preaching, breaking bread, going forth in service. Give us a script to follow, give us songs to sing, give us the tradition of the church, give us Holy Scripture to read. Give us sacraments, not life groups, to grow and strengthen us."
http://www.theolo...ure-out/
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
"Climate models have done well (http://www.thegua...accurate ). "

You call this "well" ZZ. The models performance has been horrific.

http://www.cato.o...tterfeed

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
MR166
3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
In fact the more earth's Co2 level has risen the greater the error in the models. To me that indicates a major problem with the underlying assumptions of the science.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
Me too

Of course, you are a typical, intolerant socialist\ 'liberal'.

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 30, 2015
Socialist, atheist medicine:

"Elderly face NHS discrimination under new UN death targets
Elderly people will be treated like second-class citizens and denied medical care under new targets which give priority to saving the lives of young people "

" The NHS could be led to discriminate against the over 70s to meet 'highly unethical' UN health targets which seek to reduce premature deaths in younger people, senior medics have warned.

Under the proposed Sustainable Development Goals, UN member states will be given targets to cut the number of deaths from diseases like cancer, stroke, diabetes and dementia by one third by 2030.

However because many are age-related illnesses people who succumb to those diseases from the age of 70 are not deemed to have died prematurely and so are not included in the target. "
http://www.telegr...ets.html
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 30, 2015
"Last year the Royal College of Surgeons warned that elderly people are being denied life-saving operations because of age discrimination within the NHS. "
http://www.telegr...ets.html
Reminds me of Logan's Run.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
MR166 claims
In fact the more earth's Co2 level has risen the greater the error in the models
Ah so now the anti-AGW crowd DOES accept CO2 is rising, a few years ago that wasn't the case, have you too changed your position, evidence is overwhelming isnt it - based on sound Physics & Maths ?

MR166 claims
To me that indicates a major problem with the underlying assumptions of the science
No. MR166 SHOULD know as he's been here long enough & that is Science is Asymptotic, the climate system is complex & changes over usually long time scales.

MR166 SHOULD also know the Science re the Physics IS settled, the permutations of how the extra heat moves is subject to opinion & assessment based upon increasing data sources, all confirm there is change in heat accelerating, some resulting in more glacial melt, some in changes in currents, some in higher humidity etc ALL show increased heat consistent with
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Physics MR166 Learn it
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
Eddy Courant with alarmist claims & implication
The alarmists live in an echo chamber. Were they to come up for air they might notice that their predictions of 40+ years have not materialized.
What pray tell was predicted re climate change 40+ years ago ?

Where is the link to support your banal claim, any models back then, any science of heat discussed and any issues re changes in currents.

Eddy Courant what 40 year period, when started & based upon what - details Eddy Courant ?

Eddy Courant don't you see details are essential otherwise you come across as a paid flunky !
PsycheOne
2.1 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
Out of first 34 comments that took a stand one way or the other:
Believers: 17
Disbelievers: 17
Number of insulting comments:
Believers: 8
Disbelievers: 2
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
PsycheOne at it again, how amusing
...
Believers: 8
Disbelievers: 2
NOT about belief, please understand that, its about "Balance of Probabilities" re the Science at the core - which is the movement of heat & earth's shifting heat balance re Evidence !

When you compile stats its of use & relevant to include ALL contrubutory factors, such as - on both so called 'sides' who has been repeatedly trotting out unscientific, outright anti-science commercial propaganda such as wanting to fake climate as a weather phenomena or claiming opinion links not commensurate with evidence or throwing implications that only politics is at heart of accepted Science.

PsycheOne can you be a bit more complete in your stats & why you feel compelled initially to make any report at all ?

Please advise if you understand the core accepted Physics
https://en.wikipe..._forcing
derived from the Physics & Maths of
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Please ?
denglish
2.2 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
There is a known correlation between religious fundamentalism, and low IQ


The words of a bigot.

This is a very interesting thread, and an excellent study in anonymous forum behavior. The topic pertains to echo chambers, and the commentary is nothing but echo-chamber.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
Out of first 34 comments that took a stand one way or the other:
Believers: 17
Disbelievers: 17
Number of insulting comments:
Believers: 8
Disbelievers: 2


Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
Every developed country in the world is becoming more secular

And their fertility rates are below replacement.
But not for the conservative religions.
Atheists will follow the path of the Shakers and die off
@ryggtard
by far the absolute stupidest thing you have said to date
the shakers died off because the religious belief denigrated and shunned procreation

atheists (meaning: not a theist, or, i don't believe in deities) has no problems or inhibitions against procreation
the ONLY reason (as Otto has pointed out in the past more times than i can count) that religions tend to procreate so much is because the tenets force them to out-breed everyone else for the sake of overwhelming odds
BUT
given that education is free, this is NO LONGER a guarantee that the offspring will remain religious as they did in the dark ages, when religion controlled education and nations

epic failure on your part rygg
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) May 30, 2015
The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world,


Because it is a state controlled fascist system.

