THE thread for climate skeptics.

[TheLurch]

Just as with the sorts of protests we are seeing this week, when there is a large amount of mistrust of the source, the facts are not necessarily the facts. Why would black people protest a policeman firing on a fellow brandishing a gun and refusing to put it down? Because they don't trust that is what ACTUALLY happened. Likewise here. The liberal side's politicalization of the science creates just as much mistrust in those on the conservative side of the political fence as big oil's corporate funding of anti-climate change science and websites does on the liberal side. As long as we only look at it from our side, the other side's mistrust or lack of understanding of our mistrust remains inconcievable.

Sorry, i don't seem to have made my point clear; i was being more specific to this particular individual (Teal). In her case, she says she doesn't trust any of the people who have politicized it, which is fair. But she also doesn't seem to trust the scientists. And i'm trying to understand why that's the case.

Incidentally, i'd disagree that it was "liberals' politicization" that caused this. A few decades ago, there was substantial bipartisan agreement that a cap and trade system, which had worked for acid rain, was the way to go, and bills were working their way through congress. The Republicans abandoned that effort, and changed their rhetoric. There were several reasons for this change, and i completely agree that it becoming identified as a Democratic issue is clearly one of them. But there's pretty extensive documentation about how various lobbying efforts made it a political issue for Republicans as well.

The Luntz memo is probably the most famous example:
https://www.theguardian.com/environm....climatechange

This is not some attempt to make conservatives feel bad about their representatives. I think it's important that EVERYONE realize that the decision to question whether there was a consensus about climate change - a topic that's still being argued today - was a strategic, political one. It had nothing to do with the science itself.

[oxmixmudd]

Well that is the problem isn't it. Most of us could never understand the science around this issue. They could be telling us anything. But what I do understand are leftists - and this is primarily their issue and they will use it as just another means of population control and wealth redistribution. All the while flying into conferences on their private jets, living in mansions, staying in high end hotels, eating the best food and being driven in limos. They tell us to drive Priuses - yet they will not do one thing to cut their carbon footprint.

Do as I say, not as I do

Just remember that when we point a finger at others, 3 more point back at us. Many never consider the Good News of Christ and His finished work on the Cross because of what we the Chrisitans do - so be careful. Try to separate that kind of thing from what is really out there in terms of evidence. Chances are good the folks you are talking about are no more capable of actually knowing if the science is right than they are capable in integrating x². How many actors do you know that would even have a clue what thermal equilibrium means, or what the relationship might be between CO2, stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming . BUT, there is very real, very solid science out there that points strongly to human activities changing (warming) the climate. And to some not so wonderful future consequences. And this is coming from a fellow that has been historically very skeptical of that and raked over the coals around here overit, even called out as an evil 'AGW denialist' by the more extreme elements


Jim

[TheLurch]

even called out as an evil 'AGW denialist' by the more extreme elements

Oh, man, i don't miss having him around here.

[Teallaura]

So why doesn't everybody -including yourself - just listen to the actual scientists, then?

As for the double standard, i'd just note that, until now, all your statements have been directed at one side of the debate. It may be that your opinion is different from that, but it's been impossible to tell based on what you're saying here.

Which ones? If you can't tell how correct what they are saying is then you've got to be able to sort based on something - credentials, trustworthiness, communication ability, that they wear bow ties - something. For many, it will be some combination of trustworthiness and accessibility. Scientists are humans just like the rest of us and they don't get a free pass on the credibility assessment.

I'm not inclined to trust anyone so much that I will accept mere pronouncement unless I have zero interest in the statement. There are problems that bother me - how is the issue of sensitivity disparity dealt with - or is it even addressed? If I ask questions like that in Nat Sci, it's jumped all over as if any question is an attack. Heck, merely addressing the political side - which is a reality no matter how much y'all may not like to admit it - got me accused of being unwilling to deal with the science (this when the science wasn't truly being discussed other than how it is being portrayed/ is being interjected in the public square) and of having a double standard (see below).

The thread is about skepticism - it's absurd to expect that kind of balance and equally absurd to assume its absence. I haven't discussed knitting, either - for the same exact reason.

Skeptics aren't proposing untold billions in 'solutions' - they don't get a pass, either, but why do I need to bother tearing apart what isn't at issue at the moment? Truth is, I'm skeptical because what I see politically doesn't engender any confidence that the proponents are themselves convinced. I don't spend a lot of time reading the opponent stuff unless I'm actually tackling a point and need both sides. Climate change opponents aren't the main reason I'm dubious of climate change being man made and, more importantly, reversible (assuming it exists) - climate change proponents are.

