Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 83

Thread: 2017's global temperatures

  1. #21
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,696
    Amen (Given)
    6034
    Amen (Received)
    4616
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    I think the other thing here is that, on most complicated topics, there is no one-size-fits-all explanation that will work for everyone. I phrased things in a way that made sense for me; Teal, because of her background, would find different explanation more compelling, etc. It's important to have a diversity of explanations, even if they all distill down to the same thing, because you never know what'll click with someone.
    It's a valid point but this is very much a political issue - and the proposed solutions require political measures. You (general) can't get away with 'it's complicated, just trust us' when the political/economic impacts of implementation can and will be devastating for some - in some cases many - people.

    The initial poor handling (regardless of source) has laid the framework of mistrust - it's not good enough to prove something to the scientific community if you (again general) want implementation - now proof has to be supplied to a skeptical public that isn't going to have the statistical or research background to just know that there are sometimes reasons for altering raw data that are not only benign but necessary/

    Sparky was correct that the data wasn't raw - and I think the scientific/political (for want of a better term) community has an uphill battle to prove the need for implementation - and will be very sadly surprised if it thinks the political pendulum can't or won't swing especially when the proposed solutions are so very long term.

  2. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  3. #22
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,016
    Amen (Given)
    67
    Amen (Received)
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    It's a valid point but this is very much a political issue.
    I think you're right in terms of the big picture understanding. But i think when it comes to basic factual issues - what is this information, and how was it generated - the politics can often be set aside.

  4. #23
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,173
    Amen (Given)
    109
    Amen (Received)
    983
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    It's a valid point but this is very much a political issue - and the proposed solutions require political measures. You (general) can't get away with 'it's complicated, just trust us' when the political/economic impacts of implementation can and will be devastating for some - in some cases many - people.

    The initial poor handling (regardless of source) has laid the framework of mistrust - it's not good enough to prove something to the scientific community if you (again general) want implementation - now proof has to be supplied to a skeptical public that isn't going to have the statistical or research background to just know that there are sometimes reasons for altering raw data that are not only benign but necessary/

    Sparky was correct that the data wasn't raw - and I think the scientific/political (for want of a better term) community has an uphill battle to prove the need for implementation - and will be very sadly surprised if it thinks the political pendulum can't or won't swing especially when the proposed solutions are so very long term.
    Taking into account what TheLurch said, consider that your statement only considers one side of the issue. We know that large players in the oil industry have directly funded the major anti-AGW voices. In a scenario that is not all that different from what we saw with the cigarette industry's funding of 'studies' that conflicted with the general medical consensus that smoking itself is bad for people. And those same big money and basic livelihood issues (re small family tobacco farms in states like NC) were in play muddying the waters. But perhaps to a lesson could be learned there. The basic science of the issue was right, and I believe it is right on this issue as well. It's mostly just a matter of science.

    But there are a lot of consequences to that and so big players want the science to NOT be clear because a clear and solid scientific consensus is a hard bit to argue with, even today. So to me, and the approach I used (since I was in fact pre-disposed to believe that big government and radical liberal interests would be trying to force the science their direction) was to get down to the most basic, most powerful arguments I could find on both sides and look into them. What I found was that most of the anti-AGW arguments claiming distortion of the data just didn't hold water. Claims regarding bad station placement, invalid adjustments, faked data, they all just didn't stand up. Further, claims that might have merit, that were legitimate challenges, tended to be investigated (not shelved) and generally that research would provide meaningful and consistent answers (e.g. the relationship between the transfer of heat to the oceans from the atmosphere and the flattening of the temperature trend observed in the early 2000's) We might argue how much warning. We might argue pre-80's of the A in AGW was a sure thing. But the bottom line is that pretty much no matter whether you low ball or high ball the results, AGW is real.

    So the trend to continue to try to deny its happening just goes to an anti-science sentiment in those involved. What to do about it is going to be hugely political. And it certainly is not something I would like to see handled to the extreme in either direction. But to continue as some are to try to deny what is clear scientifically is the wrong way to approach the issue.