A recent NPR story about a hospital in Dallas was critical of the TX governors for refusing to be blackmailed by Obama to join Obamacare
The issue is the hospital is losing money because the US govt forces an emergency room to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay. Before Obamacare, the feds did provide some reimbursement but now, they don't to blackmail states into Obmacare.
A level one trauma center in Tucson, AZ , Tucson Medical Center, was forced to close because the US govt refused to pay for the illegal aliens the feds brought in to treat.
Socialism can only last while there is other people's money to plunder. Then, hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc. will quit because they can't earn a decent salary.
The state will have two options. End socialism or enslave the health care workers.

MR166
1 / 5 (3) May 30, 2015
"Ah so now the anti-AGW crowd DOES accept CO2 is rising,"

That is an idiotic statement, well below your level of intelligence Mike.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.
@denglish
not really
it is also a sign of frustration and irritation due to intentional ignorance and intentional blatant stupidity which is often demonstrated by certain posters here on PO

take rygg's comment about atheists and how they will die out, then assumes they are the same as shakers
that is intentional trolling

shakers religion shuns sex
atheists don't

you yourself have (and still do) post intentionally baiting anti-science posts that are not based in any science at all, so if there is a lashing out to you that is insulting, then it is because you yourself have specifically requested it by your post (and your continual refusal to read the science, or your intentionally ignoring that which refutes your claims)

so if you/mr166 etc are insulted because of parroting non-science on a science site and using blogs (not science) to support conclusions, then it is justified labeling, not insult
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
"Ah so now the anti-AGW crowd DOES accept CO2 is rising,"

That is an idiotic statement, well below your level of intelligence Mike.
@mr166
no, sorry
it is similar to your own baiting comments above (with no scientific evidence on your part)
1- blogs are not scientific studies, nor are they empirical evidence of anything except that someone said something
2- the science behind the CO2 is the same physics behind everything else, and it is demonstrated, observed, measured as well as very well studied in detail, which is why the conclusions of the scientists are far more accurate than your conjectures
3- most important: you've been given the studies which refute your stance WRT CO2 already but refused to read, acknowledge them or even remember they exist, apparently


denglish
2.6 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.


@denglish
not really
it is also a sign of frustration and irritation due to intentional ignorance and intentional blatant stupidity which is often demonstrated by certain posters here on PO


Justifying insult as a credible method of advancing one's views using intellectual dishonesty and pejorative.

Revealing.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) May 30, 2015
denglish claims
There is a known correlation between religious fundamentalism, and low IQ
The words of a bigot
Not bigoted, very clear just why:-

ie. The religious accept appeal to authority without critical thinking, either they are lazy or stupid or have feeble emotions, have parent complexities re personality disorders or crave certainty...

denglish claims
This is a very interesting thread, and an excellent study in anonymous forum behavior
It illustrates many will duck & weave and ignore key science eg of climate change and you denglish appears to want to maintain ignorance as if you have a religious faith a god wouldn't let humans change climate OR has a paid agenda to obfuscate and ignore evidence
http://images.rem...ies.html

denglish states
The topic pertains to echo chambers, and the commentary is nothing but echo-chamber
This is why education is so important, easy to focus on the Science, so why doesn't denglish ?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) May 30, 2015
MR166 caught, nice of you to reply, why did you *grin*
"Ah so now the anti-AGW crowd DOES accept CO2 is rising,"That is an idiotic statement, well below your level of intelligence Mike
No. Whats idiotic is you and many anti-AGW crowd were for years denying CO2 was rising or that it was from human oriented activities ie Combustion of fossil fuels.

So the only issue now in your education MR166 is for you to get an education in Physics, such as these key issues:-
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

based upon this with Evidence
https://en.wikipe...transfer

But, unfortunately for MR166, he has shown evidence of nil education in Physics so, why bother as he cannot understand it.

Please MR166, at least enroll in a community college Physics course and learn about radiative heat transfer.

You do know that "Everything radiates light all the time" - the details are the frequency - right ?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
Justifying insult as a credible method of advancing one's views using intellectual dishonesty and pejorative.

