Sociologist suggests corporate disinformation at root of climate change polarization

November 24, 2015 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report

Credit: Charles Rondeau/public domain
(Phys.org)—Justin Farrell, a sociologist with the School of Forestry & Environmental Studies at Yale University, has conducted a study looking into the question of why there is so much polarity regarding the opinions of Americans regarding global environment change and has found that it can be very strongly tied to corporate disinformation campaigns. In his paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he describes his study of publicly available written and verbal texts on the topic over the past two decades and why what he found led him to believe that a few key players in the U.S. have managed to muddle the debate in the minds of voters.

Many in the science community have been baffled by many Americans (and others) refusal to believe that the planet is heating up and that it is almost certainly due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Suspecting that it might have something to do with the information that Americans receive on the topic, he poured over 20 years worth of data that included 40,785 texts and other medium. In so doing he was able to identify 164 organizations that he categorizes as "actors," such as oil companies and others with something to lose if alternatives to oil use are promoted.

He then used computational data methods to extract information from the dataset which he says revealed two major findings. The first was that organizations with corporate funding were more likely to have sent out messages that were meant to polarize than were those that were publicly funded. The second thing was that corporate funding influenced the content of the polarizing efforts and led to more digression from what could be termed, actual science. Messages meant to polarize, he notes, generically tended to amplify contrarian views on the topic—clear attempts to causes readers or listeners to question scientific evidence.

In short, he suggests that contrarian efforts by some actors seeking to mislead the public have caused so much confusion that many Americans are no longer able to figure out who to listen to or believe. He suggests that his research also highlights the needed for more information dissemination from publicly funded sources to counter those that are backed by corporations.

Explore further: Global warming contrarian researcher investigated for not revealing funding sources

More information: Justin Farrell. Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2015). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1509433112

Abstract
Drawing on large-scale computational data and methods, this research demonstrates how polarization efforts are influenced by a patterned network of political and financial actors. These dynamics, which have been notoriously difficult to quantify, are illustrated here with a computational analysis of climate change politics in the United States. The comprehensive data include all individual and organizational actors in the climate change countermovement (164 organizations), as well as all written and verbal texts produced by this network between 1993–2013 (40,785 texts, more than 39 million words). Two main findings emerge. First, that organizations with corporate funding were more likely to have written and disseminated texts meant to polarize the climate change issue. Second, and more importantly, that corporate funding influences the actual thematic content of these polarization efforts, and the discursive prevalence of that thematic content over time. These findings provide new, and comprehensive, confirmation of dynamics long thought to be at the root of climate change politics and discourse. Beyond the specifics of climate change, this paper has important implications for understanding ideological polarization more generally, and the increasing role of private funding in determining why certain polarizing themes are created and amplified. Lastly, the paper suggests that future studies build on the novel approach taken here that integrates large-scale textual analysis with social networks.

Related Stories

ExxonMobil probed on climate science

November 5, 2015

ExxonMobil is being investigated by New York state on whether it lied to the public about the risks of climate change, a spokesman for New York's top prosecutor said Thursday.

Recommended for you

Climate simulations project wetter, windier hurricanes

November 14, 2018

New supercomputer simulations by climate scientists at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have shown that climate change intensified the amount of rainfall in recent hurricanes ...

251 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (47) Nov 24, 2015
In the annals of history the demagoguery perpetrated against climate science will feature right along that of WWII germany against the Jews.

Take note US citizens. You are no more proof against manipulation than the people of germany were (given your comparatively easy access to verifiable information probably even less so).
Learn from it. Resist people that try to manipulate you.
indio007
2.1 / 5 (33) Nov 24, 2015
I invoke Godwin's law. Congrats ! you tied the record for losing and internet debate in one post.
Whydening Gyre
3.5 / 5 (23) Nov 24, 2015
In the annals of history the demagoguery perpetrated against climate science will feature right along that of WWII germany against the Jews.

Take note US citizens. You are no more proof against manipulation than the people of germany were (given your comparatively easy access to verifiable information probably even less so).
Learn from it. Resist people that try to manipulate you.

But, wait...
Isn't that an attempt to manipulate?
dogbert
2 / 5 (42) Nov 24, 2015
One of the main tactics of the left is to attack the intelligence of people with opposing views rather than supporting one's own position. This article is clearly an attempt to marginalize anyone with a viewpoint opposing the AGW agenda and attacking any source of information which does not support the agenda.

Another tactic of the left is to complain that everyone else has an agenda but the writer's motives are pure as the driven snow.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (29) Nov 24, 2015
Conspiracy!
axemaster
4.6 / 5 (30) Nov 24, 2015
Couldn't agree more with AA.

Frankly though I mostly blame it on education and society in general. There's something very wrong when it's so easy to trick people. Most teachers don't understand that education is less about learning WHAT to think, and more about learning HOW to think. If you present a problem to most people, they don't have any idea how to start solving it. They feel powerless and to escape that feeling they accept whatever answer is given, even if it's BS. That's what gives things like religion and climate denial their immense power.

@dogbert - What else do you expect? If I stood in front of you on a bright sunny day, and denied the sun exists, would you respond "oh boy, that guy, he's really smart!"
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (30) Nov 24, 2015
Isn't that an attempt to manipulate?

If a request to "think for yourself" and "try to inform yourself" is a form of manipulation, then: yes.
Forestgnome
1.9 / 5 (31) Nov 24, 2015
And it all began when Al Gore misrepresented data from the Vostok ice core samples to indicate CO2 causes climate warming, rather than the opposite, which is what the scientist's original data implied. There's your actor.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (24) Nov 24, 2015
axemaster,
What else do you expect?


From someone who thinks everyone who has a different opinion is stupid, I expect you to say exactly what you said. No reasoning, just a personal attack.
totinen
3.9 / 5 (26) Nov 24, 2015
axemaster,
What else do you expect?


From someone who thinks everyone who has a different opinion is stupid, I expect you to say exactly what you said. No reasoning, just a personal attack.


I don't see any attack.
axemaster
4.6 / 5 (27) Nov 24, 2015
@Forestgnome
Your facts are right, but they don't mean what you think they mean. It would be better to actually understand the science, so let's go over it. Nobody denies that in ice ages the CO2 lags the temperature change. I'll even link a study to that effect:
http://cdiac.ornl...tok.html

The question is why. Let me lay out the 2 main scenarios for you:
- Slight change in solar insolation (Milankovitch cycle) causes a slight temperature change. CO2 either enters or leaves the atmosphere since many deposits are temperature sensitive, greatly amplifying the change. It takes a while for CO2 to enter or exit, so there's a clearly visible lag. So CO2 isn't the cause, but it still ends up doing most of the work.
- The current situation, where we are directly emitting CO2. In this case, we are the cause, and CO2 is lagging our activity. So again, CO2 isn't the cause, but it does the work.

Can you see how this isn't contradictory at all?
Eikka
3.2 / 5 (21) Nov 24, 2015
I still feel that the counter-movement - insidious and self-serving as it is - still serves an important balance in the discussion.

Because were it not for the naysayers, there would still be the people who take the opposite extreme about climate change and grossly exaggerate the issue, and those people who would hijack the cause for driving unrelated political agenda.

The scientific community is just as powerless against misinformation spread by some doomsday preacher as they are against the oil industry, because the public doesn't listen to the scientists.

In other words, "Chicken Little" would be running the show and we would do much more harm to ourselves by panicking and trying every sort of voodoo to save ourselves before we even knew for sure what we were saving ourselves from.

Rosser
4.1 / 5 (28) Nov 24, 2015
Some of these comments are nothing more than an attempt to demonize the folks that are clear minded enough to see the truth about global warming. The naysayers just refuse to give it up. It amuses me that people who refuse to accept global warming even read websites like this one. Just keeping track of the enemy, I suppose.
axemaster
4.6 / 5 (19) Nov 24, 2015
@Eikka
In the past I would have agreed with this, but at this point the threat has become so severe that I'm not sure it would be possible to exaggerate it. We're well on track for >4C of warming, and if civilization survives that, it will be very, very different.

Personally I have great hope that transhumanism will take off soon, but climate change is a threat to that too. Transhumanist projects will be very expensive and complex and thus require a strong economy and stable, long-term funding. Climate change will take those things from us.

Regardless, it is a great pity and an ongoing puzzlement to me that people don't listen to scientists.
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
we would do much more harm to ourselves by panicking and trying every sort of voodoo to save ourselves

I know it's not voodoo, but where would you class, generating bio-fuel from food.
Milou
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2015
Same methods used to get us into the war in Iraq. Very effective and damaging.
thefurlong
4.8 / 5 (26) Nov 24, 2015
@dogbert
One of the main tactics of the left is to attack the intelligence of people with opposing views

AGW is not a leftist position any more than gravity is a leftist position. It is a scientific position. Politics has nothing to do with it.
This article is clearly an attempt to marginalize anyone with a viewpoint opposing the AGW agenda...

Another tactic of the left is to complain that everyone else has an agenda but the writer's motives are pure as the driven snow.

Ever seen a courtroom drama? Can you tell me how you think you are not committing the "Appeal to Motive" fallacy, here?

Presence of bias is not evidence of foul play.

Now, we all know how you feel. But let's be more specific, and focus.

This is a good opportunity to make this conversation about the article rather than silly ideological wars that never get anywhere. Please tell me what specific things in this article are invalid, and why.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (19) Nov 24, 2015
Capitalism with its selfishness and greed will kill us all if not reined in.
axemaster
5 / 5 (18) Nov 24, 2015
OK, I'll make a comment on the article. First, here's a link to the actual paper:
http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf

It looks like they used computational methods to extract the meaning from each text, and then referenced it against the affiliations of the originating party. I'm not a statistician, so I can't really comment on the methods used, but it looks like the results mean what they claim they mean. As a personal anecdote, I think the graphed data matches my own observations on the global warming discussion pretty well.

I suspect the citations at the end of the paper have a lot of value in themselves.
Aldebaran
3.9 / 5 (19) Nov 24, 2015
One of the main tactics of the left is to attack the intelligence of people with opposing views

Maybe, but so what? This is about bias and vested interests, not intelligence. Plus, that doesn't change the facts about AGW.
This article is clearly an attempt to marginalize anyone with a viewpoint opposing the AGW agenda and attacking any source of information which does not support the agenda.

No, the author is pointing out where vested interests have played a role in what we hear about AGW. The anti-AGW lobby ought to be very concerned, given how much they worry about climate scientists being linked to governments.
Another tactic of the left is to complain that everyone else has an agenda but the writer's motives are pure as the driven snow.

You seem to be trying to discredit the author by implying he has an agenda, but you are defensive in the face of evidence of an agenda on the anti-AGW side. Bias and vested interests are problems to be addressed everywhere.

gkam
2.9 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2015
It it the sleazy story of tobacco all over again. It's hard to beat Big Money.
gkam
2.9 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2015
We have to fight propaganda and scare tactics with the truth:
http://www.utilit.../409780/

Dirty fuels are losing.
cjones1
1.7 / 5 (23) Nov 24, 2015
How accurate has your weatherman been this year? Why isn't Greenland greener? People are familiar with ice ages and other information enough to know that climate change is real, but AGW is questionable as today's weather forecast.
Geologists and geologic/climate history may be more appealing than Luddhite sensationalism and AGW forecasts. People also realize the forces of AGW are just another politically influenced group that sings for their supper to the politicians and business people who profit from their advocacy.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (18) Nov 24, 2015
http://www.breitb...e-scale/

Right, tell me that the corporations involved in renewable energy have not distorted the facts and or data and influenced politics to further their profits.

But of course, this does not matter since the end justifies the means!
gkam
2.6 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
Checked the thermometer lately?

How hot was this last year?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2015
OK, I'll make a comment on the article. First, here's a link to the actual paper:
http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf

Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall.
It looks like they used computational methods to extract the meaning from each text, and then referenced it against the affiliations of the originating party.

Here is a supplemental document published on that same site that sheds some light on the methods:
http://www.pnas.o...sapp.pdf

Based off of this, it looks like Farrell started with a seed of 164 anti-AGW organizations identified by prior research, and then used content and link analysis to identify more actors using the Intenet Archive. What this means is that he used network analysis and the content of the web pages to identify new organizations that also contributed to the movement.
(to be continued)

thefurlong
5 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2015
(continued)
I can only speculate, but it it seems like he useddirect links, like hyperlinks and citations, and perhaps even similarity measures between web pages, to establish a weighted network between actors. He then likely used methods like Hub Dectection or Expectation Maximization to identify the most influential actors. But, I might be wrong.

I have to read into this further, but it seems like it should give us a pretty good idea of the methods used, at least in general.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2015
Also, he didn't start with a seed of 164 organizations. He started with a seed of 118 organizations and then used the methods above to identify 46 others. Sorry about that.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (18) Nov 24, 2015
Personally I have great hope that transhumanism will take off soon, but climate change is a threat to that too

Even so - we should not bank our future survival on not yet achieved breakthroughs. Breakthroughs are fickle that way - they may or may not come in time (just look at fusion technology). In any case transhumanism would only be available to a select few for quite some time - so this isn't a solution
thefurlong
5 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2015
http://www.breitb...e-scale/


Breitbart is not a trustworthy news site.

http://www.politi...eitbart/

I can list more, but I would run out of comment space.

Right, tell me that the corporations involved in renewable energy have not distorted the facts and or data and influenced politics to further their profits.

You are committing the Tu quoque fallacy. It doesn't matter what "the other side" does. Your side is being accused of distorting the truth, and I can tell you right now, that it would be more credible if it stopped linking to discredited news sources like the Breitbart News Network, Fox News, or whattsupwiththat.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (19) Nov 24, 2015
Talk about disinformation. Over 60, taxpayer funded, contradictory, pal-reviewed studies to explain the pause.
thefurlong
4.8 / 5 (19) Nov 24, 2015
Talk about disinformation. Over 60, taxpayer funded, contradictory, pal-reviewed studies to explain the pause.

Focus on the article, please. We all know what your ideological stance is. You don't even have to write anything. It can be inferred by your user name. Your comments could consist of "All bias confirmation and poor research makes antigoracle a dull boy," and you would still achieve the same effect.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 24, 2015
"Breitbart is not a trustworthy news site."

Yes Furlong I realize that it has not been approved by the Ministry of Truth.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
"Breitbart is not a trustworthy news site."

Yes Furlong I realize that it has not been approved by the Ministry of Truth.

That is not an argument.

Here is more evidence Breitbart isn't a trusted news source:
http://www.slate....lly.html
https://www.washi...ory.html
MR166
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2015
Furlong using The Slate to attempt to prove that that anything published by Breitbart is totally without merit just proves how closed minded you are. My Ministry of Truth statement has just been confirmed yet again.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
"Yes Furlong I realize that it has not been approved by the Ministry of Truth. "
-------------------------------------

Nor by the Minister himself, Roger Ailes.
axemaster
4.8 / 5 (19) Nov 24, 2015
Yeah, Breitbart is garbage. It's easy to tell, because when I went to the link the site automatically tried to poll me on which Republican I support. But moving to the content:

- the author, Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert, is not a climatologist and works for a lobbying organization that doesn't produce any scientific work of its own. He's described as "a leading German scientist", but clearly isn't since I can't find any of his work.

Two others are mentioned as supporting him:

- Joseph D'Aleo, who said "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

- Anthony Watts, who runs Watts Up With That, one of the most blatant disinformation sites.

So... yeah. Not exactly a star lineup.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2015
Furlong using The Slate to attempt to prove that that anything published by Breitbart is totally without merit just proves how closed minded you are.

That is also not an argument.

I don't know why so many people think that making bare assertions is a valid debate strategy.

Here, I will make a bare assertion:
MR166 is does cocaine. This is evidence that he cannot be trusted.

Without evidence substantiating my claim, I can say anything I want to.
plasmasrevenge
1.6 / 5 (21) Nov 24, 2015
Climategate and Mike's nature trick changed everything. Academics expect Americans to ignore the history. This is wrong.

