Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Humans are responsible for most of the recent global warming

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    ...And dogs apparently.
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Source: http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/pets/15-reasons-why-you-should-own-a-cat/ss-AAdXKWT#image=10


    Cats leave a smaller carbon paw print than dogs. According to New Zealand-based architects Robert and Brenda Vale's book Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, a cat's eco-footprint is roughly that of a Volkswagen Golf, while a dog's is nearly equal to that of a Land Cruiser.

    © Copyright Original Source


    [ATTACH=CONFIG]9930[/ATTACH]
    This is apparently what some conservatives can muster on this topic. Almost as telling as the conservative Republicans who don't accept that Earth is warming...
    Last edited by Jichard; 09-21-2015, 05:02 PM.
    "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

    Comment


    • #17
      Yay, the denialism continues...

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      Originally posted by Jichard View Post
      Have you ever admitted that humans caused most of the recent global warming, and that this AGW has, is, and will continue to have negative effects?
      Most? No. I still think that is to be determined.
      "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

      Comment


      • #18
        TL; DR. I think he's talking to the people who live behind him.
        A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
        George Bernard Shaw

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jichard View Post
          Yay, the denialism continues...
          Yay...

          http://climatechange.procon.org/view...stionID=001445

          Several "con" scientists there...
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          - Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Yay...

            http://climatechange.procon.org/view...stionID=001445

            Several "con" scientists there...
            Well, fewer than you might think. Patrick Michaels doesn't do science; he works at a libertarian think tank. Lindzen's retired and associated with a different think tank. Willie Soon has taken money from Exxon for his research and not made any significant contributions to climate science (his background is astronomy). The Idsos are a family of coal lobbyists...

            There are a few regular scientists with relevant expertise on the con column in that list. But it's effectively an appeal to authority, and most of the people in the con column aren't authorities or have external reasons to motivate their claims. And if you go the appeal to authority route, then you have to deal with the fact that the vast majority of people with relevant expertise accept the evidence that indicates climate change is real, happening, and will cause dramatic changes over the course of this century. It's not an even point-counterpoint as that list presents.

            Just to be clear, though, i think that Jichard's tendency to throw inflammatory labels around is stupid.
            Last edited by TheLurch; 11-04-2015, 04:04 PM.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Yay...

              http://climatechange.procon.org/view...stionID=001445

              Several "con" scientists there...
              So let me get this straight: in response to peer-reviewed scientific evidence, you cited some random website with stuff from James Inhofe, conservative think tanks, and Tim Ball? Do you really think Tim Ball has expertise in this subject?

              This is like when AIDS denialists post a list of "con scientists" who don't accept that HIV causes AIDS. Or creationists / ID proponent, who post nonsense lists about a scientific dissent from Darwinism. That's the level of tactics denialsts like you resort to:
              Originally posted by Jichard View Post
              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...limate-change/

              So says one of the world’s greatest theoretical physicists, Dr Freeman Dyson (pictured above), the British-born, naturalised American citizen who worked at Princeton University as a contemporary of Einstein and has advised the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.

              In an interview with Andrew Orlowski of The Register, Dyson expressed his despair at the current scientific obsession with climate change which he says is “not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to the obvious facts.”
              Denialism 101.

              "How the growth of denialism undermines public health"
              http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6950.extract
              "Characteristics of denialism

              [...]
              Use of fake experts: It is rarely difficult to find individuals who purport to be experts on some topic but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge. The tobacco industry coined the term “Whitecoats” for those scientists who were willing to advance its policies regardless of the growing scientific evidence on the harms of smoking."
              "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                Just to be clear, though, i think that Jichard's tendency to throw inflammatory labels around is stupid.
                How is "denialism" an inflammatory label?

                Is it inflammatory when doctors, virologists, immunologists, etc. use it when discussing AIDS denialism?
                "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                  How is "denialism" an inflammatory label?

                  Is it inflammatory when doctors, virologists, immunologists, etc. use it when discussing AIDS denialism?
                  It's a convenient label when referring to a group or movement. It's stupid when personally interacting with individuals. At that point, you can start delving into details - what they know, what evidence they accept, what concerns they have, etc. And you can generally find that there's not a blanket denial of evidence if you take the time to pay attention. And you can identify both common ground and points of disagreement, and focus the discussions accordingly.

                  None of that's possible if you just shout "LOL, DENIAL!" all the time.
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    It's a convenient label when referring to a group or movement. It's stupid when personally interacting with individuals.
                    So it's stupid for virologists, immunologists, etc. to call Peter Duesberg a "denialist" when they're interacting with him? It's stupid to call people denialists in print, when responding to those people's denialist claims in print?

                    It's not stupid at all; it makes it clear that one recognizes their denialist position for what it is.

                    At that point, you can start delving into details - what they know, what evidence they accept, what concerns they have, etc. And you can generally find that there's not a blanket denial of evidence if you take the time to pay attention. And you can identify both common ground and points of disagreement, and focus the discussions accordingly.