Revealing
@deng
it is not to advance a view so much as it is to label something for the sake of others and so that others recognize the futility of argument

and it IS revealing

it reveals that everyone is human
it also reveals that there is a large contingent of trolling/baiting here on PO, and that the site is so loosely moderated that even direct violations of the posting rules are ignored, for the most part

case in point:
your lack of evidence and your (intentional) selection of non-scientific sources and attempted justification that your conjecture means it must be valid scientific evidence because someone else believes in faeries too

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
we studied this correlation in the psychology classes I took (have a degree in counseling). The text book on psychology statistics (Statler) had extensive discussion of the issue. So I guess stating facts is bigotry to you
@green
i would love to see some links and references if you have them
i know that in developing nations/3rd world etc there is a high correlation between religious fundamentalism and low IQ, but what about 1st world nations like the US?
is there anything there that demonstrates this in nations with developed free education systems?
You weren't hired because you failed the interview. I wonder if you came off as an entitled, victimized cunt.
From http://phys.org/n...ian.html THANK YOU for sharing this green!
LMFAO

very revealing, isn't it deng?
that is one EPIC SMACKDOWN for Greenonions!
ROTFLMFAO
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
Well denglish - we studied this correlation in the psychology classes I took (have a degree in counseling).


No you don't. You're a bigot trying to gain false credibility.

Here denglish - I found the exact quote for you - these are your words - and yet you are the one telling others who has or has not credibility - based on use of pejorative.


Yep, and I sure advanced my position, didn't I? Point proven by proxy. Man...this is too easy!

How does that echo chamber thing work again? Hooo boy...you guys are just too smart for me!

Nik_2213
4.4 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
This phenomenon is called 'Preaching To The Converted'.

Just like you can't shift Anti-Vaxx proponents with a vaccine-preventable epidemic, or 'Alternative Medicine' / Homeopathy proponents with 'No Better Than Placebo' double-blind studies...

What will it take to change such closed, closed minds ? Probably, sadly, cruelly, a personal disaster...
Benni
2 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
..............after all the above has been said, one thing remains to be said.........some profanity from VietVet.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
denglish
Yep, and I sure advanced my position, didn't I? Point proven by proxy. Man...this is too easy!


So here is the logic. You lecture us all about the evils of using pejorative. I pull up a direct quote of yours in which you use a very extreme pejorative towards another commenter. You declare victory - that you have advanced your position.

Go figure.

For such a smart person, you missed that I proved - by proxy - that a person who uses pejoratives are not credible. So in-credible, that others will easily refer to what they say in order to prove it.

Are you sure you're a trained communicator? I'm not; you missed a basic concept.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
For such a smart person, you missed that I proved - by proxy - that a person who uses pejoratives are not credible.


Aaaaah - I see. If an AGW supporter uses a pejorative - it proves they are not credible. If you use a pejorative - it proves that someone else is not credible.

Yes denglish - you are very credible - with your double speak. You and Uba have a lot in common.

At least I don't lie about my education.

You have no clue re: the difference between advancing a scientific position and making a comment towards someone's personal situation. You still don't get the by-proxy proof I offered, do you? Perhaps because you are more politically motivated than scientifically motivated? Double Speak? That should be an easy hurdle for a trained communicator! What's'amatter? Google doesn't give you a return on the specific charge?

You must have at least looked up "by proxy", no?

"Community Counseling". Really!? The internet. A wonderland of anonymity.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
And what "Community Counselor" in their right mind would be a bigot.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
our stupid insurance system,


You said you are from UK?

BTW, you sound like some other Brit who lives in Oklahoma who whines about living in Oklahoma.
He called himself 'dj' something.

Also, if you want to see free market medicine go to Tulsa.

"The major cause of exploding U.S. heath care costs is the third-party payer system, a text-book concept in which A buys goods or services from B that are paid for by C. Because private insurance companies or the government generally pick up most of the tab for medical services, patients don't have the normal incentive to seek out value.

The Surgery Center's consumer-driven model could become increasingly common as Americans look for alternatives to the traditional health care market"
"The Surgery Center demonstrates that it's possible to offer high quality care at low prices. "
http://reason.com...ctors-fi
cgsperling
3 / 5 (4) May 30, 2015
So... legislator's heads are hollow like echo chambers. Got it.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) May 31, 2015
Ryggy
But scientists today believe they know all with so little data to support their faith.


No they don't - what a stupid thing to say. Please show us any scientific work that does not acknowledge how much there is left to know.