    Jim
    Jorge's trueorigins paper: "...it is known that other volcanic features match what is usually associated with impact craters including ... shatter cones and crystal deformations"

    Planetary Science Institute: "Shatter cones … are found in only two places on Earth, 1) in nuclear test sites and 2) meteorite impact structures. They are formed as a result of the high pressure, high velocity shock wave ...

    maximum pressures from 45 to 200 times greater than found in volcanic events (2->20 Gpa)

  5. #24
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,696
    Amen (Given)
    6034
    Amen (Received)
    4616
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Taking into account what TheLurch said, consider that your statement only considers one side of the issue. We know that large players in the oil industry have directly funded the major anti-AGW voices. In a scenario that is not all that different from what we saw with the cigarette industry's funding of 'studies' that conflicted with the general medical consensus that smoking itself is bad for people. And those same big money and basic livelihood issues (re small family tobacco farms in states like NC) were in play muddying the waters. But perhaps to a lesson could be learned there. The basic science of the issue was right, and I believe it is right on this issue as well. It's mostly just a matter of science.

    But there are a lot of consequences to that and so big players want the science to NOT be clear because a clear and solid scientific consensus is a hard bit to argue with, even today. So to me, and the approach I used (since I was in fact pre-disposed to believe that big government and radical liberal interests would be trying to force the science their direction) was to get down to the most basic, most powerful arguments I could find on both sides and look into them. What I found was that most of the anti-AGW arguments claiming distortion of the data just didn't hold water. Claims regarding bad station placement, invalid adjustments, faked data, they all just didn't stand up. Further, claims that might have merit, that were legitimate challenges, tended to be investigated (not shelved) and generally that research would provide meaningful and consistent answers (e.g. the relationship between the transfer of heat to the oceans from the atmosphere and the flattening of the temperature trend observed in the early 2000's) We might argue how much warning. We might argue pre-80's of the A in AGW was a sure thing. But the bottom line is that pretty much no matter whether you low ball or high ball the results, AGW is real.

    So the trend to continue to try to deny its happening just goes to an anti-science sentiment in those involved. What to do about it is going to be hugely political. And it certainly is not something I would like to see handled to the extreme in either direction. But to continue as some are to try to deny what is clear scientifically is the wrong way to approach the issue.

    Jim
    No, my position is purely that you (general - pro-change) have to deal with the problem of public skepticism in order to gain the implementations you believe are needed. Doing that by calling people - even by implication - 'deniers' backfires - and is doing so now in the bigger picture. Anti-science comments aren't going to help, either. The truth is - as you pointed out - laymen have been given some cause for skepticism by misconduct on the pro side (and, I would argue, considerable mishandling politically). That is a MAJOR hill politically - just like one should stop digging when at the bottom of a hole, piling on more dirt when trying to level a mountain is rather counter productive.

    I didn't take a position on the scientific validity - that I can't ascertain. Do I think it's real? I remain skeptical, as I explained previously, but I'm trying to be reasonable. All I'm saying is that explaining that the data needed to be weighted to deal with a bias (actually, I'm no longer sure what the heck they did to it - weighting with a climate model? Yeesh, glad I don't have to do that!) would have been a better strategy than questioning his motives. He's skeptical, the quote clearly states the data wasn't raw, of course that looks suspicious to him - but questioning his motives throws fuel on that fire - no biggie in a single forum but it's almost par for the course for the pro side - and a losing strategy long term. If you're right and this is real, fighting politically stupid is worse than just decommissioning the EPA tomorrow.

    And yes, I get it - it's hard to have to argue the same thing repeatedly. Try explaining the US appellate system sometime if you want to see just how incredibly hard it can be when people think they know more than they really do. But snarking - even mildly - won't win anyone over. If you're right, what do you want? To make necessary changes in time to stop catastrophe, or to be able to say 'told you so' while swimming in the Gulf - off the coast of Tennessee?