                    None of that's possible if you just shout "LOL, DENIAL!" all the time.
                    That's a false dichotomy since one can do both: one can note the person is a denialist and rebut their claims. This is commonly done in science, and it's what I do here. I'm not going to avoid calling someone a denialist, when they clearly are one.

                    But if you doubt this, then please explain how the following people'ss use of the term "denialism" made it impossible for them to rebut the claims that they did:

                    In science, we have no problem calling out denialists when we see them.

                    And I never said there was "a blanket denial of evidence". Instead, there's a denial of any evidence that's inconvenient for their denialist position.
                    "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                      So it's stupid for virologists, immunologists, etc. to call Peter Duesberg a "denialist" when they're interacting with him? It's stupid to call people denialists in print, when responding to those people's denialist claims in print?
                      Having talked to Duesberg personally, i think i have some perspective on this. Yes, he does deny reality; in his case, denialist is an appropriate label. But by talking with him, you can get a sense of both what motivates him to do so, and the "reasoning" process he uses to support his position. And both of those are valuable in communicating with people who don't know science well, but find Duesberg's arguments compelling.

                      But Duesberg's a rare breed; there's very few people who have his scientific training and still deny reality on multiple topics. He's also rare in that he won't shut down when someone calls him a denialist - he relishes being controversial.

                      Mea culpa for not noting that there are some exceptions to my statements above.

                      Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                      But if you doubt this, then please explain how the following people'ss use of the term "denialism" made it impossible for them to rebut the claims that they did:
                      Now you're arguing against a straw man. I never claimed it was about rebutting arguments.

                      Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                      In science, we have no problem calling out denialists when we see them.
                      That's funny; i've been involved in science in one way or another since the mid-1980s. And i've seen extensive debate over whether it's a productive tactic.

                      Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                      And I never said there was "a blanket denial of evidence". Instead, there's a denial of any evidence that's inconvenient for their denialist position.
                      Well, you've sure shouted "denialist" at a lot of people here who are quite open to evidence when you bother to take the time to discuss it with them.

                      EDITED: it's, not its. GAH.
                      Last edited by TheLurch; 11-04-2015, 05:18 PM.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        So, basically you're just using this thread as a blog, is that right? I mean, outside of this back and forth I don't really see any discussion here, and this is a discussion forum.
                        It would help if you would address the issues and evidence provided in the thread in a dialogue. Information is the first step to dialogue. If you have question the evidence or have other evidence that contradicts the evidence cited, please enter the dialogue with constructive posts.

                        You are not providing that which you do not see.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                          Having talked to Duesberg personally, i think i have some perspective on this. Yes, he does deny reality; in his case, denialist is an appropriate label. But by talking with him, you can get a sense of both what motivates him to do so, and the "reasoning" process he uses to support his position. And both of those are valuable in communicating with people who don't know science well, but find Duesberg's arguments compelling.

                          But Duesberg's a rare breed; there's very few people who have his scientific training and still deny reality on multiple topics. He's also rare in that he won't shut down when someone calls him a denialist - he relishes being controversial.

                          Mea culpa for not noting that there are some exceptions to my statements above.
                          I'd disagree with this; Duesberg is more the rule when it comes to denialism, not the exception.

                          Originally posted by TheLurch
                          Originally posted by Jichard
                          But if you doubt this, then please explain how the following people'ss use of the term "denialism" made it impossible for them to rebut the claims that they did:
                          Now you're arguing against a straw man. I never claimed it was about rebutting arguments.
                          Then how am I to interpret this:

                          Above, you seem to claim that calling someone a denialist makes it impossible for what to delve into the details of what they say. But if that's the case, then that makes it impossible to rebut their claims, since rebutting their claims involves delving into the details of what they say.

                          That's funny; i've been involved in science in one way or another since the mid-1980s. And i've seen extensive debate over whether it's a productive tactic.
                          Then do you care to explain why members of the scientific community have no problem calling out denialism for being what it is? We saw what happened in South Africa when people didn't call out denialist for being the absurdity that it is.

                          Well, you've sure shouted "denialist" at a lot of people here who are quite open to evidence when you bother to take the time to discuss it with them.
                          Name one.

                          Bill the Cat doesn't count; you saw exactly how he reacted to the evidence showing that humans caused most of the recent global warming. He was not open to the evidence, and he instead responded in just the way one would expect a denialist to. Bill isn't open to evidence that goes against his denialist position.

                          Same for Mountain Man. He's a conspiracy theorist who just posts nonsense he read off of conservative websites like breitbert.com.
                          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            It's a convenient label when referring to a group or movement. It's stupid when personally interacting with individuals. At that point, you can start delving into details - what they know, what evidence they accept, what concerns they have, etc. And you can generally find that there's not a blanket denial of evidence if you take the time to pay attention. And you can identify both common ground and points of disagreement, and focus the discussions accordingly.