There's nothing at all questionable about skepticism directed at land station adjustments, in light of the disagreement with satellite data. Shame on academia for advocating for Americans to stop thinking for themselves.

The public is being taught to THINK WHAT SCIENTISTS THINK rather than actually THINKING LIKE A SCIENTIST -- which academia increasingly treats as a threat.

This whole thing is such a colossal waste of resources. We could be doing great things with science and technology, and instead, we've lost a generation to this highly questionable science.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (19) Nov 24, 2015
One of the main tactics of the left is to attack the intelligence of people with opposing views rather than supporting one's own position
dogbert
except this: had you been paying attention to the studies and science, you would see that this is validation of a former study:
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

so this isn't attacking intelligence, it is PROVING a point WRT misinformation etc

i totally agree with AA_P
@whyde
funny... but it isn't manipulation so much as a warning
just like it isn't godwins law so much as a warning based upon the exact same circumstances in history
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 24, 2015
corporate funding influenced the content of the polarizing efforts and led to more digression from what could be termed, actual science

Of those 60+ pal-reviewed studies to explain the pause, all contradicting each other -
How many were "actual science"?
How many BILLIONS in TAXPAYER money were squandered in that bit of disinformation?
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (19) Nov 24, 2015
How accurate has your weatherman been this year?
@cjones
weather isn't the same as climate
Why isn't Greenland greener?
why isn't Iceland Icier?
but AGW is questionable as today's weather forecast
again, confusing weather with climate... you should actually read the definitions of both
also: the science speaks volumes about AGW and climate: ignoring that makes you intentionally biased, therefore making a FALSE CLAIM (see link above)

Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall
@furlong
trying to contact the author for a copy - i might be able to share it on Sapo's joint in the private area or by PM, if i can get it
i will ask permission
thefurlong
5 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2015
This article completely dismisses those of who are actually trying to find the Truth.

Thanks for making an effort to focus on the article.
1) There have been Many reports of Scientists manipulating the data to fit their findings.

This is vague. You need to be more specific.
2) There are Many, Many Respected Scientists who Disagree and even present Scientific Evidence that shows an Opposite cause, or effect.

Who? What do you mean by many? Do you have a trustworthy source that can identify these scientists, their degrees, and their contributions to climate science?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2015
3) The computer models have all proved to be Wrong.

Evidence?
As someone in the IT industry, I'm well aware how easy it is to get a computer to say anything you want it to.

This is no different from saying you can get experimental results to say anything you want to. All you have to do is be selective in the evidence you use. The question is whether climate scientists actually practice good science in this regard.

I work in data analysis/exploitation, so I am well aware of the danger of injecting bias into an algorithm. That is why you actually use things like F1 scores to measure the fitness of your results, why you don't vet your algorithms on the data sets you trained them on, and why you try to break your algorithms. It is true that bias can show up, but that's not justification for your general assertion.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2015
4) The Insults, Rudeness, and Hate spread by those who think they are somehow Smarter than the rest of us; is enough to turn anyone Against the "Cause."

I don't know...even when we are respectful, it doesn't seem to make a difference. For example, I tried to do this with Denglish, and showed him that his trendline's uncertainty was larger than its slope, and that didn't stop him from continuing to use it as evidence. Thus far, I see little evidence that anti-AGW people are capable of changing their minds through rational discourse.
It's very obvious to Most Open-Minded people that the Science is NOT Settled and we still have MUCH to learn.

Science is never settled. That doesn't imply that certain parts of it aren't. The notion that humans are significantly contributing to climate change IS settled, but don't take my word for it.

Here is a good resource for learning about all the evidence:
http://www.realclimate.org/
thefurlong
5 / 5 (11) Nov 24, 2015
@furlong
trying to contact the author for a copy - i might be able to share it on Sapo's joint in the private area or by PM, if i can get it
i will ask permission

Thanks. Let me know how it goes.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 24, 2015
@furlong
trying to contact the author for a copy - i might be able to share it on Sapo's joint in the private area or by PM, if i can get it
i will ask permission

Thanks. Let me know how it goes.
@furlong
sure thing

i want to read a lot more about methods etc... and i want to see some specifics too

plus, it will help with something else we're working on

thefurlong
5 / 5 (18) Nov 24, 2015
4) The Insults, Rudeness, and Hate spread by those who think they are somehow Smarter than the rest of us; is enough to turn anyone Against the "Cause."

In fact, look no further than my conversation with MR166.

I tried to be respectful, and what do I get in return? Accusations of being part of the "ministry of truth."

Who has time for that sophomoric crap?
axemaster
5 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2015
For those who have access, I've posted the article to Sapo's Joint here:

http://saposjoint...p;t=3881
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 24, 2015
For those who have access, I've posted the article to Sapo's Joint here:

http://saposjoint...p;t=3881
NICE
thanks!

thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Nov 24, 2015
For those who have access, I've posted the article to Sapo's Joint here:

http://saposjoint...p;t=3881

Thanks. I will take a look
Eikka
2.8 / 5 (18) Nov 24, 2015
In the past I would have agreed with this, but at this point the threat has become so severe that I'm not sure it would be possible to exaggerate it. We're well on track for >4C of warming, and if civilization survives that, it will be very, very different.


See, this is what I was talking about.

Even when we agree on the AGW, we disagree of the extent, reliability and meaning of the predictions. Of course you personally believe that it's not possible to exaggerate it, because you already believe in what I would consider an exaggeration.

If you already believe we're going to hell in a handbasket, it's not too much of a stretch to paint it a little bit worse to get people to react, but you'd be forgetting to doubt yourself first.

Then someone else takes it a little bit further than that, and so we become Chicken Little - who had a pea fall on his back and thought the sky is falling, and led everyone to hide in the fox's den where they all got eaten.
Eikka
2.7 / 5 (18) Nov 24, 2015
In the original versions of the story, Chicken Little had a pea or a rose petal or something on his back, got scared and told all the other animals individually that the sky is falling, and all the other animals then asked all the other animals "is this true?" and they each told each other that it was true.

Each time re-telling the news it got worse and worse until everyone forgot that it was just one little chick who started it. They all started running for shelter in a full blown hysteria, at which point the fox came along and pointed out that he has an underground den that would be safe.

So everybody went thinking its going to be worse out than in, and the fox ate the lot.

It's one of the early descriptions of the echo chamber effect, which describes how you're prone to do stupid things when you believe in something or dismiss opposing viewpoints because it's "too dangerous not to".
thefurlong
4.8 / 5 (18) Nov 24, 2015
Even when we agree on the AGW, we disagree of the extent, reliability and meaning of the predictions.

It depends on who is doing the disagreeing. It doesn't matter whether WE disagree. It only matters whether the claim is consistently supported by scientific evidence. There are a few things being glossed over here:

1) What does the evidence say.
2) What is the PROBABILITY of axemaster's worst-case scenario
3) What is the PROBABILITY that we will experience SOME KIND of cataclysmic change.
4) What is the PROBABILITY that climate change won't be a concern.

We can argue online until 4chan /b/ becomes 100% populated with feminists, and it wouldn't matter a whit without appealing to the evidence. Start here:
http://nca2014.gl...v/report/our-changing-climate/future-climate-change]http://nca2014.gl...e-change[/url]

Or look at the full report:

http://nca2014.gl...v/report
Eikka
2.8 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2015
It doesn't matter whether WE disagree.


In a collective sense, yes it does.

Because "We" are the people who ultimately decides what policy actions we take. If "We" believe in the worst possible outcome, we naturaly believe we should take drastic ill-thought, under-researched and untested actions which risk being completely ineffective and harmful.

In other words, when you paint a devil on the wall and scare people shitless, they're prone to start burning witches instead of looking for real evidence.

What I'm simply saying is, that the lay person has equal trouble seeing the science from the naysayers' propaganda, as they do from the doomsday mongers' propaganda. Eliminate one, and the other remains.

The further trouble is that the scientists themselves can't step up to say "hold your horses there" against people who spin their results to exaggeration, because they would be discredited as deniers.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
author says that Corporate Disinformation are causing me to the way I do; an incorrect premise.


Well, no, he doesn't. His premise is NOT about specific people. It's specifically about how a small number of actors are BEHIND most of the literature that foments polarization about global warming.

So, I pointed the reasons that it's difficult for a layman to get the "Real Story."

This article is precisely about why it's difficult for a layman to get the real story. Namely, a few well heeled actors are waging a disinformation campaign, which makes it difficult for the average joe to figure out what's really going on.

I direct you, for example to the passage at the bottom:
In short, he suggests that contrarian efforts by some actors seeking to mislead the public have caused so much confusion that many Americans are no longer able to figure out who to listen to or believe
thefurlong
5 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2015
Yes, I could site sources, but what would be the point.

That's how we do it in science. We appeal to evidence.

How else do you propose to distinguish fact, unsubstantiated fact, and falsehood?
You'd just tell me that this doctor or that scientist are not creditable, or are in the employ of "Corporations."

I understand your frustration, but I assure that that isn't what I do.

You can see an example of this here,
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

Denglish provides Dr. Roy Spencer as a source, and I tell him I will look into his source. To be fair, I still haven't looked into Roy Spencer enough, and so I will will withhold judgement until I do.

Now, given your frustration, perhaps you can put yourself in my shoes when I actually provide reputable sources and theoretical arguments only for them to be invariably dismissed regardless of content. This is why, after a while, I just start mocking people.
Eikka
2.5 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2015
This article is precisely about why it's difficult for a layman to get the real story. Namely, a few well heeled actors are waging a disinformation campaign, which makes it difficult for the average joe to figure out what's really going on.


Now, think about who would have the incentive to write the same sort of disinformation from the opposite point of view.

Let's say you're a public speaker who makes money out of delivering shocking presentations about world issues because people pay to hear those kinds of speeches. Remind you of anyone? Or maybe you're party to a large multinational corporation that sells wind turbines, and you want to influence government subsidy policy to sell more of your product faster at higher prices.

Just because one side of an issue is in it for themselves, or "evil", doesn't mean the other side consists of saints.

It's better to be confused than have utmost certainty in bullshit.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 24, 2015
The science does not matter. Just trust Justin.
http://blogs.worl...-farrell
thefurlong
5 / 5 (12) Nov 24, 2015
But what about those of us who don't yet have an opinion? I've posted here with information that conflicts with the story and asked "how can this be - who do I believe?" only to be rebuked and belittled.

I can believe that. Trolls will be trolls. However, to be fair, most of those kinds of people are used to people like you turning out to be not just breathtakingly misinformed but also rationally ill-equipped, which brings us to the point you agree with above.

There are, however, people willing to engage respectfully with true skeptics (not just denialists), like Thermodynamics. It's just that there is so little overlap between honest people and people who don't accept AGW, that you rarely see it.

It really depends on your attitude. I promise you that if you start from a position of arrogance, you will get no respect from me.

If, however, you demonstrate honesty, show a willingness to learn about the evidence, and to argue fairly, I see no reason to be an asshole.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
Excellentjim said:
But what about those of us who don't yet have an opinion? I've posted here with information that conflicts with the story and asked "how can this be - who do I believe?


Jim, let me try to address some of these.

1) There have been Many reports of Scientists manipulating the data to fit their findings.


Yes, there have been "Many reports" but zero accepted papers. The reason is that every time they dig down into the reason for the corrections they find out that there are good reasons for the corrections. There has never been a case of a single scientific paper that has shown the "manipulations" are not needed to improve the data set. The major papers make it clear why they make changes (in the procedures sections). The reason some of us skipped over this is that it has been "asked and answered" multiple times in this forum. It is a legitimate question and it should have been answered.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
@thefurlong - cont - "the science is settled" or "some science is settled" is just not what my professors taught me at all. No Science is settled!

Well, yes, and no. In science, you never prove anything 100%, but some things are demonstrated so overwhelmingly that it is impractical to anticipate them being false. In designing a rollercoaster, for example, an engineer would be silly to worry about conservation of angular momentum suddenly failing!

The whole point is that there is overwhelming evidence for AGW, and little evidence that doesn't support it.

Heck, we're still finding things in the air we did not know was there.

Well, yes, but if I told you "air doesn't contain nitrogen" you would justifiably call me a crank, because that aspect of the science is settled.

There is just so much we don't yet understand;

But there IS much we do understand. You are not taking that into account.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2015
eJim said:
2) There are Many, Many Respected Scientists who Disagree and even present Scientific Evidence that shows an Opposite cause, or effect


Those of us who work as scientists realize that there is a distribution of scientists just like in any other field. Some are good, some are bad, and some are deranged. Most of us who regularly post here have looked into the arguments of the "Respected scientists" and, even, try to replicate their approach. What I see is the "Respect" coming from the organizations who are aligned with the "arguments" coming from those who are, then, "respected." I get weary just reading the mistakes on sites like WattsUp, FoxNews, Britebart, and other non-technical sources. So, I skipped over this as "asked and answered." If you have a real respected scientist with an argument you would like us to get involved in, post it. Otherwise the claim of "Many, Many, Respected scientists" is hollow.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2015
eJim said:
3) The computer models have all proved to be Wrong. As someone in the IT industry, I'm well aware how easy it is to get a computer to say anything you want it to.


This is a claim that is not supported. Your comment:
The computer models have all proved to be Wrong.


is without support. Do you know what the theory of AGW actually is? It has nothing to do with the weather in NYC. Instead, it deals with the concept that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere retain more heat. That gives an energy balance that has been shown to be true. The programs that model the distribution of that heat in the atmosphere and oceans are fluid dynamic codes that deal with interconnected 3-phase systems (solid, liquid, and gas). Those still operate within the error bars. They use the concept of cohort models with many runs with varying inputs to get averaged outputs. You should understand that if you really model.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
and I have a real problem with a scientist that would make a statement that disagreement is not allowed.

It depends on who you are and your knowledge level of that which you are disagreeing with. It comes down to Bayesian probability.

The likelihood of you being correct is a determined by how much you know, and how much you understand. By definition, if you are a novice in a subject, then the only evidence available to you is what experts tell you. It is simply irrational for you, as a novice, to act as if minority expert opinion trumps expert opinion. After all, you're a novice!

So, as a novice, you have two options: Consider that expert consensus has a high probability of being true in lieu of further evidence, or actually acquaint yourself with the evidence and methods used. In short, start becoming an expert yourself.

What you aren't justified in doing, however, is questioning expert consensus WHILE claiming ignorance of the subject.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2015
eJim continued with:
"the science is settled" or "some science is settled" is just not what my professors taught me at all. No Science is settled!


That is just wrong. As an example, Newton's laws are settled. You are going to come back and tell me that Einstein proved they were not. You are wrong and if your professors told you that Newton was wrong the professor is wrong. Newton's laws are settled for slow, non-massive (in the sense of a star being massive) and non-microscopic systems. That involves almost anything we need to calculate. Einstein came in to expand the realm of prediction, not correct Newton for typical macroscopic objects at speeds much less than that of light. If it were not settled the civil engineers out there would have to use quantum mechanics and relativity to build a bridge. That is not the case, just as the spectroscopic behavior of gases is well known and is settled. Now, just show your argument to this.
SuperThunder
1.1 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2015
In the annals of history the demagoguery perpetrated against climate science will feature right along that of WWII germany against the Jews.

I truly believe this is incorrect, as I predict the oligarchy will win, exterminate most of humanity for profit, and make sure history never once reflects this. You may as well be talking about Roman concrete during the Middle Ages.

Take note US citizens. You are no more proof against manipulation than the people of germany were (given your comparatively easy access to verifiable information probably even less so).
Learn from it. Resist people that try to manipulate you.

Most US citizens agree with Germany's treatment of the Jews, and the USA is out to conquer the earth for domestic and foreign oligarchs who so happen to all be white, your appeal is literally the logical fallacy of begging the question.
This is the most pessimistic thing I've ever said on a science site.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
eJim said:
there is a list floating around with pages of Scientists and quotes from them about their disagreements with Global Warming or the Man-Made component of it. I don't know where it's posted so I don't have a link handy. It's a long list and there is not enough room here to post it. However, I know a few of them, and I trust them.