Well how the fuck can the "science be settled" then?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
Captain -
i would love to see some links and references if you have them


It is a well documented reality Captain. This is a metastudy - that should get you going. http://arstechnic...d-faith/
@Greenonions
thank you, appreciate the link
i don't know how this isn't part of the curriculum in my psyche class, especially considering the study we were working on

glad that you linked a starter because i am going to dig up more
APPRECIATE IT
you missed that I proved - by proxy - that a person who uses pejoratives are not credible. So in-credible, that others will easily refer to what they say in order to prove it.
@deng
actually, the only thing you are doing is removing your own credibility, really

and use of pejoratives doesn't undermine credibility: it simply denotes that a person has limits to their patience when dealing with the stupid
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
you missed that I proved - by proxy - that a person who uses pejoratives are not credible
@deng
lets clear up something here:
by proxy means
1. the agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another.
2. the person so authorized; substitute; agent.
3. an ally or confederate who can be relied upon to speak or act in one's behalf.

your argument does not meet the criteria due to the fact that Green posted your own separate comments from another thread which are clearly from a conversation that is not similar

IOW - Green is correct: you are proving that, per your own definitions and using your own criteria, you are not a credible person
YOUR WORDS, not mine

the use of pejoratives can also establish credibility,
so your criteria are also subjective to the situation and people

just because someone gets mad or frustrated, doesn't mean they're not credible
it only means that they are intolerant of stupidity
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) May 31, 2015
cantdrive85 asked but, with what aim
Well how the fuck can the "science be settled" then?
You should know when media terms like "Science" or when even science-literate journalists use terms they may not be accurate...

Important to us terminology correctly, one might more appropriately state "Science of heat" in that the Physics of heat transfer is completely settled, in respect of AGW this is perfectly well settled as per
https://en.wikipe...transfer

There is an immense body of evidence settling the issue and as it is founded on the mathematics
https://en.wikipe...echanics

Key arena however in terms of core reason for AGW is CO2 as NOTHING else has anywhere near the heat value, whether postulated or theoretical or measured to this
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

The Science of how that EXTRA heat moves around Earth is not completely settled yet...!

Can cantdrive85 refute or point to anything else ?
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) May 31, 2015
cantdrive85,

When the AGWites say that "the science is settled", they mean exactly that. That there is no questioning the claims of the AGWites because they have declared the science settled. It is a measure of their political agenda that they can say the science is settled.

Actual science is, of course, always questioned and reexamined.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 31, 2015
"The words "common sense" and "epa" have never appeared together in a sentence from me. Today they do. "
"The EPA proposed volume standards are below what is in the statue and as you might imagine it was something akin to taking a bat and hitting a wasp nest. The agency justifies its proposals noting what it calls, "constraints in the fuel market." The ethanol advocates are not happy. They were pushing for greater amounts of ethanol in our fuel mix as you would expect since they are the people making ethanol and in need of a market to sell it."
"On the other side of the issue, there is a true odd-fellow coalition; The Environmental Working Group, The National Marine Manufacturers, The Competitive Institute, BoatUS, The American Motorcycle Association and the National Chicken Council along with others.
Oddly, they are not happy either. They all want to see the RFS scrapped, each for different reasons; "
http://www.forbes.com
Abolish the EPA and no need for lobbyists.
denglish
1 / 5 (4) May 31, 2015
@deng
lets clear up something here:
by proxy means


The ability to do or be something without actually physically doing it.

the use of pejoratives can also establish credibility,

No, they can't.

You are free to ignore me if you wish - correct?

Yes, but you are so adept at exposing yourself as a totally un-credible AGW'er that I am compelled to continue to give you rope to do it.

it simply denotes that a person has limits to their patience when dealing with the stupid

No wonder you can't get a job as a counselor.

per your own definitions and using your own criteria, you are not a credible person

Check again.

*These*, gentle readers, are the AGW supporters at phys.org. Seeing is believing. Good luck in your reply...think it over carefully, you have time; I'll be on the links for the next 5 hours.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 31, 2015
the use of pejoratives can also establish credibility

No, they can't
@deng
actually, they CAN
in the real world, where people actually work and have high stress jobs, the colourful and interesting use of pejoratives and unique applications thereof can add credibility between the operators who rely upon the abilities of each other: from Firefighters and Cops to Combat Arms - if you can't hang with the big boys (or you show sensitivities) then you are not considered viable or credible

IOW - there ARE situations where their use helps establish credibility as well as trust
No wonder you can't get a job as a counselor
not trying to, nor will i try to
you are getting your posters mixed up

perhaps you should try re-reading?
Check again
checked and asked two English majors and a professor: both stated the same thing i did
you did not prove anything by proxy
&
per your own criteria, you are showing yourself to not be credible
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
*These*, gentle readers, are the AGW supporters at phys.org. Seeing is believing. Good luck in your reply...think it over carefully, you have time; I'll be on the links for the next 5 hours
@deng
here is something to think about as well:

the overwhelming amount of SCIENCE, studies and journal publications, papers etc all point to the same direction regarding AGW

the overwhelming amount of evidence comes from the WORLD... not just the US

the bulk of your own posts are either political, conspiratorial or some other NON-SCIENTIFIC data that you assume disproves AGW and the global warming phenomena

your attempt to redirect the conversation shows you have NO credible scientific data supporting your position

your links tend to be blogs or opinion, some from debunked, discredited scientists