[Teallaura]

The above highlighted statement reflects the problem with your posts in this thread. Regardless of what motivates the anti-climate change advocates (there are several, industry, economic, religious, or just plain anti-science), I do not believe your accusations can apply to the 'nuts and bolts' scientists that are researching climate change and the aspects of science involved. One very important point you are side stepping is that the agenda of the anti-climate change advocates is not based on science.

Seriously, Shuny, do you bother to read threads before you do these things? What accusations? That all scientists are human and therefore behave like humans? Seriously, you're going to argue that they aren't and are therefore above any human foible?

[Teallaura]

Sorry, i don't seem to have made my point clear; i was being more specific to this particular individual (Teal). In her case, she says she doesn't trust any of the people who have politicized it, which is fair. But she also doesn't seem to trust the scientists. And i'm trying to understand why that's the case.

Incidentally, i'd disagree that it was "liberals' politicization" that caused this. A few decades ago, there was substantial bipartisan agreement that a cap and trade system, which had worked for acid rain, was the way to go, and bills were working their way through congress. The Republicans abandoned that effort, and changed their rhetoric. There were several reasons for this change, and i completely agree that it becoming identified as a Democratic issue is clearly one of them. But there's pretty extensive documentation about how various lobbying efforts made it a political issue for Republicans as well.

The Luntz memo is probably the most famous example:
https://www.theguardian.com/environm....climatechange

This is not some attempt to make conservatives feel bad about their representatives. I think it's important that EVERYONE realize that the decision to question whether there was a consensus about climate change - a topic that's still being argued today - was a strategic, political one. It had nothing to do with the science itself.

I trust humans to be human - and as a direct result yes, everyone has to show their cards if we are gonna play a fair game. If you expect me - or anyone - to trust scientists to simply make their pronouncements from on high and have the rest of us fund their solutions, you're arguing for me to deliberately become irrational - no thanks. If you are suspecting I won't trust any scientist whatsoever, you're just simply wrong. I give trust very sparingly, that's true, but I don't set the bar irrationally high, either.

[Irate Canadian]

I trust humans to be human - and as a direct result yes, everyone has to show their cards if we are gonna play a fair game. If you expect me - or anyone - to trust scientists to simply make their pronouncements from on high and have the rest of us fund their solutions, you're arguing for me to deliberately become irrational - no thanks. If you are suspecting I won't trust any scientist whatsoever, you're just simply wrong. I give trust very sparingly, that's true, but I don't set the bar irrationally high, either.

Well, considering literally almost every mainstream scientific report has added onto the consensus that climate change is a real thing, and is being caused by the effects of humans, what more do you want from us?

Do you want research? Because I can send you journal article after journal article, peer-reviewed.

There is no "pronouncements from on high" from the scientists; honestly, I blame the alarmist politicians back in the 80s for making this a partisan issue.

[shunyadragon]

Seriously, Shuny, do you bother to read threads before you do these things? What accusations? That all scientists are human and therefore behave like humans? Seriously, you're going to argue that they aren't and are therefore above any human foible?

It is not the question highlighted above.

Not an adequate answer. The problem is here:

Incidentally, I find the hired gun argument pathetically weak - it applies so readily both ways that it's a pointless rabbit hole at best.

You have been ambiguous in many of your posts concerning science, public opinion and science. Yes, opponents of global climate change hire professional consultants, and do not argue the science legitimately. Blue smoke and mirrors is the modus operandi.

[TheLurch]

I'm not inclined to trust anyone so much that I will accept mere pronouncement unless I have zero interest in the statement. There are problems that bother me - how is the issue of sensitivity disparity dealt with - or is it even addressed?

You'd have to define what the sensitivity disparity is for me to answer that.

Skeptics aren't proposing untold billions in 'solutions'

No, they're proposing untold billions in costs.

Truth is, I'm skeptical because what I see politically doesn't engender any confidence that the proponents are themselves convinced.

What would it take you to put your perception of the politics aside and actually pay attention to the evidence? There's plenty of people here that understand it pretty well and would happily talk in detail about it. I'd much RATHER talk about evidence. Instead, it seems that whenever people try to get you to focus on the evidence, you emphasize that "you can't ignore the politics," and then bring that around to "my impression of the politics leads me to mistrust the evidence". Which is just running around in circles.

I trust humans to be human - and as a direct result yes, everyone has to show their cards if we are gonna play a fair game. If you expect me - or anyone - to trust scientists to simply make their pronouncements from on high and have the rest of us fund their solutions, you're arguing for me to deliberately become irrational - no thanks. If you are suspecting I won't trust any scientist whatsoever, you're just simply wrong. I give trust very sparingly, that's true, but I don't set the bar irrationally high, either.