You make a general statement about a "list" somewhere on the internet that has the names of people you trust but you can't even give me a link to the list? Are you expecting me to believe that this is what you say it is? There are a number of lists floating around including those with fictitious names including Marvel Superheros as well as Nobel laureates who have said they didn't sign the lists. Point me at your list and point out who you "believe."
thefurlong
5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
And now, they want to make policies that will cost us billions, and billions. So, I not only have an interest, I have a financial stake in the subject.

But I think that is unsubstantiated. I think there ARE things we can do to curb climate change which WOULDN'T cost us that much. See, for example, Thermo's excellent argument at
http://phys.org/n...hts.html
Search for:
I am involved in a project to apply magnetohydrodynamic high-temperature combustors...


You can also find cost-effective suggestions here:
http://www3.epa.g...ons.html
and here:
http://www.oecd.o...ange.pdf

Furthermore, if temperatures do rise > 4 deg., then there will be a much larger cost to humanity as a whole, than billions of tax-dollars.

Besides, if I were you, I would make sure I understood how much of my money I was paying towards oil subsidies already.
krundoloss
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 24, 2015
Climate change is undeniable.

Greed always wins. So be on the greedy side or die. History shows this time and again.

What we should really worry about is the acidity of the oceans, and pollution that affects plankton and other small organisms in the ocean. They basically support our entire ecosystem and they are also sensitive to minor changes.
SuperThunder
1.8 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2015
Anyway, the article raises an interesting point. Is phys.org, and other sites in the group of sites you can use when you sign up, doing more to promote insanity than science? It seems they prefer these comments be the focus, instead of the articles.

This may be the cleverest (meaning only clever) science denial site on the Internet.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
...when I hear of "data manipulation" or consider the source of Funding and the expected results payed for.

You keep being vague. What are you talking about? Climategate? Please be specific.
sn't that what the author is saying - the funding source disqualifies the evidence?

No, he isn't . He's saying that the source of disinformation comes from a small handful of actors.

I can find plenty of errors on both sides so "Trusting the Expert" just doesn't work for me, or many other "novices."

Again, please be specific.
For example, which errors? What is an estimate of the ratio of the number of errors that experts proponents make to the number of errors that expert opponents make?

Everybody, it seems, has an Agenda and a financial reason to Push that agenda.

Sure. Everybody has an agenda. That's life.

But having an agenda does not have any bearing on your argument. You need to see past the agendas and consider the evidence on its own.
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (18) Nov 24, 2015
"Sociologist suggests corporate disinformation at root of climate change polarization"

And for today's statements of the bleeding obvious...
thefurlong
5 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2015
So, what if the whole thing is False? I've traveled the world - it's Not heating up at all; Sea levels are stable. See that? another source of confusion.

Well it depends on where you've traveled.

Have you been to East Greenland?
http://www.greenl...changes/

How about Kiribati?
http://www.bloomb...ation#p1
http://news.bbc.c...8892.stm

Seattle?
http://www.busine...n-2015-7

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that specific incidences can always be attributed to coincidence, which is why you need to consider ensembles.

The world is, indeed, heating up:
http://www.ucsusa...eA3arRhE
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2015
@thermodynamics - I've tried to find a link to the "list" though I have it as a document.
With that said, here is a link that is similar. http://www.forbes...-crisis/


eJim: This is the reason I get a little short with some folks. You talked about a list you can't find and then give me an opinion piece from Forbes to act as your "technical source." You talked about "Many, many respected scientists" and then can't find it. I am taking the time to address your questions and you are not engaged in a meaningful technical discussion. Please find me the list you are talking about and show me which scientists should be taken as "respected" and why? Either that or retract that statement and understand why it is meaningless.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
It is a Fact that some scientists have intentionally changed data to suite their intended outcome.

That's a tautology. Some people murder children. That doesn't mean that most people murder children.
Of course I'm being "vague" because that's all I can do.

No, it isn't. You can actually learn about the evidence.
There isn't any Concrete information out there.

www.realclimate.org
http://www3.epa.g...science/
https://www.climate.gov/

Here is a list of recommended books for laypeople:
http://www.npr.or...21057831
I just want to know which direction to point my support - I don't want it to become my Life's work.

It doesn't have too. You just need to learn ENOUGH. Visit EPA and realclimate, and those should give you a good idea of climate scientists are ACTUALLY saying.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
eJim said:
I'm really starting to believe that those paid by Politicians, or Taxpayer money, are the ones not telling the truth. It's just a thought, I'm not convinced yet.


Why on earth would you state that scientists paid by taxpayer money are not telling the truth? Please point out why you think that is a true statement?

Are you confusing research scientists with political appointees?
thermodynamics
4.8 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2015
eJim:
@thermodynamics - Here's another list. Lots of the same names as on the list I already have. https://en.wikipe..._warming


Thank you for a link to what you have in mind. I consider this a good example of productive interchange. If you read the page you will find that they have a good list of those who support the science and those who don't and they make the statements of understanding pretty well. Now, let me address some of the lists.

1) The Oregon list. This is a list put together by a Quack (in my opinion). You can form your own opinion by following the link to the "Oregon Petition" and then to the Arthur B. Robinson and his Oregon Petition. You should be able to google Robinson and also his "institute." He makes most of his money with his home schooling kit he sells which specializes in preventing "socialism in public schools." Read about him.
Vietvet
4.8 / 5 (18) Nov 24, 2015
@thermodynamics - I've tried to find a link to the "list" though I have it as a document.
With that said, here is a link that is similar. http://www.forbes...-crisis/


@jim

Did you happen to follow the links in the article?

Buried deep in the first we find the 1,077 respondents are all employed by the petroleum industry in Alberta, Canada. Kudos to the 36% "percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,"
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
eJim: Do I need to point out why a petition from the Heartland Institute would be suspect? It is a right wing think tank, not a scientific source. However, if you could just point out how many of the "scientists" in either petition are "respected" in your view it would help.
ab3a
2.5 / 5 (19) Nov 24, 2015
I don't dispute that the climate is changing, probably toward warmer temperatures.

The problem is that people think that we can do something to change it. How many hundreds of millions are we going to kill with substandard living conditions due to lack of energy? How are we going to tell countries such as China or India what fuels they should use?

The Kyoto Accords are a farce. Even Climate Activists admit that it is too feeble and too fraught with problems to work.

No, I dispute the political hacks who say that the sky is falling and that we must put them in charge of all energy so that they can tell the rest of us how to live. It's a very bad idea. It will lead toward totalitarianism.

We're going to have to deal with the change by reacting to the conditions as they change. There is no alternative. Only the most naive will let a bunch of wide eyed "experts" tell them how to live. The rest of us will cope as best we can.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
...the lay person has equal trouble seeing the science from the naysayers...doomsday mongers' propaganda
@Eikka
i see your point, but there is a flaw there: Science is evidence based, and therefore doesn't really take "sides"... now, a "scientist" will take a side, but the Science... the evidence simply is evidence
the biggest problem isn't so much that there ARE sides, it is that most people don't know how to determine what constitutes evidence versus what is simply distraction, red-herring, opinion, appeal to authority, etc [ad nauseum]
the key to the whole thing is actually education, especially in determining what is evidence
a PERFECT example: eJim says
there is a list floating around with pages of Scientists and quotes from them
this is opinion! conjecture. it doesn't mean fact any more than owning a garage makes you a car dealer
but eJim considers this a viable argument against evidence

See what i mean?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2015
@thermodynamics - Here's another list. Lots of the same names as on the list I already have. https://en.wikipe..._warming


Your list reinforces the argument that organizations like Exxon finance the deniers. Visit every name on that list and you will that connection---along with gems like this:

Legates is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming ".[10]
The declaration states:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."
https://en.wikipe..._Legates
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2015
I am justified in questioning the "Consensus" when I hear of "data manipulation"
@ejim
except that is exactly what the above article is about... just because you "hear" of it doesn't mean it is true
problem is: with the media, they don't consider reality, they consider the ratings

ex: when you see a court case, you typically make up your mind about guild or innocence based on what the media shares... so if the person goes free, you are stunned/justified-except you do NOT have all the info, nor important info

same thing above: you're fed info. you usually accept or reject it based upon your peers, religion, political affiliations and more, but if you claim to follow the evidence, then making statements like the above proves you either lying or you have already made up your mind, because the EVIDENCE states that you are wrong WRT lists, scientists disagree about warming/AGW, manipulation, etc

2Bcont'd
thefurlong
5 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2015

Buried deep in the first we find the 1,077 respondents are all employed by the petroleum industry in Alberta, Canada...


Good find. Specifically, in the abstract, it says,
By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of 'defensive institutional work' by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.


So, in other words, their sample seems to come from people associated with the petroleum industry. So, the question is, is this a fair sample of the climate science community at large?

They actually address this at the end:
the constellation of professional designations and industries, and the relevance of the petroleum industry for Alberta – may influence the findings, especially the frequency of frames.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
@eJim cont'd
so when you say
I don't see any evidence, or none that can be trusted
this means your idea of evidence is to trust a person over the evidence
especially considering the remarks you've made - there is only ONE source for the evidence of climate change, and that is the scientific Journals... original sources
NOT, i repeat NOT from news sites, pop-sci sites (articles)... but peer reviewed journal studies... and the ones that are validated are the best sources of information
Of course I'm being "vague" because that's all I can do. There isn't any Concrete information out there
as for as that comment, it is complete balderdash- this is propaganda from those who deny the science

there are plenty of sources that prove it wrong, like this: http://blogs.scie...sagrees/

over 9000 studies in just ONE year, & you say no concrete info??
get it yet?
Vietvet
4.8 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2015
Oil firms fund climate change 'denial'
http://www.thegua....science

This news is from 10 years ago.
junkieturtle
2.4 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2015
The denial really has little to do with corporate anything.

It's politics, pure and simple. Al Gore said climate change is real so Al Gore haters must double down on it not being so. It's the same liberal vs conservative bullcrap that plagues just about everything in this country.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2015
It's the same liberal vs conservative bullcrap that plagues just about everything in this country.

Well, I won't deny I am a liberal, but I don't subscribe to climate change because I am a liberal.

I would actually say I am a liberal (mostly) because I subscribe to science, rationality, and humanism.

But I don't toe the line for the purpose of towing the line. For example, one bogeyman among the left is GMOs, and as with all things science, I pay attention to the evidence. Thus far, I am unconvinced that GMOs are a cause for concern in food. I think it's silly to bring politics into this at all.

Frankly, I take that stance with most things.
Does Trickle Down theory work? Look for the evidence.
Can children be properly raised by homosexuals? Look for the evidence.
Are we safe letting Syrian Refugees in to the USA? Look for the evidence.

My identity does not shape my conclusions. My conclusions shape my identity.
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (18) Nov 24, 2015
The denial really has little to do with corporate anything.


That's a good theory Skippy, but all it really says is you are another new-agey sloganeer.

So who is bank rolling the denial propaganda machine? Not Joe-Not-A-Plumber. Not the rank and file of the Tea-Party-Skippy's-Club. I expect you will find at the bottom of every denial lie money provided by a company who deals in fossil fuels. Or a company who is depends on keeping regulations off the books. Or some company that depends on unregulated Chinese factories to keep a maximum profit. Or a politician who depends on those companies to provide the money they need to keep their jobs.
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2015
It's the same liberal vs conservative bullcrap that plagues just about everything in this country.

Well, I won't deny I am a liberal, but I don't subscribe to climate change because I am a liberal


I am about as liberal as you can get on almost every issues me. (With an exception or two.) But that has nothing to do with with how I feel about climate changes. I don't like what it is doing to my home area. (And other areas too if it is bad like here.) I am against the drilling companies, but not so much the nuclear companies as long as we need to get cleaner in the short term. Most liberals are rabid anti-nuclear to the point of have fantasies about what is needed to have a modern world and what you can get rid over right now today. Not me, practical means this AND that.

My conclusions shape my identity.


Tell it true Skippy. Me too.
RealityCheck
3.6 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2015
Come on, guys. The time/luxury for 'sides' and past tactics from either 'side', is over. The reality is now that the heat is building relentlessly, and, as Freeman Dyson himself acknowledges, in very great part due to human activity/CO2 etc situation. There is ample real world confirmation that climate change related weather extremes/frequencies/extents/consequences is becoming a rolling-disaster. In Australia we now have cyclones/storms 'out of season', and they are becoming more extreme and damaging. Our state of Queensland is now being pummeled practically all-year-round instead of the usual dry/wet pattern of cyclones/storms. The cost of these ongoing assaults is becoming too high to 'absorb' and/or 'adapt to', and will bankrupt us all if we don't implement solutions instead of continuing futile bickering/denial.

Please stop politicizing it; start contributing to solutions instead of perpetuating/denying/delaying (like Tobacco, Asbestos etc Lobbies did).

Try. Solve. :)
michael_frishberg
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 24, 2015
In the annals of history the demagoguery perpetrated against climate science will feature right along that of WWII germany against the Jews.

Take note US citizens. You are no more proof against manipulation than the people of germany were (given your comparatively easy access to verifiable information probably even less so).
Learn from it. Resist people that try to manipulate you.

These people fear god, and believe god will provide.
And you are worried about how the corporations have polluted their thoughts AND bodies?
Jayded
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2015
I invoke Godwin's law. Congrats ! you tied the record for losing and internet debate in one post.


Shut Nazi. Damnit
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2015
I would actually say I am a liberal (mostly)
@furlong
funny thing... i am completely dedicated to equality and rights... but most people actually call me a conservative

I don't know if it is because i tend to not talk politics (and i'm usually quiet, especially in crowds) or that it's because of their perception due to my lifestyle
to tell the truth... i hate all politics and do not consider myself to be ANY party, liberal or conservative! and i love this line
My identity does not shape my conclusions. My conclusions shape my identity
HOORAH!

.

.
So who is bank rolling the denial propaganda machine?
@Uncle Ira
don't forget to share this link next time: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

HOORAH

follow the money
Dug
3 / 5 (9) Nov 24, 2015
I except the basic concepts that would support climate change caused by humans, though I have difficulty accepting the accuracy purported in measuring those changes - especially changes that exceed the metrology capabilities used.

I do find it illogical that those who are so concerned that humans are changing the climate - aren't even more concerned with reducing the human population back to sustainable levels - near per-industrial revolution, pre-oil and pre-NPK. Surely, the most logically effective solution of reducing anthropogenic impacts on the planet is less humans impacting it. I do admit that the primary benefit from the climate change arguments as herein - is that at least you all aren't in the bedroom with your mate making more of you - at least for your mates sake, I hope not.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2015
I don't like what it is doing to my home area.

My sympathies go out to you.
(And other areas too if it is bad like here.) I am against the drilling companies, but not so much the nuclear companies as long as we need to get cleaner in the short term. Most liberals are rabid anti-nuclear to the point of have fantasies about what is needed to have a modern world and what you can get rid over right now today. Not me, practical means this AND that.

Yeah, I never really caught the anti-nuclear bug. I get the sense that most of the issues plaguing Nuclear power of of infrastructure and poor regulation, rather than with nuclear power, itself. But I don't feel I have done enough research into the subject to reach a conclusion one way or another.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2015
funny thing... i am completely dedicated to equality and rights... but most people actually call me a conservative

There is a single tear of disillusionment rolling down my cheek, shed for the inner child you've just heartlessly murdered.

I don't know if it is because i tend to not talk politics (and i'm usually quiet, especially in crowds) or that it's because of their perception due to my lifestyle
to tell the truth... i hate all politics and do not consider myself to be ANY party, liberal or conservative!

I only really call myself a liberal these days in protest to how it has been demonized by stupid people. It is far more accurate to call me an egalitarian, rationalist, and humanist.

As far as hating politics is concerned, unfortunately, politics determines our policies, which sucks. It is impossible not to be concerned with important issues without also worrying about corrupt politicians coming in and mucking things up.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2015
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
I do find it illogical that those who are so concerned that humans are changing the climate - aren't even more concerned with reducing the human population back to sustainable levels
@dug
this isn't true... but how do you fix the population problem without creating a police state, removing the rights of the people, refusing equality, or having some huge war to kill off the populace????