IOW - you are just trolling & baiting because you can't prove your point
runrig
5 / 5 (5) May 31, 2015
cantdrive85,

When the AGWites say that "the science is settled", they mean exactly that. That there is no questioning the claims of the AGWites because they have declared the science settled. It is a measure of their political agenda that they can say the science is settled.

Actual science is, of course, always questioned and reexamined.

What science would this be then? - lets hear your interpretation of it. CO2's GHE? Solar TSI output? The measurement of back-radiated IR? It's imbalance re incoming SW at TOA? Ocean heat content? Orbital changes/effects? The science IS settled as to why global temps are rising. What is not is how much and how quickly, as we do not know how much anthro CO2 is going to pollute the atmopshere going forward.
What is not settled is the chaos inherent in the climate system, played out in decades as to heat movement between ocean (~93% of climates heat) and the atmosphere, that (overwhelmingly) gets it's heat from those oceans.
Chipl
1 / 5 (1) May 31, 2015
Appreciate the attempt at looking at the dynamics of information processing. The author of the report seems to have a common confusing misconception, this idea of scientific consensus. Consensus is not a useful term if you want to convey that a preponderance of opinion exists. Consensus denotes universal agreement. The ability to communicate is lessened by not being accurate. Looking at the dynamics of information processing is quite salient though. Keep at it but see if you might avoid any alluding to the possibility that there are absolute truths that are determined by the weight of opinion. See if you can step out of your own echo chamber. Check out my short report with a lot of linked citations on "How serious is climate change?" on the Transition California website. Me thinks the danger is far more pressing and immediate and that continued "global warming" may actually be a denial of what might be happening, collapse of the interglacial.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) May 31, 2015
cantdrive85,

When the AGWites say that "the science is settled", they mean exactly that. That there is no questioning the claims of the AGWites because they have declared the science settled. It is a measure of their political agenda that they can say the science is settled.

Actual science is, of course, always questioned and reexamined.

What science would this be then? - lets hear your interpretation of it. The science IS settled as to why global temps are rising. What is not is how much and how quickly, as we do not know how much anthro CO2 is going to pollute the atmopshere going forward.
What is not settled is the chaos inherent in the climate system, played out in decades as to heat movement between ocean (~93% of climates heat) and the atmosphere, that (overwhelmingly) gets it's heat from those oceans.

Well nothing is settled then is it! Blathering fools!
runrig
5 / 5 (7) May 31, 2015

What science would this be then? - lets hear your interpretation of it. The science IS settled as to why global temps are rising. What is not is how much and how quickly, as we do not know how much anthro CO2 is going to pollute the atmopshere going forward.
What is not settled is the chaos inherent in the climate system, played out in decades as to heat movement between ocean (~93% of climates heat) and the atmosphere, that (overwhelmingly) gets it's heat from those oceans.

Well nothing is settled then is it! Blathering fools!

You overlooked this bit..... "The science IS settled as to why global temps are rising"
Which is all we need to know to act.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) May 31, 2015
"The science IS settled as to why global temps are rising"


Only in the feeble minds of the deranged.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) May 31, 2015
"The science IS settled as to why global temps are rising"


Only in the feeble minds of the deranged.

A conclusion sparked only in the feeble minds of the ideologically challenged science deniers convinced that the world (science) bend to their concept of reality.
The lunatics have not taken over the asylum, nor have you seen that the Emperor is naked my friend. Hand-waving does not get you listened too away from the Tea-party lunatics. Try the conspiracy tack, just as illogical as you knowing better that the world's experts, or if that doesn't scan - that you knew better than your teachers of whatever disciple you studied at Uni.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) May 31, 2015
.........it would be so much more interesting to read about all your different opinions if the topic of discussion were the Einstein Field Equations as set forth in Einstein's thesis on General Relativity.

This silly social minutiae banter about the climate is for neophytes. It's titillating while you are fairly new to a forum, but after awhile those of us who can follow the Differential Equations in Einstein's GR just want to fall asleep trying to read almost anything that has been posted above. You argue back & forth about what the "science" is, all the while most of you understand nothing about it's language except to come on here & mutter the languages of name calling & profanity as you stoop to dignify the fallacies of many of your positions.