No, that's not what i'm asking you to do. I'm asking you to deal with the evidence. You've consistently acted like it doesn't interest you, and bring it back to your personal impressions of the social aspects. So i'm trying to understand why those personal impressions don't at least assign some credibility to the scientific community.

Again, i'll happily talk evidence. But i've seen no indication you want to.

[Teallaura]

Well, considering literally almost every mainstream scientific report has added onto the consensus that climate change is a real thing, and is being caused by the effects of humans, what more do you want from us?


Do you want research? Because I can send you journal article after journal article, peer-reviewed.


There is no "pronouncements from on high" from the scientists; honestly, I blame the alarmist politicians back in the 80s for making this a partisan issue.

I want to see a pattern of behavior consistent with an agenda that is believed in, not merely politically expedient. That is what I don't see in the public square where it matters. As for this thread, it has surpassed my expectations. Although a number of you clearly don't get what I've argued - seriously, skepticism is not a personal attack - the thread has been remarkably well behaved, thoughtful and refreshingly serious. I didn't think Nat Sci actually had the capability, to be honest (I remember dreading modding Nat Sci back in the day - OPB threatened to assign it to me once! ). I'm actually very favorably impressed.


I quite agree that the issue has been handled very badly in the public square. A lot of trust has been lost and rightfully so.


I'll read SoR's links when I have a chance but honestly, only because of this thread. If Leo rejoins the fray or Ox decides to post something on it I'll be much more interested. I like you and SoR but Leo and Ox have the advantage of a long time in earning my trust. And not acting like jerks (add Silas to that list). I'd seriously consider anything Lurch posted because although he got a bit testy - humans being human, that happens - he's otherwise been straightforward, polite and to his great credit actually bothered to try to address the argument as presented.


If you want to change minds you have to be willing to concede that not every disagreement is a threat to your side/identity/the universe as we know it. Nat Sci has historically behaved the opposite. I find the political argumentation poor but that's okay - HOW it was handled made a much bigger difference than you (general) would have had you won the fight. I didn't find anything compelling to refute my actual contentions but I did find a much better atmosphere, tough but congenial enough to show real promise. I might not ever agree, but I'm a lot more willing to listen than when I came into this thread.

















Okay, Shuny, make me regret that....

[Teallaura]

You'd have to define what the sensitivity disparity is for me to answer that.

Not sure I can - but let me use and example to see if I can get the idea across. In 1998, the state of Alabama introduced universal chlamydia testing, where it had previously been limited to pregnant or symptomatic females. The result was that the CT rate went through the roof. But the rate couldn't truly be shown to have increased because the metric for 1997 was vastly different from the metric used in 1998.

When I look at the warming graphs I'm struck by how closely the seem to parallel technological advancement. So, how do you know the globe is warming rather than the technology for measuring the temperature having improved?

No, they're proposing untold billions in costs.

Explain, please?

What would it take you to put your perception of the politics aside and actually pay attention to the evidence? There's plenty of people here that understand it pretty well and would happily talk in detail about it. I'd much RATHER talk about evidence. Instead, it seems that whenever people try to get you to focus on the evidence, you emphasize that "you can't ignore the politics," and then bring that around to "my impression of the politics leads me to mistrust the evidence". Which is just running around in circles.

See my response to IC.

No, that's not what i'm asking you to do. I'm asking you to deal with the evidence. You've consistently acted like it doesn't interest you, and bring it back to your personal impressions of the social aspects. So i'm trying to understand why those personal impressions don't at least assign some credibility to the scientific community.

That IS evidence - it goes to trustworthiness, as I've stated before.

I don't have the expertise to debate the science - I've been perfectly candid about that from the get go. I have no desire to discuss it here because I'll need to ask questions and they will be treated as threats - I don't need to be more confused when I'm genuinely trying to understand.

Again, i'll happily talk evidence. But i've seen no indication you want to.

In this thread, heck no - why would I? You (or I) want to start a thread that is inquiry instead of debate - and wait about two weeks while my real life straightens back out again so I have time to do the reading - and I'd be happy to talk about the physical evidence (and a side discussion on what constitutes evidence seems in order ). But I'm not gonna throw myself under the proverbial bus trying it in a debate thread, sorry.

[Teallaura]

It is not the question highlighted above.

Not an adequate answer. The problem is here:



You have been ambiguous in many of your posts concerning science, public opinion and science. Yes, opponents of global climate change hire professional consultants, and do not argue the science legitimately. Blue smoke and mirrors is the modus operandi.

Hired gun arguments are STUPID. Both sides have to get paid - none of these guys work for free. Sauce works as well for goose as gander so if you wanna spend the month trying to sort through who gets paid for saying what, fine. But unless you have clear evidence of corruption, it's pretty well a total waste of time.