                            None of that's possible if you just shout "LOL, DENIAL!" all the time.
                            You really think discussion of scientific evidence is going to convince denialists to change their position? Really? I don't buy it. People have discussed the evidence on this ad nauseum, and the conservative Republicans still reject the scientific evidence on this subject:

                            "Ideological divide over global warming as wide as ever"
                            pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/16/ideological-divide-over-global-warming-as-wide-as-ever/
                            "Partisanship and ideology remain some of the strongest factors underlying attitudes about whether Earth is warming, our survey finds. Today, roughly nine-in-ten liberal Democrats (92%) say that there is solid evidence Earth’s average temperature is rising, and 76% attribute this rise mostly to human activity. Very few liberal Democrats (5%) say there is not solid evidence of warming. A clear 83% majority of conservative and moderate Democrats also say Earth is warming, but just 55% say this is the result of human activity. By contrast, just 38% of conservative Republicans say that there is solid evidence of global warming. Reflecting a divide within the GOP, conservative Republicans stand out as the only ideological group in which a majority (56%) says that there is not solid evidence of a rise in the earth’s temperature (a 61% majority of moderate and liberal Republicans say Earth is warming)."


                            Their denialist position on this is driven by ideology, not by any genuine interest or concern about the scientific evidence that goes against their denialist position. That's how denialism works after all.

                            "How the growth of denialism undermines public health"
                            http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6950.extract
                            "Yet other people hold views that are equally untrue and do so with an unshakeable faith, never admitting they are wrong however much contradictory evidence they are presented with.

                            [...]

                            The term “denialism” has been coined to describe this phenomenon. [...] Sceptics are willing to change their minds when confronted with new evidence; deniers are not."


                            "Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers"
                            nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1532.html
                            "A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change1, 2. It is commonly assumed that convincing deniers that climate change is real is necessary for them to act pro-environmentally3, 4. However, the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions5, 6. An alternative approach is to identify outcomes of mitigation efforts that deniers find important. People have strong interests in the welfare of their society, so deniers may act in ways supporting mitigation efforts where they believe these efforts will have positive societal effects [emphasis added]. In Study 1, climate change deniers (N=155) intended to act more pro-environmentally where they thought climate change action would create a society where people are more considerate and caring, and where there is greater economic/technological development. Study 2 (N=347) replicated this experimentally, showing that framing climate change action as increasing consideration for others, or improving economic/technological development, led to greater pro-environmental action intentions than a frame emphasizing avoiding the risks of climate change. To motivate deniers’ pro-environmental actions, communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society, rather than focusing on the reality of climate change and averting its risks."

                            So there's little-to-no chance of you convincing them to change their denialist position through discussions of scientific evidence. Contrary scientific evidence tends not to change the mind of ideological conservatives. So it'll be a cold day in Hell before folks like Bill, Mountain Man, One Bad Pig, etc. accept the evidence-based scientific consensus on AGW.
                            "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              It's obvious i haven't made my argument clear, so i apologize. Let me try to summarize it briefly.

                              Yes, there are some hard core denialists like Duesberg*. They are relative rarities. Most of the public are not committed and haven't examined the issue that carefully. They mostly make decisions based on their cultural affinities and other non-evidence-based methods.

                              By shouting "denialist" at every turn, you:
                              a) mislabel a lot of people.
                              b) make them less likely to ever examine the issue on a deeper level.



                              *Duesberg's more of a contrarian, taking positions that run counter to what most biologists conclude in part because he loves the controversy. But it's close enough that i'll grant you it.
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                                It's obvious i haven't made my argument clear, so i apologize. Let me try to summarize it briefly.

                                Yes, there are some hard core denialists like Duesberg*. They are relative rarities. Most of the public are not committed and haven't examined the issue that carefully. They mostly make decisions based on their cultural affinities and other non-evidence-based methods.
                                I disagree. I claim that most of the denialists in the public (especially the conservatives) are committed to their denialist position, and will keep to it no matter how much the evidence is explained to them. Hence so many conservatives remaining denialists on this subject, even as the scientific evidence has been accumulated and noted by prominent folks like the President. There are deep psychological issues that explains the prevalence of denialism amongst them, including their tendency to resort to stupid conspiracy theories about science/scientists. There's already scientific evidence on this.

                                By shouting "denialist" at every turn, you:
                                a) mislabel a lot of people.
                                Not mislabeling any of them, since they fit the definition of denialists. Hence scientists labeling them as such. I can repost the definition of denialism, if you don't know it.

                                b) make them less likely to ever examine the issue on a deeper level.
                                You're missing my point: they're not going to examine the evidence anyway. Anyone's who's dealt with denialists like young Earth creationists, flat-earthers, AIDS denialists, Holocaust denialists, AGW denialists, and so on, knows that most of those folks have no genuine interest in looking at the scientific evidence that rebuts their position. They simply don't give a darn about the evidence that goes against their position. And they employ some fairly standard denialist tactics to dodge the evidence. Calling them a denialist doesn't make them any less likely to examine the evidence; they weren't going to honestly answer it anyway.

                                *Duesberg's more of a contrarian, taking positions that run counter to what most biologists conclude in part because he loves the controversy. But it's close enough that i'll grant you it.
                                "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X