Copy & Paste skills are no substitute for a course in Physics 101, but how of the above have even taken & passed the course along with the necessary math proficiency skills. Hey, most of you above, don't fall asleep reading this.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) May 31, 2015
"I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing."

Socrates

Your certainty shows you are not burdened with intelligence.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2015
"I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing."

Socrates

Your certainty shows you are not burdened with intelligence.

Who said I was certain?????????????

Life is full of uncertainty my friend (did Socrates expound on that too?).
It's a balance of probality.
Markedly coming down where science says it does.

So you don't have your own "certainty" eh? and is it not just because you wish things to be that way?
If not then we're all ears as to the science.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
Who said I was certain?????????

You did you old coot, repeatedly.
"The science IS settled as to why global temps are rising"

CO2's GHE? Solar TSI output? The measurement of back-radiated IR? It's imbalance re incoming SW at TOA? Ocean heat content? Orbital changes/effects?

Markedly coming down where science says it does.

Epicycles came down where science said it did...
So you don't have your own "certainty" eh?

I am certain of one thing, that all factors that affect the climate and weather have by no means been settled or completely understood for that matter.
If not then we're all ears as to the science.

No, you're not at all. I've brought this up before, to a cascade of chirping crickets.
http://journals.a...1.235002
This little nugget changes the game. It completely alters what we know about Sol/Earth energy transfer. This is a stone cold fact, but it's beyond your comprehension.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2015
"Who said I was certain????????? "

You did you old coot, repeatedly.


I am certain of one thing, that all factors that affect the climate and weather have by no means been settled or completely understood for that matter.


That's what I said, but only as regards TSI absorption/distribution - But that anthro CO2 has been settled as the cause of warming. Try reading my posts again... Oh, and please quit the pejoratives no matter how mild. I don't recall referring to you in like terms. Your age is BTW?

No, you're not at all. I've brought this up before, to a cascade of chirping crickets...

Oh, I'd forgotten you were one of those.
Sorry don't buy it - along with the bulk of the science community.
Just how have ~2.5x10^23 Joules been added to the oceans in the last 45 yrs via that method then? And why now?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2015
Sorry don't buy it - along with the bulk of the science community.


So you get to "bend science to your reality"? The double layers are there, we have direct in situ measurements of them. And even an elementary understanding of plasma physics show DL's have profound effects in these circuits, but I guess you're just a "science denier".

That's what I said, but only as regards TSI absorption/distribution - But that anthro CO2 has been settled as the cause of warming.

Something doesn't compute, first you say;
What is not settled is the chaos inherent in the climate system

and in the same post;
The science IS settled as to why global temps are rising


?!?!?!?! Can you say contradictory?

I posit that it is just as possible that the warming is just more "chaos inherent in the system". You know, because the climate is always changing and always has and likely always will. Most likely in some oscillatory manner.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2015
I posit that it is just as possible that the warming is just more "chaos inherent in the system". You know, because the climate is always changing and always has and likely always will. Most likely in some oscillatory manner

There is chaos in the system.... But it comes down to a basic energy in is greater than energy out equation, and just as we know exactly how much and when a heated pan of water will reach boiling (known pressure/ambient) despite not knowing the vagaries of each energy exchange in the pan ... We know the climate system will warm in response to energy increases. The chaos is internal. GHG science exactly explains AGW ... Correlation and causation. As I said probability says science has the culprit. Meanwhile you suggest we do nothing, because *your* explanation *might* be correct?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2015
But it comes down to a basic energy in is greater than energy out equation


But as pointed out above, you refuse to consider all of the factors. You prefer to see it as you wish to see it and not as it is. There is another article today;
http://phys.org/n...sma.html
that shows the the Sol/Earth interaction is shown to be even more complex than what was known yesterday. You'll probably ignore it and continue along fixated on out-dated data and understanding of how the Earth receives and processes the energy the Sun delivers. That's the problem with getting old, the inability or desire to learn and process new info sets in. Hell, Cap'n Stoopid has professed about his inability and unwillingness to take in new knowledge and his willful blindness to those things because it's "too hard" to learn with dementia.

There is nothing basic about the equation, it is highly complex and the simple models built by simple minds can't grasp it.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2015
There is nothing basic about the equation, it is highly complex and the simple models built by simple minds can't grasp it.