.

There is a single tear of disillusionment rolling down my cheek, shed for the inner child you've just heartlessly murdered
@furlong
ROTFLMFAO
no... likely they get this impression because i am typically a very quiet person IRL... i don't say much, and i have a simple lifestyle that doesn't include a lot of the BS that most people have in their life...

thus people ASSume i am conservative
not that i really am at all... i am neither
i do have my "important issues"... but i am not political at all
tblakely1357
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2015
"Frankly though I mostly blame it on education and society in general.... They feel powerless and to escape that feeling they accept whatever answer is given, even if it's BS. That's what gives things like religion and climate denial their immense power."

Strange, I'm not particularly religious and am something of a science/technology geek. My path to determining that Global Warming was a hoax involved critical thinking on my part and not mindless appeals to authority that many Warmist invoke.

When I first heard about Global Warming many years ago I thought there might be something to it since is seemed plausible. But as the years rolled on I noticed that every 'bad' weather event was blamed on GW. Then every solution involved massive government intervention. Then every possible benefit from a warming planet was immediately dismissed by the 'experts'. It finally struck me is that this 'crisis' was just a massive power grab and the actual 'science' behind it was fabricated.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
Rep. Lamar Smith has quite the track record.

"In his capacity as Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Smith issued more subpoenas in his first three years than the committee had for its entire 54 year history.[44]"
https://en.wikipe...S._Smith
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2015
My path to determining that Global Warming was a hoax involved critical thinking on my part and not mindless appeals to authority that many Warmist invoke
@tblakely1357
ok, this doesn't make sense to me... if you are "a science/technology geek", and you are even semi-educated.. then i would assume that you follow the evidence
now, the evidence points in one direction... take this blog, for instance:
http://blogs.scie...sagrees/

so, you can see that, in one year alone, over 9000 studies point to AGW, but 1 disagreed with it
if you were using CRITICAL THINKING, then you would follow the scientific evidence and the studies... so you would agree with global warming

therefore, there is either a lot of misinformation you are giving, you are also involved with conspiracy theory or trolling

AmritSorli
3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
we know that for last 10 years already www.fopi.info
fay
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
ok, so denial-advocates are biased towards interest groups that have something to lose from climate action. Probably no surprise for anybody, even hard-core deniers, even though they dont want to admit that. However, why should I believe agw-proponents arent biased towards interest groups which have something to gain from climate action? For example IPCC and governments.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2015
ok, so denial-advocates are biased towards interest groups that have something to lose from climate action. Probably no surprise for anybody, even hard-core deniers, even though they dont want to admit that. However, why should I believe agw-proponents arent biased towards interest groups which have something to gain from climate action? For example IPCC and governments.


Because the IPCC merely collates the totality of the science in order for governments to use as they se fit. The only "agenda" is to inform what the science is saying.
Governments are voted in (generally) via democracy. You get what you deserve with them. So diddums.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
However, why should I believe agw-proponents arent biased towards interest groups which have something to gain from climate action? For example IPCC and governments.

Where exactly do governments gain? Governments gain from control - and that means centralized services. Alternative energies and most all technologies that could combat climate change are anything but centralized.
(Also some things that will be needed to combat climate change cost a bit of money. Expenditures are never a popular thing with governments because that means taxes - which in turn means disgruntled voters)

And the IPCC? Where does that gain, exactly? Their salaries aren't dependent on how bad climate change is going to be or whether governments institute any changes they recommend. They are an advisory board without any power whatsoever. They're just doing their job either way.
fay
2 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2015

Where exactly do governments gain? Governments gain from control - and that means centralized services. Alternative energies and most all technologies that could combat climate change are anything but centralized.

i fully agree that govts gain by control. However i disagree with the rest. Renewables would only be decentralized if they werent supported by govts but rather independently built by private people without govt involvement. This isnt the case nowadays.
(Also some things that will be needed to combat climate change cost a bit of money. Expenditures are never a popular thing with governments because that means taxes - which in turn means disgruntled voters)

In democracy people are fooled into thinking that it is always someone else who is going to pay, not them. The govt can fool ppl into thinking only rich will pay for XY and the stupid masses will believe that. I have this right in front of my eyes in my country every day with socialist govt.
fay
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 25, 2015
And the IPCC? Where does that gain, exactly? Their salaries aren't dependent on how bad climate change is going to be or whether governments institute any changes they recommend. They are an advisory board without any power whatsoever. They're just doing their job either way.


i have a suspicion that anyone who would contest AGW wouldnt last very long in the IPCC. Just like anyone who is pro-agw wont last in "oil think-tanks" (or how to call them).
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
Renewables would only be decentralized if they werent supported by govts but rather independently built by private people without govt involvement.

Already happening. It's a lot easier for small communities to build wind/solar/biogas energy systems than for them to build nuclear powerplants. Even individuals can save a lot of money by putting solar collectors/PV on their roofs. Try building a coal powerplant as an individual.

i have a suspicion that anyone who would contest AGW wouldnt last very long in the IPCC

Please look at how the IPCC is formed/members are appointed before spouting nonsense.
Eddy Courant
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2015
Anything sold as an imminent doomsday scenario is BS. Think Iraq War.
runrig
5 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2015
My path to determining that Global Warming was a hoax involved critical thinking on my part.......


I'm sorry my friend but that's the best example of an oxymoron I've ever come across.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
Anything sold as an imminent doomsday scenario is BS. Think Iraq War.


...

Ok! Right now, turn off your computer. Contemplate what you just wrote. Come of age, realizing you are not the smarty you thought you were. Then, come back, and maybe post something a little better. Ok?

Thanks.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
Eddie said:
Anything sold as an imminent doomsday scenario is BS. Think Iraq War.


Just to continue the piling on that Furlong started, what is imminent about 2100??? That is the date that everyone stops predicting after. Furlong was astonished and so am I that you would consider 85 years to be "imminent." What about 2200? What about 2300? No one expects the increase in enthalpy of the earth to stop in 2100 or for the next 1000 years, if we don't do anything.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 25, 2015
It would seem that scientists and stupid people believe that every aspect of society is subject to conspiracy except by scientists. Stupid is as stupid does....
thefurlong
5 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2015
It would seem that scientists and stupid people believe that every aspect of society is subject to conspiracy except by scientists. Stupid is as stupid does....

Of course, the thing that you so expertly fail to take into account is the UTTER LACK OF EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY. You buffoon.
Zzzzzzzz
3 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2015
the only thing I see proved in this discussion is that ejim is a delusional person, despite his strenuous denials
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
Of course, the thing that you so expertly fail to take into account is the UTTER LACK OF EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY.
@furlong
HELLO!!!
.... it's cantdrive! remember?
electric universe?
... anti-vaccinations?
... the guy who said
Secret mind control programs such as MK-ULTRA fostered by "intelligence agencies"or the use of patsies by those same agencies to provoke societal and political changes for our elitist masters. The false flag is a favorite tactic of the current control paradigm. From controlled economic turmoil to wars fomented for profit, very little "just happens".
http://phys.org/n...ris.html

LMFAO
of course there is no evidence!
because CONSPIRACY....right?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
Did you actually Read it?
@eJim
quite a few times
The "Data" the author uses has NOTHING to do with any evidence of global warming or climate change
Sigh... did you miss this part in the first paragraph?
...based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one
Also says a lot about my point WRT the sheer number of studies out there: thousands in a single year, and you are selecting your OPINION from a biased anti-science perspective, and you specifically claimed
I don't see any evidence, or none that can be trusted...There isn't any Concrete information out there
so... are you lying?
or is it something else...????

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2015
@eJim cont'd
But his entire story is fabrication
no, it isn't
in fact, you are getting your propaganda confused... this isn't the Cook study, which your arguments are likely directed at... do you want to argue those facts too?
It's articles like this one and the one you posted that convince me that anyone saying "Global Warming is a Fact" are NOT to be trusted
ok, so, like me, you don't trust articles...
so... what about all the STUDIES? the peer reviewed science? the tens of thousands PLUS of empirical evidence all pointing to the same basic conclusions? you think all of that is a conspiracy? considering we can't globally come together to accept bacon as a breakfast food, you think we can all agree to a global conspiracy on this?
really?
I Don't Believe Global Warming is Real. Not because I can prove it's not, but those who should be proving it's real are Not Trustworthy
then you get info from the big oil companies and trust liars over EVIDENCE
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2015
@eJim cont'd
I Don't Believe ... Not Trustworthy
so, if i were to show you the evidence, what would you then believe?
would you continue to follow your political/religious/conspiratorial beliefs? or would you accept the physical evidence?
THIS is the key here...

so far, you've given me opinion and belief, but you haven't been able to prove with evidence that anyone is "not trustworthy"... let alone tens of thousands of scientists who you infer are collaborating in a grand worldwide conspiracy against... what, exactly?

can you be specific what the gains of any nation would be in said conspiracy?
because there is NO central gov't, you know

feel free to respond, but link me EVIDENCE

the whole reason i linked the blog was to show you that there are THOUSANDS of studies you are ignoring... for a belief
that is fact, not opinion
you can verify it here
https://scholar.google.com/

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
All of their research and communications are Property of their Employer - You know it: "We the People."
@ejim
ahhmmmm... no
https://en.wikipe..._seizure

http://legal-dict...property

first, they must establish probable cause of impropriety or other illegal action (evidence)
accusations must also be substantiated by EVIDENCE
a subpoena to a scientist doesn't mean one has to give personal property NOR violate his/her 5th amendment
ownership of physical and intellectual property in a gov't grant/research is also spelled out in a contract when funds are transferred

lastly- a witch hunt from a known pro-oil/anti-science advocate is called harassment as well as interferes with research and more, which was the point of the article, and well made, i say

accusations don't mean anyone is guilty, either
that takes a court or evidence... not accusation

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
I looked at the Data
@eJim
from?
The papers in that list are NOT about climate change at all
Ummm... http://www.jamesp...hod.html

did you read the methodology? can you refute this with evidence?
also note, the only XLS dataset i saw was here: http://www.desmog...-warming

this has 2259 studies listed and all are climate realted, whether you want to agree about that or not.... unless you can prove any specific ones are not related. the journal links are there in the data: (Nov2012thruDec2013.xlsx)
So, are you, and the author, saying that if scientists don't "Publish) peer-reviewed articles, then they Can't disagree with the "Consensus?" That's ridiculous.
did i say that?
i said that there is a difference between OPINION and evidence, and you gave opinion that is NOT backed by the evidence (actually called a false claim)
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
@eJim cont'd from above
to be on the same page, we must first be able to comprehend one another... read this
http://www.auburn...ion.html

So, there's no story here at all. Just a failed attempt to, once again, pull the wool over the eyes of those who don't know better.
ok, so you're referring to the article above or the one i linked?

lets get this straight...
because you don't WANT to follow the actual evidence
... then the evidence must be conspiratorial
and the [insert organization here] is pulling the wool over the eyes of the entire planet, scientists and all
regardless of the competition between scientists to prove each other wrong

.....is that it?

some light reading for you
http://journals.p....0075637

http://phys.org/n...ies.html

http://phys.org/n...nce.html
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
But that statement implies there are thousands of studies about Climate Change, which would not be true
@eJim
except that the linked evidence proves you wrong... or, you can go here:
https://scholar.g...as_sdtp=

mind you, that is only searching with the requirement of ONLY CLIMATE
that doesn't include relevant studies in flora, fauna, geological evidence or anything else.. and there are no time constraints either
But if we go back and check those 9000 scientists who say "but I wasn't even talking about climate change
except that evidence was specifically called out and linked via keywords and evidence, not personal opinions
(see link above about claims)
also note, even very specific studies can be tied together with relevant info that links them
So, what's the point of the story?
you do realise that it actually validates other studies, right?
I linked one such study above... you should read it
Maggnus
5 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
A number of surprises with regard tot he article and the comments section.
1) that information put forward by those who stand to lose by public policy meant to reduce greenhouse gas effects was done so purposefully in a manner to confuse, not enlighten
2) that publicly funded institutions and entities provided just the dry facts - giving room for the above to take advantage an sow confusion and discord in the name of profit
3) that there remain many dupes who continue to push forward the dubious claim of those whose profits may be affected by efforts to reduce carbon emissions

Actually, no surprise at all.

Maggnus
5 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2015
And it all began when Al Gore misrepresented data from the Vostok ice core samples to indicate CO2 causes climate warming, rather than the opposite, which is what the scientist's original data implied. There's your actor.

Such bs is laughable!
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
It appears to me that you are just attacking Me
@eJim
not really, trying to understand you
I WANT to understand. I want to be convinced. But everywhere I look, I see "opinions" that I can easily show as untrustworthy
Ok, i can actually help here, because i've been in your specific shoes
here is a starter:
- never, ever, get your information from an ARTICLE, BLOG or PERSON: only accept your information from original sources, and that means STUDIES in peer reviewed journals

-always, and i mean ALWAYS, follow the evidence. sometimes this is hard, because too many people don't know what evidence really is or how to differentiate between, say Dr.A versus Dr. B... ignore WHO they are, and concentrate on their evidence (the STUDIES)

-a singular study is always superior to an opinion, b/c a study requires evidence, however, it is NOT anything other than an interesting point and evidence unless it becomes validated !
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
@eJim cont'd
-opinions are like armpits: everyone has them, and all are subjective (means depends upon the perspective of the individual, not upon evidence), therefore opinion is the worst kind of evidence: this is like eyewitness testimony for investigators... sure, it can lead into avenues of investigation, but usually it is just crap and causes more confusion

-don't fixate on an answer. follow the evidence

-always be willing to revise your personal opinions based upon the evidence

-failure teaches just as much (if not more) than success

-if in doubt, always fall back on the evidence (not opinion)
this is important: do not, under any circumstances, take ANYONE at their word, even if you trust them... always ALWAYS validate a claim before you take it and run

that means research it and seek out the evidence

yes, there are sites that can help you with that (like http://skepticalscience.com/ ) but i don't even accept their word until i research their links/evidence
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
@eJim cont'd
and yes, even pro-AGW sites are biased, like http://skepticalscience.com/

however, there is a big difference in that they provide EVIDENCE to support their conclusions... last time i visited Dr roy's site i found an OPINION piece that was written up as though it was a peer reviewed journal study. Of course, i researched it, and i found that the ONLY people publishing it were: HIS SITE

this is important: no peer review, no journal, therefore there was no threat of retraction or being called out for bad science and threatening his "reputation" in science

this is how the idiots con the unsuspecting, and how pseudoscience takes hold
(read those links i left above from PO)

if you never take opinion as valid, and you research everything, and you only use original reputable journals with peer reviewed studies as references, you will always follow the evidence and you won't get conned by ANYONE, biased pro- or con-
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
excellentjim
But if we go back and check those 9000 scientists who say "but I wasn't even talking about climate change, I was talking about Ant Migrations in relation to the movement of Dunes in the Sarah"

That might be a fair point. It's possible they didn't explicitly say they agree with AGW, though I would like to point out that we can't be certain. Unfortunately, most of these seem to be behind a paywall.

So, there are a few points I would like to make, here:
1) I would expect that the less controversial a claim is, the less likely for science articles to express an opinion about it one way or another. I would be very surprised, if, for example, a large number of papers that came out this year expressed an opinion on whether things can travel faster than the speed of light.
2) Conversely, I would expect that if few science articles express an opinion on something, it is either not controversial, not considered important, or not well known.
(to be continued)
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
Hi cantdrive, Eddy Courant, excellentjim. :)

The reality is all around to confirm itself, it no longer depends on papers/models/opinions or politics. Don't err by unfairly transferring your understandable skepticism/criticism re some science/scientists in one discipline (eg, Cosmology/Astrophysiics) to science/scientists in the Climatology discipline. The Climate is directly available for study by you/me and everyone concerned, 24/7. Unlike Cosmology/Astrophysics which deals in large scales/distances etc which can only be studied in-directly. So your perfectly understandable skepticism re Cosmology/Astrophysics science/scientists is MISPLACED when transferred to Climatology science/scientists, because REAL WORLD is NOW confirming what latter have been observing/predicting.