The smart argument goes to the actual evidence in this instance - unless you have real evidence of corruption instead of mere innuendo - in either direction.

[TheLurch]

Not sure I can - but let me use and example to see if I can get the idea across. In 1998, the state of Alabama introduced universal chlamydia testing, where it had previously been limited to pregnant or symptomatic females. The result was that the CT rate went through the roof. But the rate couldn't truly be shown to have increased because the metric for 1997 was vastly different from the metric used in 1998.

When I look at the warming graphs I'm struck by how closely the seem to parallel technological advancement. So, how do you know the globe is warming rather than the technology for measuring the temperature having improved?

Your analogy worked nicely. This isn't considered an issue because everything else is pointing to warming. Species that are limited by temperature are moving towards the poles. They're migrating earlier in the year. They're moving up to higher elevations. These species don't care about politics - they care about temperatures. And they're acting like temperatures are going up.

Glaciers don't care about politics, either. And we're seeing land uncovered that hasn't been ice-free for tens of thousands of years (we can carbon date the pollen in the soil that's exposed). Ocean levels are rising because the ice melt is so widespread, etc. etc.

Plus there are the proxy measurements of past temperatures. Those let us go thousands of years into the past, and show that there's not correlation between human measuring technology and temperatures - but there is one between CO2 and temperatures.

Explain, please?

(For clarity, since it's not quoted, this is regarding what climate skeptics want us to pay.) The simplest way to view this is that, right now, it's estimated that humanity has about $2 trillion in infrastructure within 1 meter of current sea levels. If climate scientists are right, all of that is likely to be under water by the time the century is over. In fact, we're already paying for it. If Hurricane Sandy had struck NYC at the start of last century, sea levels would have been a foot lower. How many things wouldn't have been under water, how many basements wouldn't have flooded, etc. etc. if we still had that sea level? There's also some good, approachable articles out there about everything Florida is having to do to deal with sea level rise.

And we're all - every US citizen at least - paying for it. Through our taxes that go to FEMA, through higher insurance premiums, and to the long term spending on trying to make infrastructure more resilient.

And that's just sea level rise. Climate change affects countless other things that humanity has invested untold trillions in.

People seem to have this odd idea that it's possible to "do nothing" about climate change. But doing nothing is doing something. It's continuing a grand experiment on what happens if we radically alter the composition of our atmosphere. So skeptics that want us not to act are asking everybody to pay not just for the current consequences, but future ones as well.

That IS evidence - it goes to trustworthiness, as I've stated before.

But you've basically stated that you don't trust anybody on this topic. Yet you seem to reserve all your attacks for the people who accept the conclusions of scientists. Again, i'm not trying to tell you you don't have justification for doing so. I'm trying to understand what that justification is. As near as i can tell, you're looking for a certain kind of behavior from people who agree with scientists. But i'm not coming away with a strong sense of what that behavior is.

I don't have the expertise to debate the science - I've been perfectly candid about that from the get go. I have no desire to discuss it here because I'll need to ask questions and they will be treated as threats - I don't need to be more confused when I'm genuinely trying to understand.

If you've got questions, i'll answer them - here or where ever else you want. The whole reason i'm here on TWeb is that i like answering questions about science. I don't view honest questions as threats.

[Sea of red]

Not sure I can - but let me use and example to see if I can get the idea across. In 1998, the state of Alabama introduced universal chlamydia testing, where it had previously been limited to pregnant or symptomatic females. The result was that the CT rate went through the roof. But the rate couldn't truly be shown to have increased because the metric for 1997 was vastly different from the metric used in 1998.

When I look at the warming graphs I'm struck by how closely the seem to parallel technological advancement. So, how do you know the globe is warming rather than the technology for measuring the temperature having improved?


Explain, please?


See my response to IC.


That IS evidence - it goes to trustworthiness, as I've stated before.

I don't have the expertise to debate the science - I've been perfectly candid about that from the get go. I have no desire to discuss it here because I'll need to ask questions and they will be treated as threats - I don't need to be more confused when I'm genuinely trying to understand.

In this thread, heck no - why would I? You (or I) want to start a thread that is inquiry instead of debate - and wait about two weeks while my real life straightens back out again so I have time to do the reading - and I'd be happy to talk about the physical evidence (and a side discussion on what constitutes evidence seems in order ). But I'm not gonna throw myself under the proverbial bus trying it in a debate thread, sorry.

So you're actually open to listening to the physical evidence?

[shunyadragon]

So you're actually open to listening to the physical evidence?

. . . independent of public opinion, politics, and religion.