You may be surprised to know that I am entirely open to "alternative" science. The paranormal for instance is one of my interests. It is after all just something in the Universe that Man has not yet learned to understand. However Meteorology is my subject, and Climate a close cousin. The problem you have here remains the 2 tenents of scientific theory causation AND correlation. Please produce evidence of both and then we'll talk. Meanwhile the culprit is CO2. Oh, and give up with the age thing. It's just a number and doesn't define me.
Also the equation is simple. We measure incoming TSI and measure outgoing terrestrial IR at TOA. We have - it's unbalanced. As I've said the chaos inbetween matters not. Also does your Plasma explain the cooling Strat?
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2015
"lso the equation is simple. We measure incoming TSI and measure outgoing terrestrial IR at TOA. We have - it's unbalanced. As I've said the chaos inbetween matters not. Also does your Plasma explain the cooling Strat?"

Runrig you are assuming that the ingoing energy and outgoing IR radiation should always be equal and that any changes in the balance is due to AGW induced changes in Co2 levels. If this were true then the Little Ice would have never occurred and the glaciers would have never happened.
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2015
MR166 FAILs with prejudice trying to point elsewhere (again)
... If this were true then the Little Ice would have never occurred and the glaciers would have never happened
No. Fail in logic.

Please examine issue here https://en.wikipe...h_cycles

Click on graphic at right & view Insolation variation, you will see evidence from various sources shows Earth's orbit isn't static

&

Without pre-empting runrig's possible reply to your static dogmatic belief; "..it has to be something other than CO2 which has caused rapid change since industrial revolution".

Hope you realise & from evidence of prior posts, its more complex than you imagine. Naive attempt at logic without education fails again !

ie.
Ocean currents a major heat transporter Eg Atlantic conveyor warms east US/west Europe, should that be perturbed (for whatever reason) those regions FREEZE, that might not be due to Sol by much it could well be biological tipping points etc...
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2015
Without pre-empting runrig's possible reply to your static dogmatic belief; "..it has to be something other than CO2 which has caused rapid change since industrial revolution".

Well MR is on my ignore list mike but I'll bite....

TOA Solar in vs Terrestrial out should be equal. If they are not then the Earth is either warming or cooling. Basic thermodynamics.
The LIA (as I have said many times on here .... prob to you as well) the LIA saw Solar TSI ~0.1% lower than max or about that of the solar min we go through every ~11yrs, though this lasted some decades. This caused a global temp drop, but there were notable volcanic episodes that added to it. I have said that UV may fall by up to 30% at a solar min and that this causes Stratospheric temp gradients that weaked the jet there, in turn influencing the Trop jet into blocking/meridional flow. A prime effect being cold Euro winters. IOW: the LIA was mostly a regional cooling.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2015
So did anyone here accept that THEIR side of the argument (whichever one you are on) is guilty of this?
leetennant
4 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2015
So did anyone here accept that THEIR side of the argument (whichever one you are on) is guilty of this?


Yes I'm stuck in an echo chamber of evidence-based decision making and systematic knowledge gathering within a well-defined epistemological framework. I'm frequently not exposed to "things someone just made up", "comforting fairytales" and "feelpinions" based on anecdata. Damn those scientific echo chambers based on science.
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2015
So did anyone here accept that THEIR side of the argument (whichever one you are on) is guilty of this?


Yes I'm stuck in an echo chamber of evidence-based decision making and systematic knowledge gathering within a well-defined epistemological framework. I'm frequently not exposed to "things someone just made up", "comforting fairytales" and "feelpinions" based on anecdata. Damn those scientific echo chambers based on science.


Nope, I see you're still clinging to the illusion that we understand all and if we were just willing to take action, would be in control of it all as well.
leetennant
4 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2015
Nope, I see you're still clinging to the illusion that we understand all and if we were just willing to take action, would be in control of it all as well.


It'd be helpful if people commenting on science articles understood what science was. If we "knew all" we wouldn't require an epistemological process, would we? By definition.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2015
We measure incoming TSI and measure outgoing terrestrial IR at TOA. We have - it's unbalanced.


You're absolutely correct, that is all that is measured. But that is not all of the energy that is exchanged in the system, far from it. Once again your certainty blinds you, you're steadfastly proclaiming your willful ignorance.
DarkLordKelvin
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2015
If not then we're all ears as to the science.

No, you're not at all. I've brought this up before, to a cascade of chirping crickets.
http://journals.a...1.235002
This little nugget changes the game. It completely alters what we know about Sol/Earth energy transfer.
Care to give some numbers there? Solar EM radiation amounts to ~10^22 joules of energy being absorbed by the Earth every day (235 W/m^2 x 5.1^14 m^2 x 86400 s). How much energy is transferred via these electromagnetic effects you are alluding to?
This is a stone cold fact
WHAT is? That charged particles interact with the magnetosphere of Earth? Sure, but what is the relevance to this topic?
but it's beyond your comprehension.
That's a cheap dodge .. why don't you try explaining it?
jeffensley
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
Nope, I see you're still clinging to the illusion that we understand all and if we were just willing to take action, would be in control of it all as well.