So please, guys, think again before transferring attitudes/prejudices/beliefs from one discipline to another when two disciplines are 'apples and oranges' when it comes to direct confirmation. OK? :)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
(continued)
Also, note that, for the time being, I am assuming that there is no conspiracy to quell dissension, so those really are the only two possibilities
3) In lieu of evidence, 1 and 2 seem to be fairly acceptable hypotheses. I will assume that you agree they are likely. Now, let's use some logic. Suppose you are correct and most of these scientists didn't express an opinion. Then, by 2, the veracity of the AGW is either not controversial, not important, or not well known. Well, AGW is considered both important and well known, so then, by 2, Stumpy's study is compelling evidence that whatever the scientific community has decided about AGW, it is not controversial.
4) There is only one opinion casting doubt on climate change. This also means that while you might be correct that nobody has explicitly expressed support for AGW, there is laughably very little evidence that a significant part of the scientific community rejects AGW.
(to be continued)
Maggnus
5 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
Straight up looney:
1) There have been Many reports of Scientists manipulating the data to fit their findings.
Show one.
2) There are Many, Many Respected Scientists who Disagree and even present Scientific Evidence that shows an Opposite cause, or effect.
Did you read the article?
3) The computer models have all proved to be Wrong. As someone in the IT industry, I'm well aware how easy it is to get a computer to say anything you want it to. And, finally
So, show they were wrong.
4) The Insults, Rudeness, and Hate spread by those who think they are somehow Smarter than the rest of us; is enough to turn anyone Against the "Cause."
Smug.
Personally, I have No Idea who's right; but I'd like to know which side to support. It's very obvious to Most Open-Minded people that the Science is NOT Settled and we still have MUCH to learn. Just a suggestion here, It would be a lot easier to convince us with Information; rather than Insults.
Then try reading.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
(continued)
Now, in the case of the speed of light, what really happens is that the acceptance of it's veracity is IMPLICIT in the majority of physics papers. They might passingly mention that speed of light limit, or indirectly refer to it by talking about a derived theoretical result, but they probably don't explicitly come out and say, each time, "Just to be certain guys, nothing can go faster than the speed of light." That would be silly since, practically, EVERYONE accepts it as true. It would be like prefacing all your conversations with "Before I begin, let me just emphasize that I live on Earth."
(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2015
(continued)
All that being said, it turns out that Stumpy's paper is JUST ONE of several studies that show that AGW is supported by consensus. Some of them give percentages of papers or researchers that SUPPORT it. Others give percentages that DENY it.
See here, for example:
http://iopscience....iop.org
http://www.scienc...686.full
http://www.pnas.o...27/12107
Maggnus
5 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2015
I except the basic concepts that would support climate change caused by humans, though I have difficulty accepting the accuracy purported in measuring those changes - especially changes that exceed the metrology capabilities used.

I do find it illogical that those who are so concerned that humans are changing the climate - aren't even more concerned with reducing the human population back to sustainable levels - near per-industrial revolution, pre-oil and pre-NPK. Surely, the most logically effective solution of reducing anthropogenic impacts on the planet is less humans impacting it. I do admit that the primary benefit from the climate change arguments as herein - is that at least you all aren't in the bedroom with your mate making more of you - at least for your mates sake, I hope not.
I wonder - how do you propose to affect this reduction in humans?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2015
ok, so denial-advocates are biased towards interest groups that have something to lose from climate action. Probably no surprise for anybody, even hard-core deniers, even though they dont want to admit that. However, why should I believe agw-proponents arent biased towards interest groups which have something to gain from climate action? For example IPCC and governments.
What, exactly, do you think they have to gain?

I wonder if you even understand what the IPCC is: http://blogs.edf....-anyway/

It always amuses me to see people claim the IPCC can "gain" something. Or "lose" something. Or be anything other than what it is - an entity established to review scientific literature regarding the possibility of climate change.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2015
@velvet - I'm not sure what you were trying to say with the link you posted - https://www.washi...entists/ - But I find the idea that "Government Scientists" would refuse to turn-over Anything to be appauling. All of their research and communications are Property of their Employer - You know it: "We the People." They are being accused of Manipulating the data; I would think that they would be happy to show how they got to their conclusions. But they, and their supervisors, think it needs to be kept Secret. Their bosses are Politicians - With an Agenda; so of course we should be sceptical. Especially when their report contradicts previous reports. However, the current administration has been the very opposite of Transparent. They've been hiding everything about everything. And, that's not what Science is supposed to be about.
Interesting review of the conspiracy
leetennant
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2015
And ridiculous. We're not talking about data or research, we're talking about daily emails. We're talking about coffee dates and weekend plans and, "Hey Bob, what do you think of this office health and safety plan?"

The idea all the data, methods, methodology and metadata is available but somewhere there's an email going

"Morning guys, how's that global scientific fraud going? Mwahahahaha. XOXO, Love June"

and so they have to trawl through every minute aspect of these people's daily lives to find it is hands down the dumbest most transparent witchhunt I've seen since Salem.

Or sine "Climategate" where they used parts of emails to manufacture the idea the scientists were doing something nefarous when they weren't. And that's what they want to do. They want to pull out a line here and a line there and stitch it together to cast doubt on what is, at this stage, established scientific fact.

It would be fucking pathetic if it wasn't so undemocratic.
Eddy Courant
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2015
I think we can all agree that NYC is not under water. Snow is not a thing of the past. The Antarctic is gaining ice. And the IPCC is milking this for all it's worth.
jeffensley
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2015
If scientists wanted to know why the issue is polarized, they should have included the comment sections of AGW-related articles in their research to see how alarmists respond to anyone with an ounce of skepticism. I suggest the researchers themselves are "actors" seeking to quash dissent by attempting to lump skeptics under the label "corporate puppets". Anyone with a decent amount of science literacy could browse phys.org and see plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the hysteria that some in the scientific community seek to perpetrate. Does that mean phys.org is a corporate shill?
viko_mx
2 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2015
AGW is most often repeated mantra in this site. When someone is trying so insistently to convince me into something I begin to doubt his intentions.
There will be global worming but the reasons are biblical and is not conected with industry and transport.
leetennant
3.8 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2015
AGW is most often repeated mantra in this site. When someone is trying so insistently to convince me into something I begin to doubt his intentions.
There will be global worming but the reasons are biblical and is not conected with industry and transport.


"Science site repeatedly publishes science" complaint. I wish Cinema Sins would do an "Everything Wrong With" for comments sections.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2015
"Science site repeatedly publishes science" complaint
@leetennant
20Stars LMFAO!!
I wish Cinema Sins would do an "Everything Wrong With" for comments sections.
I know, right?

.

.

There will be global worming but the reasons are biblical and is not conected with industry and transport
@viko
i would ask for evidence, but i know you don't have any
i also know you will reference your "biblical comic" which you haven't read nearly as much as i have... so i am just gonna say:
fanaticism isn't going to convince anyone of your religion - it is the reason you are more of a threat to the planet than even AGW, and the reason religions will always be a threat to rationality, logic, and human perseverance

because logic doesn't enter into any of your equations, thought processes or actions

that is evident in your posts, your beliefs as well as your actions
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 26, 2015
I think we can all agree that NYC is not under water. Snow is not a thing of the past. The Antarctic is gaining ice. And the IPCC is milking this for all it's worth.

Only biased deniers do that my friend.

NYC was never expected to "be under water" yet.
Could you supply me with the science that said it would?
OK one idiot did mention "our kids will not know snow" (paraphrasing). When he/she should have added "in later life".
IPCC "milking"?
As explained ad nauseum on this thread and many others - the IPCC is merely a collating/reporting body the do not "invent" the science, nor "push" it. And what's more have nothing to gain either way.
Oh and "Antarctica is gaining ice"
If that is true (one recent study that contradicted previous ones, notably the GRAVE gravimetric one).
Why would it surprise you?
Have you any idea of the size and frigidity of the place?
And the physics (more snow) of adding more WV to the atmosphere as it warms?
It is the edges that are melting.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 26, 2015
to see how alarmists respond to anyone with an ounce of skepticism

jeff:
An "ounce of "scepticism" is fine".
However the "response" you talk of is to repeated myths, that have been debunked (and linked to) countless times.
It is the ignorance and refusal to understand the science that frustrates beyond endurance for those of us who think it worthwhile to educate the neutrals who may be reading.
I know full well that most if not all "sceptics" on here will never change their minds, and to push against them will only further polarise their views. Human nature.
Hence the frustration spilling over.
Vis: Anti, Uba (gone but not lamented), and several others along with the odd guerrilla attack from some visiting denier from WUWT.
Then there are the "dragon-slayers", who think the world has got it wrong and GHG theory "goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics" ... see again WUWT, Climate etc and Spencer's blog for that.

The Capts psychological profiling is illuminating.
Eddy Courant
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 26, 2015
"Only biased deniers do that my friend."
Dearest runrig, the climate changes. We're neither good enough nor bad enough to control that. We think we are. But we aren't.
viko_mx
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2015
What can do GWH (global worming hysterics), if the activity of the sun is increased by only 1-2 % percent? What measures can be taken in this scenario?
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2015
. We're neither good enough nor bad enough to control that.

That is a very much unsupported opinion. Read: very much negatively supported because there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
This has nothing to with "we think we are". that would be an opinion. Opinions are subjective
Scientific anaylsis is the exact opposite of that. The whole idea behind the scientific method is to eliminate opinion/bias as far as possible.

You are free to have a contrary opinion. But don't expect anyone to subscribe to it when on the one hand you have tons of supporting/impartial evidence and on the other hand just a "because I say so".
bluehigh
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2015
So Anti-Thinking is now pontificating that he and others have the ability to control climate.

He's gone from bigoted narcissist to delusions of omnipotentance.

antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (15) Nov 26, 2015
So Anti-Thinking is now pontificating that he and others have the ability to control climate.

You can look at the data and see that there is an effect. You're thinking way too much in black and white.
Are humans the only effect on climate? No. But all other factors (even the biggest one: solar irradiation) are fairly constant.
But if we keep continually adding a NET contribution (by digging up fossil fuels, burning them, and pumping the results into the atmosphere where it traps heat...because: physics) then a system that was in equilibrium will eventually go out of whack (or at the very least shift to a new equilibrium state which we may not be very comfortable in).

That is not rocket science. All other things remaining equal (which, again, has been the subject of enough studies to confirm) we *can* control whether the equilibrium stays within a certain range or not.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 26, 2015
Don't err by unfairly transferring your understandable skepticism/criticism re some science/scientists in one discipline (eg, Cosmology/Astrophysiics) to science/scientists in the Climatology discipline

If skepticism regarding astrophysics is understandable, then skepticism for climatology is an absolute must. Climatologists base their models on the faulty claims of those very astrophysicists. Without a real/correct understanding of the Sun/Earth connection any claims based on the faulty information is baseless and useless. As such, climatologists models are garbage, AGW claims are garbage, and anyone who says otherwise is delusional. Climate science is garbage because they rely on models created by astrophysicists who create utter nonsense based upon the ultimate in garbage.
szore88
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 26, 2015
"….the truth is, there can be no civil discussion, no "honest exchange of ideas," with Leftists. It's useless to try — in fact, it's actually counterproductive, and even dangerous. You can't have an honest exchange of ideas with people who are fundamentally dishonest, who try to hide their intentions and their agenda behind a smokescreen of lies. And if you think that isn't what they're up to, you need to go back and reread their playbooks — Alinsky, Gramsci, and Cloward-Piven, among others — again."

-Mike Hendrix

"Because according to the fascist morons of the Left, the only way to end "hate" is….mindless, blind, vicious hatred of anyone who doesn't think like they do, which is both their stock in trade and their raison d'etre."

-Mike Hendrix
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 26, 2015
Hi Eddy Courant. :)
I think we can all agree that NYC is not under water. Snow is not a thing of the past.
I'm sure the Alaskan village of Kivalina will be relieved to know "NYC is not underwater" YET, Eddy. Just give it a century of this TREND and then we can revisit how much storm surges and rising levels together have done to NYC.
The Antarctic is gaining ice.
That village used to have SOME protection from AGW related rising sea level and storm surges. No more, as they have lost even that ice buffer due to warming.
And the IPCC is milking this for all it's worth.
They are reporting on the global science resource findings. Let the chips fall where they may.

Initial/transitional consequences/swings of AGW are now becoming so obvious that only vested deniers subscribe to your kind of silly "It hasn't killed us all, we're still here!" kind of rationalizations for denial. It has only just begun. It'll be too late if we wait for NYC to flood. Complex, Eddy. :)
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 26, 2015
Hi cantdrive, bluehigh et al. :)
Don't err by unfairly transferring your understandable skepticism/criticism re some science/scientists in one discipline (eg, Cosmology/Astrophysiics) to science/scientists in the Climatology discipline
Without a real/correct understanding of the Sun/Earth connection any claims based on the faulty information is baseless and useless.
@cantdrive: I already more than once pointed out to everyone that any Sun-Earth connection/behavior/factors/inputs were already part of pre-existing 'base state' of prevailing climate/weather patterns pre-AGW era. We are concerned with the increasing effect on climate system dynamics of human activity/emissions factors now. Even Dyson Freeman acknowledges AGW due to human activity/CO2 emissions. That's all we CAN control. :)

@bluehigh: Mate, no-one's claiming we can control climate/weather as such, only OUR contributory human activity/emissions component which affects climate/weather system. :)
Bill589
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 26, 2015
Previous decade, 'Global Cooling'. Give us more money and more power.
This decade, 'Global Warming'. Give us more money and more power.

Next decade, 'Global ????". But still, the government and their crony corporations will 'need' more money and more power in order to 'save us' from a global catastrophe.

Different lie. Same liars.
RealityCheck
3.2 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2015
Hi szore88. :)
"…there can be no civil discussion, no "honest exchange of ideas," with Leftists.
So you're saying that the only ones worth believing are you 'trustworthy' religious/capitalist/communist types who bring us global wars and financial/economic crises from which you unconscionably profit at the expense of all those you kill/cheat? Are you that one-eyed, mate? We now have the Internet and widely available information/education which affords those intelligent and objective enough a way to become balanced minds instead of rabid one-eyed jerks. We had enough of those sorts in the ignorant/superstitious past, why keep perpetuating such mindsets in this day and age.

We tried Religious tyrannies, Monarchies, unfettered Capitlalism, unfettered Communism, and recently, 'small-s' secular socialistic Democracies of the people, by the people for the people.

"Left/Right" 'thinking' FAILED. Now we're trying Reason, Science, Humanity and Compassion. Get 'with it', mate! :)
RealityCheck
3.2 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2015
Hi Bill589. :)
Previous decade, 'Global Cooling'. Give us more money and more power.
This decade, 'Global Warming'. Give us more money and more power.

Next decade, 'Global ????". But still, the government and their crony corporations will 'need' more money and more power in order to 'save us' from a global catastrophe.

Different lie. Same liars.
Err...yeah...right...sure, mate....anything you say. We'll take your word for all that. Thanks for dropping by. Good luck in your future contributions to humanity's objective understanding of the ever increasing sum of objective scientific knowledge of the reality. :)
bluehigh
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2015
no-one's claiming we can control climate/weather as such, only OUR contributory human activity/emissions component which affects climate


> and the evidence for any control of climate change attributable to human contributory components, or otherwise, is?

> maybe Slartibartfast could talk with the mice to whip you up an experimental control planet.

> Don't Panic

viko_mx
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 27, 2015
"He's gone from bigoted narcissist to delusions of omnipotentance."

Those who are in love with the lie most successfully decieve themselves. They lose the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood and can be easily fooled.
RealityCheck
3.2 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2015
Hi bluehigh.:)
no-one's claiming we can control climate/weather as such, only OUR contributory human activity/emissions component which affects climate


> and the evidence for any control of climate change attributable to human contributory components, or otherwise, is?

> maybe Slartibartfast could talk with the mice to whip you up an experimental control planet.