  6. #25
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,696
    Amen (Given)
    6034
    Amen (Received)
    4616
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    I think you're right in terms of the big picture understanding. But i think when it comes to basic factual issues - what is this information, and how was it generated - the politics can often be set aside.
    I grant that with a caveat - it depends where you are and who you're talking to. Politics isn't easily 'set aside' simply because it's integral to human existence. That's part of why a conversation can take political overtones when no one intended such.

    And with something so highly politicized, it's nearly impossible to isolate a discussion even of factual matters without making a formal statement as such - and even then, tough to do.

  7. #26
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,016
    Amen (Given)
    67
    Amen (Received)
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    The truth is - as you pointed out - laymen have been given some cause for skepticism by misconduct on the pro side (and, I would argue, considerable mishandling politically).
    What misconduct are you referring to?

  8. #27
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,173
    Amen (Given)
    109
    Amen (Received)
    983
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    No, my position is purely that you (general - pro-change) have to deal with the problem of public skepticism in order to gain the implementations you believe are needed. Doing that by calling people - even by implication - 'deniers' backfires - and is doing so now in the bigger picture. Anti-science comments aren't going to help, either. The truth is - as you pointed out - laymen have been given some cause for skepticism by misconduct on the pro side (and, I would argue, considerable mishandling politically). That is a MAJOR hill politically - just like one should stop digging when at the bottom of a hole, piling on more dirt when trying to level a mountain is rather counter productive.

    I didn't take a position on the scientific validity - that I can't ascertain. Do I think it's real? I remain skeptical, as I explained previously, but I'm trying to be reasonable. All I'm saying is that explaining that the data needed to be weighted to deal with a bias (actually, I'm no longer sure what the heck they did to it - weighting with a climate model? Yeesh, glad I don't have to do that!) would have been a better strategy than questioning his motives. He's skeptical, the quote clearly states the data wasn't raw, of course that looks suspicious to him - but questioning his motives throws fuel on that fire - no biggie in a single forum but it's almost par for the course for the pro side - and a losing strategy long term. If you're right and this is real, fighting politically stupid is worse than just decommissioning the EPA tomorrow.

    And yes, I get it - it's hard to have to argue the same thing repeatedly. Try explaining the US appellate system sometime if you want to see just how incredibly hard it can be when people think they know more than they really do. But snarking - even mildly - won't win anyone over. If you're right, what do you want? To make necessary changes in time to stop catastrophe, or to be able to say 'told you so' while swimming in the Gulf - off the coast of Tennessee?
    I agree with you that the phrase 'climate-deniers' is riduculously ignorant of human nature and in the end short-sighted and counterproductive. It comes from nothing less than the pride and arrogance of those that have the capacity to understand the science looking down on those that do not.

    But unfortunately we also have a large number of scientifically ignorant but religiously fervent people out there being led by the nose through unscrupulous forces seeking to reinforce their own power base. I think it began with percived threats like evolution and ignorant responses like the Young Earth Science movement instilling massive skepticism and even a fear of science in the evangelicals in this country. And that certainly has not been helped by the fact that almost all 'popular' voices for science have also tended to be anti-religious in the position. Asimov, Sagan less so, but now Dawkins and Hitchens and others dogmatically claiming that to undestand science is to realize their can't be a God or gods.

    In the end though ... all things being equal ... science has led to a massive improvement in the human condition and has resulted in the elimination of many, many evils. For the religious right to be so solidly against so many scientific conclusions is an obvious red-flag to anyone looking to evaluate the validity of their position.

    To reverse the trend Christians have got to face their fears and stop listening to voices that claim to be on their side but are in fact just using them as a means to their own selfish ends. I don't believe the radical elements of the left that would shut down our economy and starve millions to combat global warming should be in charge (and likely they won't). But likewise, I don't think it's doing the conservative side any favors that they've elected arguably the most selfish and ignorant person in history to lead the free world. A man almost incapable of speaking without lying to help support their causes. Causes that in many cases, unfortunately, are based in ignorance.

    This kind of behavior unfortunately invites a hostile response from those that use the phrase 'climate deniars'.