It'd be helpful if people commenting on science articles understood what science was. If we "knew all" we wouldn't require an epistemological process, would we? By definition.


I guess a degree in Environmental Science and working in the field for nearly 20 years disqualify me. Much of what is currently defined as "science" used to fall under the category of politics, activism, and computer programming. We no longer base our reality on what we see, we base it on what computer models predict.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2015
How much energy is transferred via these electromagnetic effects you are alluding to?


Good question, maybe we should measure it before making dire predictions based upon incomplete knowledge.

WHAT is? That charged particles interact with the magnetosphere of Earth? Sure, but what is the relevance to this topic?


Energy transmission via electric currents, induction heating for example. Such events could cause a "sudden onset" of glacial melting, such as is occurring in Antarctica and recently in Greenland.

That's a cheap dodge .. why don't you try explaining it?


Been trying for some time now, but you can't teach anybody anything. One can only choose to learn, and there is plenty of material regarding Plasma Cosmology/Universe to get started on.
DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 03, 2015
How much energy is transferred via these electromagnetic effects you are alluding to?
Good question, maybe we should measure it before making dire predictions based upon incomplete knowledge.
Wait, you mean you can't even estimate it quantitatively? Not even order of magnitude?
WHAT is? That charged particles interact with the magnetosphere of Earth? Sure, but what is the relevance to this topic?
Energy transmission via electric currents, induction heating for example. Such events could cause a "sudden onset" of glacial melting, such as is occurring in Antarctica and recently in Greenland.
Seems like that quantitative assessment of energy transfer would come in handy here.
That's a cheap dodge .. why don't you try explaining it?
Been trying for some time now, but you can't teach anybody anything. One can only choose to learn, and there is plenty of material regarding Plasma Cosmology/Universe to get started on. So, you can't/won't explain it here then?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2015
So, you can't/won't explain it here then?


Is that how you learn, from random people on comment forums? Why don't you read some Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, Peratt, Bruce, Lerner, Scott, et al. They're a whole lot more interesting than I.

Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2015
jeffensley claimed
... degree in Environmental Science (ES) and working in the field for nearly 20 years disqualify me
I now question YOU, Prove your qualification please !

From previous exchanges with you it appears you only got a superficial education in Physics with negligible if any education in radiative heat transfer & especially Psychrometry ?

Please confirm to what Physics you're conversant with, ie key

1 https://en.wikipe...transfer
2 http://en.wikiped..._forcing
3 https://en.wikipe...hrometry

From >30yrs discussions on net & in person across many countries, well trained ES' cover those as they are *essential* to the field !

jeffensley states
Much of what is currently defined as "science" used to fall under the category of politics, activism, and computer programming. We no longer base our reality on what we see, we base it on what computer models predict
An ES wouldn't write this :P
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
I see you're still clinging to the illusion that we understand all and if we were just willing to take action, would be in control of it all as well
@jeff
that is not what he said at all
I guess a degree in Environmental Science and working in the field for nearly 20 years disqualify me
appeal to self authority? really?
considering that you've also historically supported denial denier claims and positions that are directly refuted by empirical evidence and studies... WTF?
you can't/won't explain it here then?
@DLK
you should see her (cd) attempts to explain her eu to Tim Thompson here: http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

Good luck getting her to recognize the flaws in her eu
I tried to get her to go to the free MIT link to get a grounding in Physics, but she ignored it
perhaps she will try now? http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Good to see a pro here, DLK
Q-Star is also one (Astrophysics)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2015
"the public needs to trust how the EPA translates the "complicated" science into real-life actions."

http://dailycalle...science/

Sure.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2015
"the public needs to trust how the EPA translates the "complicated" science into real-life actions."

http://dailycalle...science/

Sure.


The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Ronald Reagan

Read more at http://www.brainy...G7rHS.99
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2015
""The APS issue goes deeper than what is right or wrong in climate science," Cohen, a distinguished fellow of the Society, told me. "It goes to the integrity of the science process and the trust invested in our scientific institutions. The question at hand is whether science is worthy of the trust the public once conferred upon it, or whether it is just another special interest."

"Science is not the handmaiden of politics," added Gould, a professor of physics at the University of Hartford and past chair of the New England section of the APS.

"Administrators of the American Physical Society should now act to recapture its noble mission," he urged. "This includes the recognition that, 'Science is best advanced when there is mutual trust, based upon honest behavior, throughout the community. … It is important that the tradition of ethical behavior be carefully maintained [my stress] and transmitted with enthusiasm to future generations.'""
http://www.breitbart.com

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.