> Don't Panic
Hehehe, good one, mate. :)

Seriously though, since Freeman Dyson (oft-quoted by deniers for their propaganda posts) actually acknowledges AGW, then you are claiming to disagree with an 'authority' oft-quoted by deniers? That 'line' of "we don't affect the climate/weather by our human activity/emissions" is not really all that tenable anymore, either in logic or debate tactics, is it?

Anyway, the science is finally getting more accurate and the modeling reliable enough (even if still far from perfect) that we now know we have act re our CO2 emissions before 'tipping point' reached. :)
SuperThunder
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2015
Animal noises.
Please shut down comments section for the betterment of humanity and the promotion of science.
http://www.popsci...comments
Perhaps a better way would be to force howlers to soil Facebook, removing the crap from these articles. Perhaps sticking a forum away from the information to act as a zoo.
http://www.nieman...omments/
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2015
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/

Right, tell me that the corporations involved in renewable energy have not distorted the facts and or data and influenced politics to further their profits.

But of course, this does not matter since the end justifies the means!

So you admit that the denialist camp has distorted the facts.
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (14) Nov 27, 2015
"He's gone from bigoted narcissist to delusions of omnipotentance."

Those who are in love with the lie most successfully decieve themselves. They lose the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood and can be easily fooled.

Exactly your case viko. Well put.
philstacy9
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2015
The evil greedy capitalists are also influencing China, Russia and Islam?
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2015
Those who are in love with the lie most successfully decieve themselves. They lose the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood and can be easily fooled
[sic]
@viko
- this right here is why religion is so successful.

i didn't think you had this kind of irony in you, v
Freethinker51
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2015
The most impressive organisms not mentioned by today's "bought" pseudo-scientists are cyanobacteria. These photosynthetic marvels ALONE turned earth's early poisonous atmosphere into what it is today. They paved the way for plant life. And then came more complex life forms.

The ability of this photosynthetic organism to dramatically change the earth's early atmosphere without the aid of plants reveals how powerful an influence they had and can still have. The good news is this: Even if we destroy most of our rain forests and pump loads of CO2 into the atmosphere, this organism ALONE can handle it and keep our atmosphere in balance. Doing so is a far easier task than taming a poisonous atmosphere. More CO2 means more cyanobacteria, means more oxygen, means more interaction with excessive methane. Every educated, HONEST climatologist should know this. Why the silence? Are they all in the pockets of corrupt politicians?
SuperThunder
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2015
Freethinker, stop spamming your crap. Here is the link I responded to it with in the other article.
http://www2.epa.g...habs.pdf
Here is the link where you spouted said spam.
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

It takes a special kind of animal to peddle toxic algae to a dying planet.
rockwolf1000
3.1 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2015
@StupidThunder

Animal noises.
Please shut down comments section for the betterment of humanity and the promotion of science.
http://www.popsci...comments


If you weren't so catastrophically retarded it would be obvious to you that you are under no obligation to read the comments section in the first place.

There are some highly educated commenters here who are gracious enough to share their knowledge and often more can be learned by reading the comments than by reading the article.

Suggest you go stick your head in the sand somewhere and don't come back. You won't be missed I can assure you.

Bye!
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2015
If you weren't so catastrophically retarded it would be obvious to you that you are under no obligation to read the comments section in the first place.

Howl on, McDuff. So go on, what's your nonsense pseudoscience denier angle? Is dark matter a hoax? Is NASA stealing your money? Did climate change cost your favorite billionaire a night's sleep? I'm sure it's great.

In the mean time, studies show howler friendly comments sections, like this one, damage science literacy. I provided links, and also suggested ways to continue commenting even if direct commenting is removed, with another link. Thank you for ignoring them to swear at me like a four year old.
SuperThunder
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2015
Suggest you go stick your head in the sand somewhere and don't come back. You won't be missed I can assure you.

Bye!

Also, that right there told me that arguing against howlers is having an effect, and the potential loss of this forum concerns them. Thank you for cheering me up, I should have given you a five.
SuperThunder
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2015
Here's another link you can fail to read and then swear at while jumping up and down about the potential damaging effects of comments sections brought on by howlers.
http://onlinelibr...sec-0023
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2015
Hi Freethinker51. :)

What you say is true, and reflects well on your study re cyanobacteria, its early action to produce all the oxygen which made oxygen-using life possible. :)

However, the cyanobacteria could do what you said because, back then, the seas/oceans/lakes etc were SATURATED with dissolved IRON/other necessary nutrients/micro-nutrients! They cannot do same to same scale NOW.

Consider: After some time, most DISSOLVED IRON previously in the water became OXIDIZED by the Oxygen cyanobacteria produced en masse, thus making vast majority INSOLUBLE; so it SETTLED OUT to form BOTTOM sediments layers (that's how/why our vast IRON ORE deposits arose).

Dissolved IRON in water PLUMMETED to relatively MINISCULE concentrations of today's equilibrium of global biologic-IRON cycle. There've been plans/attempts to 'fertilize' oceans with IRON, but so far (except for my proposed method) they all fail for a very specific reason (which I'm not at liberty to divulge yet).

Ok? :)
tekram
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2015
Freethinker, stop spamming your crap. Here is the link I responded to it with in the other article.
http://www2.epa.g...habs.pdf

It takes a special kind of animal to peddle toxic algae to a dying planet.

link didn't work for me, here is the complete url:
http://www2.epa.g...habs.pdf
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2015
The most impressive organisms not mentioned by today's "bought" pseudo-scientists are cyanobacteria. These photosynthetic marvels ALONE turned earth's early poisonous atmosphere into what it is today. They paved the way for plant life. And then came more complex life forms.

The ability of this photosynthetic organism to dramatically change blah blah blah. More CO2 means more cyanobacteria, means more oxygen, means more interaction with excessive methane. Every educated, HONEST climatologist should know this. Why the silence? Are they all in the pockets of corrupt politicians?

Yet, the claim is that humans can;t have an affect.

This is possibly the most ridiculous argument against global warming that I have had the displeasure to read. Utterly laughable.
SuperThunder
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2015
All you have contributed to the comment sections is really silly bubble gum wrapper jokes.

You said that right after quoting me posting a link to a study arguing the point I made in the quote itself.

You may have just defined the single indivisible unit of howler.
jljenkins
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2015
Anyway, the article raises an interesting point. Is phys.org, and other sites in the group of sites you can use when you sign up, doing more to promote insanity than science? It seems they prefer these comments be the focus, instead of the articles.

This may be the cleverest (meaning only clever) science denial site on the Internet.


It's been suggested, and there's evidence they take funding from such, but the crusaders are to much in their own denial to admit that they're a part of the problem to entertain the idea seriously. So, yeah, it's the cleverest denier site on the 'net. The give-away is how simply they deal with it in the forums. No problem; like other sites. This troll scrum is promoted by the pimps that bought out the site.
RichTheEngineer
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2015
So we shouldn't believe statements from corporation-sponsored "scientists" whose sponsors have something to gain from opposing "climate change", but we should believe statements from government-sponsored "scientists", whose sponsors have everything to gain from promoting "climate change", i.e., stronger totalitarian control over citizens?

The climate is always changing, always has, always will. What will also never change is desire of governments to dictate with iron fist, controlling first our bodies, then our minds, so as to fulfill the lusts of those "in charge".

Sorry, but I would rather life on earth ended than have it completely controlled by our loser "elites".

dogbert
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2015
RichTheEngineer,
Sorry, but I would rather life on earth ended than have it completely controlled by our loser "elites".


Good comments. Unfortunately, the elites seem to be winning more than losing lately.
leetennant
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2015
So we shouldn't believe statements from corporation-sponsored "scientists" whose sponsors have something to gain from opposing "climate change", but we should believe statements from government-sponsored "scientists", whose sponsors have everything to gain from promoting "climate change", i.e., stronger totalitarian control over citizens?

The climate is always changing, always has, always will. What will also never change is desire of governments to dictate with iron fist, controlling first our bodies, then our minds, so as to fulfill the lusts of those "in charge".

Sorry, but I would rather life on earth ended than have it completely controlled by our loser "elites".



I see, you can't see the difference between people who aren't scientists being paid hundreds of thousands to lie and people who are scientists being paid $40k a year to find the truth? Then I give up, dude. Really.
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2015
Hi RichTheEngineer, dogbert. :)

Were you also on the 'side' of Big Tobacco, Asbestos, Pharma etc when they stalled, dissembled, delayed, muddied discourse regarding scientific/public/political debate re the damage they were doing; by using 'paid mercenary' CROOKED so-called 'scientists/extperts to purposely withold/misrepresent etc and LIE to the public and the commissions Inquiring into those matters? Their unconscionable campaign to deceive and dismiss cost many lives and economic/health burden on us all, directly or indirectly. Would you have us trust again in such mercenary/political/religious vested interests who put profit/reputation/religion before public/human/economic interest in preventing/ameliorating adverse effects of climate change? And in every such case, the warning signs were there; so was the increasing scientific support for doing something about it before it's too late. But you still want us to procrastinate because YOU 'trust' such 'lobbies'? No. :)
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2015
RealityCheck,

There was never any question that Tobacco was harmful nor Asbestos. Our government still claims that second and third hand smoke can cause harm and attributes thousands of deaths to second and third hand smoke. I do point out that that is not true. And anyone who says that tobacco is harmless is also wrong.

Did you ever believe that tobacco was harmless? Do you know anyone who used tobacco and believed that it was harmless? No one ever thought consuming smoke and sucking on a poisonous plant was harmless. No one with any sense ever thought that asbestos was harmless either.

Lies are lies and the liars should be called out on their lies.

The lies about AGW should also be called out.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2015
I see the deniers have been busy little delusionists while a few of us have been away for Thanksgiving. Let's see if they have learned to used the Internet, yet...
There was never any question that Tobacco was harmful nor Asbestos.

That would be a no...
Oh, hey! It's 2 minute internet search!
http://www.ncbi.n...0033.pdf
And for those less patient:
http://edition.cn...history/
Excerpt:
By 1944, the American Cancer Society began to warn about possible ill effects of smoking, although it admitted that "no definite evidence exists" linking smoking and lung cancer...

... the general public knew little of the growing body of statistics.

That changed in 1952, when Reader's Digest published "Cancer by the Carton,"...

...The tobacco industry responded swiftly. By 1954 the major U.S. tobacco companies had formed the Tobacco Industry Research Council to counter the growing health concerns
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2015
Do you know anyone who used tobacco and believed that it was harmless?

Yes, my previous neighbor.
Also, this is a strawman. People believed that it didn't lead to an increased risk of cancer.
From the paper above:
There were many who cast doubt on the evidence that had been produced against
tobacco. One correspondent wrote to Lancet in 1951: "The evidence is purely circumstantial;
it is obtained from statistical evaluation of clinical material" [38]. Another
wrote to the British Medical Journal in 1952, "The only known carcinogen in
cigarettes is arsenic. Some cause other than, or additional to, the increase in cigarette
consumption must be sought to explain the increase in bronchogenic cancer" [39]...

.
.
.
Lies are lies and the liars should be called out on their lies.

Agreed. And stupid people who can't be bothered to do basic research should be called out for their stupidity. So, stop whining.
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2015
@Dogbert

You must be too young to have seen the tv ads of doctors endorsing their favorite brands of cigarettes.
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2015
Hi dogbert. :)

The point was Big Tobacco tried to delay the general consensus about doing something about not only its direct/inditecrt harm re smoke, but ALSO about getting CHILDREN and NEXT generation to become ADDICTED like their parents were, by not only the addictive nicotine, but also via the Chemical-additions and the coluorful packaging and advertising techniques aimed at retaining/increasing smoking adults/children. Did you miss all that? They had scientists lie to committes of enquiry that they 'believed' smoking was 'not addictive'. They fought every effort to reduce addicting/attracting new child/adult smokers (look up 'plain packaging' and 'advertising venue restrictions' etc which took a long time to introduce because of all that lies and money and scientist/science-corrupting campaign of public disinformation using patently-paid-for biased/corrupt 'studies' etc to base their own 'beliefs' on when answering committee questions with blatant lies based on such.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2015
Vietvet,

You must be too young to have seen the tv ads of doctors endorsing their favorite brands of cigarettes.


I wish. I remember them well and the advertisements on TV for Marlboro, Camel, etc. I also knew that cigarettes were harmful. I smoked knowing that cigarettes were harmful. I have never met anyone who believed that tobacco was not harmful.

RealityCheck,

Yes. Tobacco companies engaged in disinformation. The government engaged in disinformation. Both lied and the public was not unaware of their lies. Everyone knew that tobacco was addictive and harmful.

The government still engages in disinformation about tobacco and people still know that.
thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2015
Yes. Tobacco companies engaged in disinformation.

Yep
The government engaged in disinformation.

How? Sources please.
Both lied and the public was not unaware of their lies.

Well, what can you do about this?

I suggest looking into the history of the public global warming debate. Prior to the public debate on global warming, there was already an established body of research supportng AGW. See, for example, the Charney report. It only became well known during Reagan's presidency, and this is also when efforts to discredit it started ramping up.

See https://www.aip.o...tm#S1988

Compare this to the case of tobacco. Before Big Tobacco formed the Tobacco Industry Research Council there was already a wide body of research firmly establishing the relationship between smoking and cancer.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (14) Nov 30, 2015
Many in the science community have been baffled by many Americans (and others) refusal to believe that the planet is heating up and that it is almost certainly due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Suspecting that it might have something to do with the information that Americans receive on the topic...


I'm baffled that they didn't think to look under their own feet at the misleading and scientifically unfounded alarmist propaganda that has been serving their own industry quite well.

The negative reaction, is not so much due to any substance wrt AGW climatologists core conclusions, but rather is symptomatic of claims of catastrophe and faux sense of urgency generally,.... and especially of the political exclusivity of proposed solutions given that they are suspiciously liberal-progressive and anti-capitalist in tone.

dogbert
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2015
Noumenon,

You are correct. The situation is equivalent to the man who stands on the street corner predicting the world will end tomorrow. When tomorrow comes with no end in sight, the prediction is moved to the next tomorrow.

Dire consequences are always going to happen. When they don't happen, the prediction is simply moved forward.

It is obvious that the hype is not about AGW and the consequences of AGW. It is about fear mongering and control of populations through fear.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (14) Nov 30, 2015
... corporate funding influenced the content of the polarizing efforts and led to more digression from what could be termed, actual science


Why do climatologist care what the general public believes wrt the actual science? Why should corporations be expected to make scientific counter arguments of core physics and data analysis? This is a faux standard designed to construct a strawman argument.

The fact is their concern is not over substantive science debate (as skeptics can attest), but rather over competing propaganda to their own propaganda.

The salient political idea that liberal-progressives depend on, as a structural component in implementing their ideology, is the notion that science dictates policy, autonomously. That merely on account of it being accepted science, one de facto intellectually, and soon to be argued legally, is obliged to accept the resulting 'sense of urgency of immanent catastrophe' motivated solutions.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2015
I'm baffled that they didn't think to look under their own feet at the misleading and scientifically unfounded alarmist propaganda that has been serving their own industry quite well.

Like what? Just because it's dire does not mean it is propaganda.
The negative reaction, is not so much due to any substance wrt AGW climatologists core conclusions, but rather is symptomatic of claims of catastrophe and faux sense of urgency generally

But it is urgent. We've already passed the point where the climate is expected to warm 4 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years. There is a sense of urgency NOW because if we don't do anything NOW, we will almost surely pay for it with an inhospitable planet LATER.
,.... and especially of the political exclusivity of proposed solutions given that they are suspiciously liberal-progressive and anti-capitalist in tone.