    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-23-2018 at 03:54 PM.
    Jorge's trueorigins paper: "...it is known that other volcanic features match what is usually associated with impact craters including ... shatter cones and crystal deformations"

    Planetary Science Institute: "Shatter cones … are found in only two places on Earth, 1) in nuclear test sites and 2) meteorite impact structures. They are formed as a result of the high pressure, high velocity shock wave ...

    maximum pressures from 45 to 200 times greater than found in volcanic events (2->20 Gpa)

  9. #28
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,016
    Amen (Given)
    67
    Amen (Received)
    330
    I'm going to argue with a few things in the sense of "have a friendly exploration of the issue by presenting contrasting ideas", just so my intention isn't misunderstood.

    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I agree with you that the phrase 'climate-deniers' is riduculously ignorant of human nature and in the end short-sighted and counterproductive. It comes from nothing less than the pride and arrogance of those that have the capacity to understand the science looking down on those that do not.
    I agree that in the vast majority of contexts, calling someone a climate denier isn't helpful. There are a couple of instances where i'd say it's appropriate, though. For example, the oil companies hired some of the same people that the cigarette companies did to attack climate science - they're essentially hired guns paid to deny evidence. I don't think calling them climate deniers is inappropriate. The same goes for a handful of hardcore, committed people that will not accept any evidence. For example, the blogger Anthony Watts had said multiple times he'd accept whatever Berkeley Earth found with the temperature record. But when Berkeley Earth ended up supporting NASA and NOAA, Watts backed away from the whole thing.

    Of course, highlighting those examples supports your larger point - that in the vast majority of cases, there's nothing like that sort of commitment to dismiss any and all evidence. So while it may be appropriate to use the term, the situations where that's the case are pretty rare.


    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    But unfortunately we also have a large number of scientifically ignorant but religiously fervent people out there being led by the nose through unscrupulous forces seeking to reinforce their own power base. I think it began with percived threats like evolution and ignorant responses like the Young Earth Science movement instilling massive skepticism and even a fear of science in the evangelicals in this country.
    I think that the adoption of climate change as a religious issue was relatively recent. Opposition started out largely on economic grounds and philosophical differences about the role of government regulation. To the extent that there was religious fervor involved, it seemed to be driven by the belief that the free market can solve everything, despite the numerous historic examples to the contrary.

    I think that politics acted as a bridge that brought it into the religious arena. Shared values - religious conservatives and political conservatives overlap, and share a mistrust of government regulation - helped make climate change an issue among religious conservatives. It was only at that point that you started seeing religiously-based arguments for ignoring the scientific results.

    The end result of that are things like the Cornwall Alliance declaration on global warming, which is explicitly dismisses the science due to religious beliefs. But it took a number of years to get from "regulations are bad for the economy" to that.


    There's a funny connection between the two issues highlighted above. The Cornwall declaration has an entire section entitled "What we deny", and it includes "We deny that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry." So i'd find it appropriate to say they've engaged in denialism. :)

  10. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.
  11. #29
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,696
    Amen (Given)
    6034
    Amen (Received)
    4616
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I agree with you that the phrase 'climate-deniers' is riduculously ignorant of human nature and in the end short-sighted and counterproductive. It comes from nothing less than the pride and arrogance of those that have the capacity to understand the science looking down on those that do not.
    ...

    Jim
    I have no particular issue with this but I am going to nitpick a bit on this one point. I doubt capacity for comprehension was a major player in this - I suspect that's not exactly what you're getting at anyway. "Cut on the bias, baste and add darts." is a perfectly clear set of instructions - but only if you already know the jargon. Those without training don't necessarily lack the capacity to understand - they lack the foundation.

    I also suspect the pride and arrogance thing came just as much from those who believed in global warming but who wouldn't know a thermometer from a barometer. That's a big part of the problem of using that kind of derogatory jargon - it sounds mostly like 'rah, rah' for our side' and little like 'you know better'.