You are wrong. There ARE proposed solutions that that are not anti-capitalist in tone.
(to be continued)
thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2015
(continued)
The problem is, as Thermodynamics pointed out, that people think that by going off of fossil fuels, we will have to go back to the stone age. This simply isn't true. On the contrary, there are already plenty of acceptable alternatives to the widespread use of fossil fuels NOW, such as wind power, solar power, ethonol, hybrids, and nuclear fission. For example, a recent study found that we are generating enough SPARE power to support a switch from gas cars to electric.

http://www.scient...ient-to/

Meanwhile, by the way, we are ALREADY draining billions of dollars into oil companies via subsidies. See here:

http://www.imf.or...2813.pdf

All we need to do is put our money in the right place. Of course, that means fighting lobbyists, but that is a different problem altogether.
thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2015
@Noumenon
One more thing: we are already seeing the predicted effects, now.
Sea Levels:
http://tidesandcu...ds.shtml
http://www.nature...impacts/
https://www.clima...ve-shell

So, you are wrong. There IS a sense of urgency.

What you are proposing is like telling a diabetic who is experiencing frequent urination now that he doesn't have to worry because he'll only get the real complications a few years from now, when his kidneys and pancreas fail.
Stevepidge
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2015
In the annals of history the demagoguery perpetrated against climate science will feature right along that of WWII germany against the Jews.

Take note US citizens. You are no more proof against manipulation than the people of germany were (given your comparatively easy access to verifiable information probably even less so).
Learn from it. Resist people that try to manipulate you.


LOL LOL LOL. You may know some physics, but you have NO idea about the truth of geopolitics and world history. Yeah the Jews, LOLOLOLOL. So the Nazi's mass gassed jews huh. With Zyklon B huh. With no seals on doors, windows, no gas extraction system and no protective insulation of electrical wiring huh. No temperature regulation to disperse the gas properly and all this with being in close proximity of open furnaces huh. You are a damn disgrace to critical thought.
thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2015
LOL LOL LOL. You may know some physics, but you have NO idea about the truth of geopolitics and world history. Yeah the Jews, LOLOLOLOL. So the Nazi's mass gassed jews huh.

...
http://s2.quickme...79da.jpg

Please be an example of Poe's law. Please?
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (13) Nov 30, 2015

if we don't do anything NOW, we will almost surely pay for it with an inhospitable planet LATER.

This is a scientifically unfounded and hysterical claim. Such a claim extends beyond the scientifically established correlation between the increase of atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature,... and enters into unsubstantiated layers of wild speculation,...

….because it presumes a number of things not possible to know "NOW";.... that of a complete understanding of nature's climate dynamics and response time of incorporating the extra CO2 into its cycle, that the scenarios presumed in the model correspond to what will actually occur, that the data manipulations and were not unbiased, that carbon sequestration technology will not develop, that geoengineering technology are impossible as last resort, that humans can't adapt and migrate as needed, that carbon based energy will continue to be used ad infinitum if no alarmist action is done "NOW"….

Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2015
I have no problems with alternative energy, that are compatible with existing economic realities..... even a funded Manhatten'Esque Project for next gen energy tech,.... what worries me is the obvious political propaganda used to condition the masses into acceptance of loss of liberty on the basis of the fraud of "immanent threat" ....

In the annals of history the demagoguery perpetrated against climate science will feature right along that of WWII germany against the Jews.


This is a outrageous and idiotic statement,... likened to the manipulation on the German people from Geobbels propaganda machine, in inciting hatred of the Jews.

It's not the first time that targeted propaganda, government central planning via social engineering has lead to millions dead. In fact Germany was a mild case in comparison.

thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2015
This is a scientifically unfounded and hysterical claim.

A massive increase in heatwaves, occurrences of sever weather incidents, collapse of food webs, water scarcity, and ocean acidification would not be inhospitable?
Read about it here:
http://www.ucsusa...tion.pdf
You can follow all the evidence in the many sources they provide.

Such a claim extends beyond the scientifically established correlation between the increase of atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature,...

Do you know what the established correlation between CO2 and GMT is? Let's start there, because I suspect you are confused as to what the state of knowledge is.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2015
….because it presumes a number of things not possible to know "NOW";.... that of a complete understanding of nature's climate dynamics and response time of incorporating the extra CO2 into its cycle,

Well, no. That's spurious reasoning. Just because we don't understand everything does not mean we don't understand specific things well enough. We don't need a complete understanding, just enough of an understanding to say that however nature does respond to climate change, it won't be fast enough given the rates we're seeing.
that the scenarios presumed in the model correspond to what will actually occur,

I don't know why you say this when you can easily find evidence from the horse's mouth to the contrary:
https://www.ipcc....INAL.pdf
You can find an outline of more evidence here:
http://www.wunder...able.asp

Stevepidge
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2015
LOL LOL LOL. You may know some physics, but you have NO idea about the truth of geopolitics and world history. Yeah the Jews, LOLOLOLOL. So the Nazi's mass gassed jews huh.

...
http://s2.quickme...79da.jpg

Please be an example of Poe's law. Please?


Tell me oh furlong, how many gas chambers killed Jews in camps on German soil. How many jews were claimed killed by gas chambers in GERMANY by allies after WW2. I'll give you hint, you've probably never even looked into the matter.
https://www.darkm...3yP9.jpg
Explain to me how a discrepancy of 2.5 million deaths can still retain the total number at the magical 6 million mark?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2015
I'm baffled that they didn't think to look under their own feet at the misleading and scientifically unfounded alarmist propaganda that has been serving their own industry quite well.
Spoken like a true conservatard denialist. Your true political motivation shines Noumenon.
The negative reaction, is not so much due to any substance wrt AGW climatologists core conclusions, but rather is symptomatic of claims of catastrophe and faux sense of urgency generally,.... and especially of the political exclusivity of proposed solutions given that they are suspiciously liberal-progressive and anti-capitalist in tone.
There is nothing "faux" about it, and the only sound you hear is the paranoid screetching of the right of centre conservative/religious/anti-science cabal. You sound their bell well - as usual.
The only anti-capitalist position being taken is that of your ilk in denying the obvious and obstructing innovation and entrepreneurship in trying to meet the problem
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2015
Why do climatologist care what the general public believes wrt the actual science?
Because, you small minded denialist, they are concerned that a significant percentage of the population of the planet will be adversely affected. Why do you insist on obstructionism and political one-upmanship?
Why should corporations be expected to make scientific counter arguments of core physics and data analysis? This is a faux standard designed to construct a strawman argument.
The pot's argument to the pan. This is the strawman argument in a nutshell. Corporations are not expected to do any such thing, and any studies they do are motivated by profit, not scientific curiosity.

You let your desire that capitalism is The Way blind you to its pitfalls.
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2015
Explain to me how a discrepancy of 2.5 million deaths can still retain the total number at the magical 6 million mark?

Reported for being OFF TOPIC.

And stupid.
Stevepidge
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2015
Explain to me how a discrepancy of 2.5 million deaths can still retain the total number at the magical 6 million mark?

Reported for being OFF TOPIC.

And stupid.

So, would you call this cognitive dissonance? You are a pathetic hack who refuses to cope with facts slapping your worldview in the face.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2015
I have no problems with alternative energy, that are compatible with existing economic realities..... even a funded Manhatten'Esque Project for next gen energy tech,....
A reasonable position, sans the unnecessary attempt to put off the requirement of action now, followed by:
and then what worries me is the obvious political propaganda used to condition the masses into acceptance of loss of liberty on the basis of the fraud of "immanent threat" ....
An outrageous (and frankly laughable) exaggeration. There have been far more attempts at moving away from those products that create the conditions by steps than any "mass inducement" or whatever nonsense this is attempting to convey. If humans had started taking action when it was first realized that action was needed, we would not face the problems being forecast now due to our inaction.

Who obstructed those attempts Noumenon? Is that not anti-capitalism encapsulated?

thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2015
Explain to me how a discrepancy of 2.5 million deaths can still retain the total number at the magical 6 million mark?

Reported for being OFF TOPIC.

And stupid.

So, would you call this cognitive dissonance? You are a pathetic hack who refuses to cope with facts slapping your worldview in the face.

ignored.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2015
Explain to me how a discrepancy of 2.5 million deaths can still retain the total number at the magical 6 million mark?

Reported for being OFF TOPIC.

And stupid.

Lol mostly the latter.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2015
Explain to me how a discrepancy of 2.5 million deaths can still retain the total number at the magical 6 million mark?

Reported for being OFF TOPIC.

And stupid.

Lol mostly the latter.
Stevepidge
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2015
How's Sweden maggnus. I mean upper dumbassistan.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2015
@thefurlong / maggnus

I stated that this hysterical statement,…

if we don't do anything NOW, we will almost surely pay for it with an inhospitable planet LATER.


…..was scientifically unfounded and extends beyond the scientifically established facts... and enters into speculation.

The majority of climatologists agree with me, not with you,… that they are unable to substantiate such speculation.

The often used poll, that concluded 97% of the scientists agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years, also determined some other statistics,…

-That only 41% of climate scientists believe that within 50 to 100 years "Catastrophic effects" would likely be observed.

-That 57% of climate scientists believe the effects within 50 to 100 years would either moderate (44%) or the effects would pose relatively little danger (13%)

Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2015
The minority 41% who believe that "Catastrophic effects" would be observed, would likely even reduce further if by "Catastrophic" was specifically defined as causing a "inhospitable planet".

So again, the notion that AGW is an immanent existential threat to humanity, is scientifically unfounded according to the majority of climatologists, and given the frequency that it is repeated for political reasons, it is de facto dangerous propaganda.

Protoplasmix
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2015
The minority 41% who believe that "Catastrophic effects" would be observed, would likely even reduce further if by "Catastrophic" was specifically defined as causing a "inhospitable planet".
The failure mode for any air- or spacecraft characterized as "catastrophic" is, by all conservative accounts, quite inhospitable. And the planet has been referred to as "spaceship earth." Even if the ship had lifeboats, it makes no sense to sabotage its life support systems. Speaking metaphorociously.
rockwolf1000
3 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2015

Howl on, McDuff. So go on, what's your nonsense pseudoscience denier angle? Is dark matter a hoax? Is NASA stealing your money? Did climate change cost your favorite billionaire a night's sleep? I'm sure it's great.
Thank you for ignoring them to swear at me like a four year old.


Further evidence of your fantastic stupidity. If you did a simple check of my comment history you would see that I am none of those things. Please re-read my comment and find the nasty swear words you're so offended about. There are none. Except perhaps in your sad little mind. Just because you don't like a comment does not render it swearing no matter how many tears come out of your eyes.

The internet is no different than any other forum be it a pub, a workplace or anywhere else people communicate, some will try to pass off bullcrap everywhere they can.
Scientific illiteracy has been around for much longer than the internet and closing science forums will have zero effect on popular opinion.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2015
The minority 41% who believe that "Catastrophic effects" would be observed, would likely even reduce further if by "Catastrophic" was specifically defined as causing a "inhospitable planet".
The failure mode for any air- or spacecraft characterized as "catastrophic" is, by all conservative accounts, quite inhospitable. And the planet has been referred to as "spaceship earth." Even if the ship had lifeboats, it makes no sense to sabotage its life support systems. Speaking metaphorociously.


Your analogy is a specific calculated risk assessment and fails as a means to obscure the point made me,....

The majority of climate scientists do not have scientific reasons for believing that an catastrophe for mankind is likely in the next century.

Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2015
@ maggnus,... you called me a denier,( the AGW-Enthusiasts N-word), several times erroneously. You're dishonest.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2015
Hi Noumenon, dogbert. :)

Consider what I asked re your reaction to volcanologists/seismologists warnings of imminent and longer-range forecast disasters. Intelligent folk/authorities will/have revised emergency evacuation plans, building codes and insurance/regulation charges etc.

But where does one evacuate to in times of climate change-related disaster? If the worst does happen, and the new 'norm' will be too costly/deadly for human activity/life, where do you run to? You can't just hop off this planet and live in tented evacuatin centers on another planet until it's 'safe' to return. And what if the climatologists are right about the eventual worst case? If we don't do anything to try and prevent that, it will be too late when it is upon us. It will be even too late if we wait and procrastinate until it all becomes obvious enough that even deniers won't be able to deny it any longer. But we can't wait till then. That is the point. Good luck to us all. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2015
Explain to me how a discrepancy of 2.5 million deaths can still retain the total number at the magical 6 million mark?

The discrepancy was even larger than that. The total number of deaths attributed to Nazi Germany's "cleansing" program was between 14 and 20 million. So... 8 to 14 million other people also died. Who were they and why does nobody seem to give a shit?
It wasn't just a Jewish holocaust - it was a HUMAN one...
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2015
I stated that this...statement...was scientifically unfounded

Absolutely not. Please actually address the argument I already made. I provided you a comprehensive source from the union of concerned scientists, which provides a good deal of evidence that we are heading into an existence much less hospitable than it was before. If you can provide a body of research disputing the sources I provided, I invite you to do so.

There is some very good tried and true science behind this that you seem to be dismissing. If you'd like, here is more evidence that I can provide that our planet is headed for a world of hurt should we continue not to act.

http://www2.epa.g...jections
http://www2.epa.g...jections
http://www2.epa.g...jections

(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2015
(continued)
And before you protest this is just one project (CIRA), I direct you to the following passage:
This estimated increase is consistent with the USGCRP Third National Climate Assessment, which projects a range of 5-11°F by 2100.


The IPCC also finds that peer reviewed literature indicates a severe increase in heat waves and droughts.
http://www.ipcc.c...INAL.pdf

For something so speculative and unfounded, it seems odd that so much evidence points in its direction.

this hysterical statement,…

Accusing another the person respectfully arguing with you of hysterics is an underhanded and inflammatory tactic. Don't stoop to the level of your irrational denialist cohorts.

You can be certain that I am greatly concerned, but don't confuse my personal feelings with the actual argument.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2015
The majority of climatologists agree with me...
https://en.wikipe...termined some other statistics,…

-That only 41% of climate scientists believe that within 50 to 100 years "Catastrophic effects" would likely be observed.

-That 57% of climate scientists believe the effects within 50 to 100 years would either moderate (44%) or the effects would pose relatively little danger (13%)


Thanks for this source. You make an interesting and surprising point. However, you are not providing the whole picture. Those claims you refer to come from the following article:

http://www.usnews...-concern

However, what you don't mention is that only 41% of those surveyed "said they were directly involved in any aspect of global climate science," an interesting coincidence to say the least.

(to be continued)
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 01, 2015
Thanks for this source. You make an interesting and surprising point. However, you are not providing the whole picture. Those claims you refer to come from the following article:
[...] However, what you don't mention is that only 41% of those surveyed "said they were directly involved in any aspect of global climate science," an interesting coincidence to say the least.


It was a poll of atmospheric scientists and their opinion of the science of climatology. Of course, you can redundantly point out that 100% of scientists who conduct a particular alarmist study, agree with that studies findings.

The IPCC goes out of its way not to interject alarmist claims wrt existential threat to humanity,.... for the same reason that the majority of atmospheric scientists in the above referenced poll are not motivated to do so on scientific grounds,...i.e. such claims are unsubstantiated by the science of climatology because they extend into unknowable speculation.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 01, 2015
....I have not had time to read your links yet, however I will assume at the moment that they were posted to substantiate your claim of existential threat to life on earth.....

You provided links above for which you erroneously characterized as 'evidence'. It is only evidence that a set of scientists produced a paper. I will grant you this much only. In point of fact they USED evidence to make an ARGUMENT to try to substantiate their hypothesis [of cataclysm for life on earth because of AGW]. That hypothesis only becomes evidentiary fact once those events actually occur.

I'm being a bit pedantic here to further point out why the majority of atmospheric scientists do not find a substantive scientific basis for believing in an existential threat to humanity on account of AGW.

..... i.e. the further one travels away from direct raw evidence of their field, the more unknowns variables, biases, false scenarios, ,... the more speculative the conclusions. Political bait.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2015
(continued)
This makes me question your conclusions that most climate scientists agree with you. This is further supported by a passage at the end of the article,

[The people conducting the poll] said [they] sought those most concerned with climate issues most of the time. However, 72 percent of those polled said they had "never" or "almost never" published articles or books on climate change.


What we really need to know is, of the climate scientists who actually study the projections, what percentage of THEM agrees with me, and that information is not provided in this article.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 01, 2015
Again, for the troll-raters and maggnus, the above several posts are objecting to the statement that AGW will cause an "inhospitable planet" if we don't take action now. I agree that there will be effects and have confirmed this above by stating humans will have to adapt and migrate.

There has been life on this planet for billions of years, and [pre-] human life for millions. There has been higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere in past history, although with likely mitigating countering dynamics (i.e. sun), but also with long periods of unknowns.

... the point being that the notion that AGW will cause an inhospitable planet or such cataclysm for humanity, or that skepticism is akin to the holocaust of the NAZI's,.... is scientifically unfounded gibberish,... and worse the same propaganda techniques as used by Geobbels for "political conditioning" [to toss that ridiculous analogy back].

thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2015
It was a poll of atmospheric scientists and their opinion of the science of climatology.

I am not arguing with that.
Of course, you can redundantly point out that 100% of scientists who conduct a particular alarmist study,

Well, no. For one thing, it's not ONE particular study, but the BODY of studies that show what I am claiming. For another, your referral to them as alarmist implies that they are inherently biased, which is baseless.

You are right that this survey,
available here
http://www.desmog...ange.pdf
, is evidence for your claim. The question is, how does it stand up in the face of ALL EVIDENCE?

This is why I keep telling you to actually look at what the peer reviewed literature is saying.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2015
(continued)
This makes me question your conclusions that most climate scientists agree with you. [...]

What we really need to know is, of the climate scientists who actually study the projections, what percentage of THEM agrees with me, and that information is not provided in this article.


The poll was of atmospheric scientists. I'm sure most climatologists don't publish articles or books either or just a few,.... but most publish papers.

You seem to be suggesting that because, say an astrophysicist, specializes in local dynamics that he is not educated on, nor interested in, nor keeps up with cosmological understanding such that his opinion on those topics are not valid,.... or that because one works with Newtonian theory locally they don't know anything about the elephant-theory in the room, GR.

I believe the poll is as valid as any other would be.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2015
The IPCC goes out of its way not to interject alarmist claims wrt existential threat to humanity,....

What is your evidence for this?
You provided links above for which you erroneously characterized as 'evidence'. It is only evidence that a set of scientists produced a paper

You don't seem to have actually looked at the link. It is a summary of the STATE OF KNOWLEDGE concerning the projected consequences of inaction. The evidence I provided is readily available in the links cited in the paper. I don't want to spam phys.org with every single paper supporting my claim.

Furthermore, I provided other links from the EPA and IPCC to corroborate this claim, and you can tell me all you want that they are biased, but that means nothing if you can't demonstrate EVIDENCE of foul play. I have yet to see such evidence.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 01, 2015
Of course, you can redundantly point out that 100% of scientists who conduct a particular alarmist study, agree with that studies findings,


Well, no. For one thing, it's not ONE particular study, but the BODY of studies that show what I am claiming.


I simply stated a truism. So know you're referring to meta-studies? By their nature they venture further from evidence.

For another, your referral to them as alarmist implies that they are inherently biased, which is baseless.


Are you saying that the projection of an "inhospitable planet" is NOT alarming, or are you changing your argument in mid-stride? Please stay on track here. My objection was to your claim of "surely" an "inhospitable planet", and my response was that this is scientifically unfounded wild speculation.

As pointed out above, we both agree that there will be effects from the scientifically substantiated correlation between CO2 ppm and global temperature,.... and need of solution.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2015
all you want that they are biased, but that means nothing if you can't demonstrate EVIDENCE of foul play.


Where have I said anything about "foul play"? Are you now degenerating the discussion into accusations? Again, I was responding to your claim of "inhospitable planet",.. that ...the further one travels away from direct raw evidence of their field, the more unknowns variables, biases, false scenarios, ,... the more speculative the conclusions. Political bait. "

You don't seem to have actually looked at the link.

I outright told you I didn't read your links, and stated that I am assuming you posted them to substantiate your claim of "inhospitable planet",.... that assumption was the basis of my responses above.

[I will read you links once I have more time, and am sure I will learn from them.]
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2015
The poll was of atmospheric scientists. I'm sure most climatologists don't publish articles or books either or just a few,.... but most publish papers.

Fair enough. But I maintain there is insufficient evidence for your claim, especially since only 41% were actually directly involved in climate science.

Interestingly, this number appears in one other place. In the 1991 survey, that same percentage corresponded to those scientists who agreed that global warming was man-made. I find it interesting that 41% agreed in 1991, 41% espoused catastrophe, and 41% directly study the climate science. I readily acknowledge, however, that this could simply be coincidence.
(To be continued)
jeffensley
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2015
The failure mode for any air- or spacecraft characterized as "catastrophic" is, by all conservative accounts, quite inhospitable. And the planet has been referred to as "spaceship earth." Even if the ship had lifeboats, it makes no sense to sabotage its life support systems. Speaking metaphorociously.


Please explain how a greater concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is "sabotage" of life systems. On spaceship Earth, the vast cold of outer space is the real threat. One should also consider the possibility that we NEED more energy here to support the population.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2015
(continued)
You seem to be suggesting that because, say an astrophysicist, specializes in local dynamics that he is not educated on, nor interested in, nor keeps up with cosmological understanding such that his opinion on those topics are not valid,

Actually no, I am not saying that, and I apologize if it seemed I WAS saying that. Their opinions ARE valid, but, then again, so is the opinion of the IPCC and EPA.

Your contribution of this article to support your claim is ONE source of evidence for it, but is not SUFFICIENT evidence. You have ONE source, and it is a survey. Compare this to SEVERAL sources I have provided, not just on the state of consensus (see my comments to exellentjim above), but one the state of KNOWLEDGE.

The rest of the reasons you have submitted for your claim are unsubstantiated. For example, you THINK the IPCC is biased, but you have not provided evidence for this claim.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2015
The IPCC goes out of its way not to interject alarmist claims wrt existential threat to humanity,....

What is your evidence for this?

This is a good source
"Claims that the IPCC is alarmist are not supported by evidence, and there are clear indications that the opposite may be the case."

Sure, you may and have had individual people affiliated with IPCC, off the record, make all kind of alarmist claims and stupid statements from AGW causes terrorism to specific local events are the result of AGW,..... but there is no way that such unsubstantiated and unscientific claims would make into IPCC official reports,... "inhospitable planet"

thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2015
The IPCC goes out of its way not to interject alarmist claims wrt existential threat to humanity,....

What is your evidence for this?

https://www.skept...nsus.htm



I find it strange that you provided this link, which actually discredits your claim. Did you actually read the link you provided? Its whole point is that the IPCC routinely UNDERESTIMATES the climate response.

Here is a passage:
One characterisation of the IPCC is that it is politically motivated to exaggerate the dangers of global warming and the level of human influence on climate change. When IPCC predictions are compared to observed data, the opposite is shown to be the case.


So, in other words, the IPCC UNDERESTIMATES the impact of climate change.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2015
The poll was of atmospheric scientists. I'm sure most climatologists don't publish articles or books either or just a few,.... but most publish papers.


Fair enough. But I maintain there is insufficient evidence for your claim, especially since only 41% were actually directly involved in climate science.


Since they are atmospheric scientists they ARE directly involved in climate science. They may not be directly involved in global climate science. I will assume this is what you meant. I responded to this valid point above with my astrophysicist analogy.

I will concede your point that another poll wrt the question of "inhospitable planet" or even just "catastrophe for humanity" of scientists who work directly in the field of Global climate science would be interesting,.... however, the bubble in which they operate is transparent to other atmospheric scientists who are entitled and qualified to express their opinion.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2015
I find it strange that you provided this link, which actually discredits your claim. Did you actually read the link you provided? Its whole point is that the IPCC routinely UNDERESTIMATES the climate response.


Then you missed the salient point ....

-"inhospitable planet" is de facto alarming and thus an alarmist claim [no subjective judgement implied in this point]

- My link stated the following as a conclusion,... "Claims that the IPCC is alarmist are not supported by evidence, ....

- This statement in the link,.. "and there are clear indications that the opposite may be the case.",.... does not quantify by that statement what "they" think the IPCC SHOULD include.... eg. "inhospitable planet". If they did they would undermine their own conclusion!

- The IPCC has certain constraints wrt scientific integrity, and so can not publish wild speculation.

I'm being troll-rated, ..you can thank vietvet for ending this respectful discussion.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2015
For example, you THINK the IPCC is biased, but you have not provided evidence for this claim.


I don't recall stating that. Where did I say this? In fact I'm attempting to use the scientific integrity of the IPCC to substantiate my point that alarmist claims wrt an existential threat for life on this planet, are in fact unscientific. I used a good source that rejected the notion that the IPCC releases alarmist conclusions.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2015
Since they are atmospheric scientists they ARE directly involved in climate science.

Well, no. Some of them might have merely been meteorologists, who study weather, not climate. We don't know how many because that information is not available.

Read the article text again:
Only 41 percent of the geophysicists and meteorologists in this survey said they were directly involved in any aspect of global climate science.


And, actually, this brings up a good point, which I missed. This survey might be misleading because not all of the people surveyed might actually be climate scientists. In fact, based on that passage, and the methods mentioned in the survey itself, I would say there at least moderate evidence that at least some of them ARE NOT actual climate scientists.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2015
Then you missed the salient point ....

-"inhospitable planet" is de facto alarming and thus an alarmist claim [no subjective judgement implied in this point]

You made a similar point regarding that word further up, and I meant to address it. Something is not alarmist simply for making an alarming claim. It is alarmist for making EXAGGERATED dire claims. If this is not what you meant, then you should use something like "dire" in place of alarmist.
Forgive me if this seems pedantic, but such a word polarizes the conversation, especially since it is so liberally employed by deniers.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2015
@Noumenon

Sorry, I misread what you wrote.

You wrote
The IPCC goes out of its way not to interject alarmist claims wrt existential threat to humanity

I misread it as
The IPCC goes out of its way TO interject alarmist claims wrt existential threat to humanity


Sorry about that.

So, yes, your link does support your initial claim about the IPCC, but that's moot, because I agree with it. Where I don't agree is that the dire claims I am making are unfounded and speculative, but rather, are based off of sound scientific methods, but there really isn't more to say until you look at the links I provided.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (8) Dec 01, 2015
I will read you links when I have time, but I am certainly not disputing that some are putting forth an argument that is alarmist as that is one of my primary objections wrt AGW,.. only that if they conclude with an existential threat to life, imo, it is scientifically unfounded political bait.

-"inhospitable planet" is de facto alarming and thus an alarmist claim [no subjective judgement implied in this point]


Something is not alarmist simply for making an alarming claim.


Really, are we doing this? I went out of my way to qualify the word, by stating "no subjective judgement implied in this point",.. i.e. I meant it only as a truism. I mean "alarmist claim" is an "alarming claim",... that AGW will surely result in an "inhospitable planet".

Subsequently, after having established that the IPCC does not publish 'alarmist claims', ... I used that fact as justification for associating such alarmist claims with wild speculation.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2015
-"inhospitable planet" is de facto alarming and thus an alarmist claim [no subjective judgement implied in this point]


Something is not alarmist simply for making an alarming claim.

Really, are we doing this? I went out of my way to qualify the word, by stating "no subjective judgement implied in this point",.. i.e. I meant it only as a truism. I mean "alarmist claim" is an "alarming claim",... that AGW will surely result in an "inhospitable planet".

But you are using the word incorrectly. Words have effects, especially in such a polarized debate. I acknowledged, already, that you were likely using it incorrectly, and that I figured you meant "dire", which is why I requested you use that word, instead.

To see what I mean, imagine I used "idiot", when what I really meant is somebody who disagrees with me. Surely you would request I use a different word after clarifying what I meant.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2015
@Noumenon
One more thing, I suspect part of the debate we're having is at least partly attributable to my choice of word, "inhospitable", which means precisely what I meant it to--that is, " harsh and difficult to live in."

You, however, might be interpreting my claim to mean "COMPLETELY incompatible with human life", and this is not a claim that I am prepared to make. Indeed, that you above claim that humans will probably have to migrate suggests that you and I are more in agreement that what our little debate would suggest.

Obviously, humans are well known for inhabiting various inhospitable places, like the Atacama Desert. I am simply saying that the projections of the current body of knowledge means that there will be dire consequences affecting our way of life. Whether we will be able to survive them, should be be borne out is another matter entirely.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 01, 2015
But you are using the word incorrectly. Words have effects, especially in such a polarized debate. I acknowledged, already, that you were likely using it incorrectly, and that I figured you meant "dire", which is why I requested you use that word, instead.


There is no reason to split hairs here in any case, as you stated "inhospitable planet". Yes, not all 'alarming-claims' are 'alarmist-claims', ... but all 'alarmist-claims' are 'alarming-claims'. I made reference to 'alarmist-claims' to which I associated your [read as existential threat] 'inhospitable planet'.

....
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 01, 2015
I suspect part of the debate we're having is at least partly attributable to my choice of word, "inhospitable", which means precisely what I meant it to--that is, " harsh and difficult to live in."...[...].. You, however, might be interpreting my claim to mean "COMPLETELY incompatible with human life"


Yes, that is indeed the sense in which I read it,... as an existential threat to humanity. I used the phrase "existential threat" six times above.

this is not a claim that I am prepared to make. Indeed, that you above claim that humans will probably have to migrate suggests that you and I are more in agreement that what our little debate would suggest.


It appears, thank you for clarifying. However, I don't think that the entire planet surface will become "harsh and difficult to live in", but rather some places will and other places not previously hospitable, may become more so,.... given projections of a few degrees in the next century.

RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 01, 2015
Hi Noumenon. :)

Realize, we are now on a global climatory transition trajectory: From 'suitable' to reasonably tolerable human survival/flourishing conditions/environment-------To 'hostile' to continuing sustainability for billions upon billions.

See? it's what is beginning to happen on the way to final unsustainable situation that we have to worry about. Consider what global conflict/problems/costs we are experience even NOW.....then picture what will obtain as increasingly frequent storm/unseasonal events means we lose even more fertile soils, calm coasts, disease/pest-free zones, transportation/communication infrastructure and 'refuge zones' where populations can 'evacuate to' temporarily when local disaster strikes. Picture what world chaos obtains NOW, and multiply it manyfold....and then also realize that such global instability/chaos will happen LONG BEFORE we reach the worst-case-scenario climate conditions which finally make such transitional chaos 'tame'. Ok? :)
leetennant
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2015
Plus, 4-6 degrees IS human extinction. So, duh. "Inhospitable" is kind of an understatement is those circumstances. Huge swathes of the coastline become uninhabitable at 2 and our major food bowls get wiped out, as does the fresh water for 1 billion people. So unless you think it's not "inhospitable" for 1 billion people to become refugees by 2050 then I think you need to rethink your semantics.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2015
Please explain how a greater concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is "sabotage" of life systems
It's a deliberate practice and constitutes unnecessarily excessive green house gas emissions known to be detrimental to habitats, ecosystems, and in sufficient quantity, it could be catastrophic for the biosphere, or life as we know it.

But my statement was a generalization, and "sabotage" covers other biologically deleterious practices such as pollution and irresponsible applications of chemical biocides...
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2015
jeffensley asked & very oddly too
Please explain how a greater concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is "sabotage" of life systems
Beg Pardon, HOW could a "real" "Environmental Scientist" (ES) from Virginia Tech (when ?) NOT know this ??

Ocean acidification, structural changes trees to cyanogens in food plants ie Cassava, Clover etc to altered hydrolysis/pH re pathogens in wet lands fungi etc FFS ?

jeffensley says
On spaceship Earth, the vast cold of outer space is the real threat
Beg pardon, how is that Possibly *any* Real "threat" ??

You missed ES lectures in Physics re heat transfer & thermal inertia, Earth's EMF shields atmospheric solar wind erosion, equilibria re CO2 & other GHGs, Psychrometry too - FFS !

How can a ES ask such banal basic questions in a uni degree he *should* know Well ?

jeffensley says
...consider the possibility that we NEED more energy here to support the population
No, its Sol differential FFS !

Learn Physics (& ES) !

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.