  12. #30
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,173
    Amen (Given)
    109
    Amen (Received)
    983
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    I'm going to argue with a few things in the sense of "have a friendly exploration of the issue by presenting contrasting ideas", just so my intention isn't misunderstood.
    Never an issue with you ;)

    I agree that in the vast majority of contexts, calling someone a climate denier isn't helpful. There are a couple of instances where i'd say it's appropriate, though. For example, the oil companies hired some of the same people that the cigarette companies did to attack climate science - they're essentially hired guns paid to deny evidence. I don't think calling them climate deniers is inappropriate. The same goes for a handful of hardcore, committed people that will not accept any evidence. For example, the blogger Anthony Watts had said multiple times he'd accept whatever Berkeley Earth found with the temperature record. But when Berkeley Earth ended up supporting NASA and NOAA, Watts backed away from the whole thing.
    interesting. I always recognized the similarity between the exxon funding of anti-AGW research and the cigarette company funding of pro-cigarette research, but I was not aware they hired the very same 'research' firms/individuals!

    I found this article in Scientific American that supports that claim for others that might be interested.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-sway-public1/

    Of course, highlighting those examples supports your larger point - that in the vast majority of cases, there's nothing like that sort of commitment to dismiss any and all evidence. So while it may be appropriate to use the term, the situations where that's the case are pretty rare.
    We agree. Although I sometimes violate this principle if my annoyance with a particularly obtuse person gets the best of me, in general if one wants to keep channels of communication open, it's best not to resort to direct, personal attacks. It just doesn't accomplish anything useful unless the goal is to motivate irrational opposition to some specific group. But that is its real danger as well. The demonization of a one group by another is essentially the first step to some sort of war - be it ideological or physical. And it is also the tool of despots and dictators to marginalze and or remove those that resist their oppression. So in almost all respects it would seem logical to avoid that sort of thing.


    I think that the adoption of climate change as a religious issue was relatively recent. Opposition started out largely on economic grounds and philosophical differences about the role of government regulation. To the extent that there was religious fervor involved, it seemed to be driven by the belief that the free market can solve everything, despite the numerous historic examples to the contrary.

    I think that politics acted as a bridge that brought it into the religious arena. Shared values - religious conservatives and political conservatives overlap, and share a mistrust of government regulation - helped make climate change an issue among religious conservatives. It was only at that point that you started seeing religiously-based arguments for ignoring the scientific results.
    I see that. In my response I'm really focused on why the religious evangelicals would get dragged into the AGW debate predominantly on the anti-AGW side. On the surface, one would think a theology that sees humanity as caretakers of the Earth would tend to be for those things that protect it or nurture it. But that fear of science based on battles over evolution and with many of the anti-religious voices of science, and the sort of 'don't look at the real evidence, it's a lie of the Devil' mentality that accompanies YEC sort of dialogues I believe is at least in part what has predisposed the evangelical community to tend to be on the anti-AGW side of the fence.

    The end result of that are things like the Cornwall Alliance declaration on global warming, which is explicitly dismisses the science due to religious beliefs. But it took a number of years to get from "regulations are bad for the economy" to that.
    :
    Ugh - I had no idea some evangelical group had an official anti-AGW statement conflating faith and that specific conclusion. But there are also those that have come out with much more positive statements:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ical-christian

    http://www.yecaction.org/*

    and here is a discussion of it in Christianity Today:

    https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...limate-change/

    There's a funny connection between the two issues highlighted above. The Cornwall declaration has an entire section entitled "What we deny", and it includes "We deny that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry." So i'd find it appropriate to say they've engaged in denialism. :)
    I would agree that is a reasonable conclusion for that particular declaration ;)


    Jim

    * This is a bit comical. The youth organization website uses 'yecaction', which could mislead one to thing they are Young Earth Creationists (yec), but 'yec' here stands for

    'Young Evangelicals for Climate action".
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-24-2018 at 01:08 PM.
    Jorge's trueorigins paper: "...it is known that other volcanic features match what is usually associated with impact craters including ... shatter cones and crystal deformations"

    Planetary Science Institute: "Shatter cones … are found in only two places on Earth, 1) in nuclear test sites and 2) meteorite impact structures. They are formed as a result of the high pressure, high velocity shock wave ...

    maximum pressures from 45 to 200 times greater than found in volcanic events (2->20 Gpa)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •