Humans are responsible for most of the recent global warming

[oxmixmudd]

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.



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.



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.

If you believe it is so impossible to change the mind of someone you call a 'denialist', then what possible reason do you have for ranting on as you do?

Jim

[Jichard]

If you believe it is so impossible to change the mind of someone you call a 'denialist', then what possible reason do you have for ranting on as you do?

Ah, the person who thinks discussing scientific evidence is "ranting". Thanks for your usual substance-free insults


First, I already made that clear if you paid attention:

Of course, there are other reasons to explain scientific evidence to conservative Republicans, other than having any hope of convincing them.

(ex: for lulz, for interested third parties, to prevent those conservatives from lying and saying that no one explained the evidence to them so they cannot be blamed for their denialism)

But if your hope is to actually convince said denialists, then explaining scientific evidence is not the route to go. Obama may have realized this, since he's also tried to explain to conservative Republicans how mitigation efforts can improve society, as opposed to only explaining the scientific consensus to said denialists. Hopefully other Deomocrats get the memo as well.

Second, you still haven't explained why scientists are a bunch of evil, wicked people, since they use terms like "denialist", even though they think there's little chance of convincing denialists. Let me know when you finally have meaningful response to that, and an explanation for why you think these scientists are "ranting". :

So people like you think terms like "denialism" are evil, wicked terms that should not be used, and that only evil people use those terms:
So instead of your usual evasions, how about you explain why the following groups are just a bunch of evil, bigoted people who want to silence free speech by using terms like "denialist"?:

But calling someone a 'denialist' because they disagree with you over AGW is NOT just calling them what they are. First, 'denialist' is a over-arching derogatory classification. It's purpose is to degrade an entire group of people. It's dismisses an individual without giving them a hearing, without considering their specific position. In that sense it is very little different from bigotry, and grows from the same root attitude. And that is what I just don't want.

[...]

That attitude - elitist dismissal of those with differing opinions or conclusions, again, is not much different than racism and bigotry.

[...]

And the attitude that is comfortable with using the term 'denialist' is often also comfortable with trying silence any legitimate debate contrary to their particular point of view using that same kind of language. And there is very little different from that and censorship or the denial of free speech.

doctors, immunologists, virologists, historians, climatologists, psychologists

"How the growth of denialism undermines public health"

Alexey Karetnikov's "Commentary: Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent"

Seth C. Kalichman's "Commentary on “Questioning the HIV–AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent”"

"AIDS Denialism and Public Health Practice"

Of course, I don't expect you'll ever actually address this issue.

[Jichard]

Humans are responsible for most of the recent global warming; that is: most of the late-20th century and 21st century global warming has been anthropogenic.

Calling the above statement "X".

I want to address X since some people may doubt or deny X. For instance:


I will address X in at least two ways:

1. Show the scientific consensus in favor of X
2. Discuss some of the scientific evidence that supports the scientific consensus in favor of X

This first post will go over 1. A subsequent post will go over 2.[/INDENT]
[/INDENT]

And thanks to Jorge, it's now clear that Judith Curry is either ignorant of the scientific evidence in support of the consensus on X, or she is willfully misrepresenting the evidence:

I've made my personal views on the "Global Warming / Climate Change" controversy succinctly known here on TWeb (in a few words: it's all a pile of BS with a very serious and sinister Globalist political-economic agenda).

The purpose here is only to post the a recent Senate testimony by a prominent climatologist. Here is that testimony:


Dr. Judith A. Curry is a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech University. These are her remarks to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, Dec. 8, 2015.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today.

Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: Dont trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.

I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.

I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.

What have I concluded from this assessment?

Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is dangerous.

The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.

Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.

How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties?

Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community. As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Grijalva, in a recent letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.

In this politicized environment, advocating for CO2 emissions reductions is becoming the default, expected position for climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying sciences reputation for honesty and objectivity without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.

I would like to thank the committee for raising the issue of data versus dogma in support of improving the integrity of climate science.

This concludes my testimony."

[Jichard]

Yay...

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

Several "con" scientists there...

[After all, on occasionalism, HIV doesn't cause AIDS; God causes AIDS.] Similarly so for AGW denialism; since God caused climate change, humans didn't cause climate change.

Well, humans didn't CAUSE it. We are merely contributing to it, if the current science is to be accepted.

It's amazing how some denialists can willfully distort what the science shows, even after it's been explained to them. Some folks are just intellectually dishonest denialists.

[Hint: What does the "anthropogenic" in "AGW" and "ACC" means?]

[Cow Poke]

Some folks are just intellectually dishonest denialists.

Your penchant for accusing people of dishonesty for not agreeing with you is such boorish jackassery.

[JimL]

What difference does it make really. Whether we caused it or not, its obvious that we did, and continue to do so, but whether you believe we caused it or not, doesn't mean we should ignore it. Just maybe you are wrong. Did you ever think of that? Its possible we can at least try to stop or slow the process and prepare ourselves for the resulting effects.

[Cow Poke]

What difference does it make really. Whether we caused it or not, its obvious that we did, and continue to do so, but whether you believe we caused it or not, doesn't mean we should ignore it. Just maybe you are wrong. Did you ever think of that? Its possible we can at least try to stop or slow the process and prepare ourselves for the resulting effects.

So what, exactly, needs to be done about it? How much money are you, personally, contributing to the cause? What will "fix" it?

[shunyadragon]

So what, exactly, needs to be done about it? How much money are you, personally, contributing to the cause? What will "fix" it?

The issue of trying to "fix it" is a separate issue than whether human influence on the "climate change/global warming problem."

I have worked on the math and reality of our energy consumption, increase in population, and resource problems for many years, and concluded in reality it is unlikely that we cannot "fix it" solve the problem. Measures like switching to non-carbon based energy resources is important regardless, because: (1) It reduces our dependence on diminishing carbon based resources. (2) Extend the long term life of our existing carbon based energy resources. (3) Reduce our negative impact on the climate change. (3) To reduce the deteriorating quality of our environment and human life.

[Cow Poke]

The issue of trying to "fix it" is a separate issue than whether human influence on the "climate change/global warming problem."

No foolin.

I have worked on the math and reality of our energy consumption, increase in population, and resource problems for many years, and concluded in reality it is unlikely that we cannot "fix it" solve the problem.

You might want to try the ending of that sentence again.

Measures like switching to non-carbon based energy resources is important regardless, because: (1) It reduces our dependence on diminishing carbon based resources. (2) Extend the long term life of our existing carbon based energy resources. (3) Reduce our negative impact on the climate change. (3) To reduce the deteriorating quality of our environment and human life.

I have no problem whatsoever with being good stewards of our planet.

[shunyadragon]

You might want to try the ending of that sentence again.

Sorry about the errors. It should read:

"I have worked on the math and reality of our energy consumption, increase in population, and resource problems for many years, and concluded in reality it is unlikely that we can, "fix it", solve the problem."

Add: Some of the measures proposed to "fix it" are idealistic and represent sort of the bandaid approach to the problems. As long as 'commercialism' drives the world economy we will achieve very little.

I have no problem whatsoever with being good stewards of our planet.

OK

[Cow Poke]

Sorry about the errors. It should read:

"I have worked on the math and reality of our energy consumption, increase in population, and resource problems for many years, and concluded in reality it is unlikely that we can, "fix it", solve the problem."

OK, figured it was something along those lines.

Thanks

Add: Some of the measures proposed to "fix it" are idealistic and represent sort of the bandaid approach to the problems. As long as 'commercialism' drives the world economy we will achieve very little.

Do you have any expectation as to what impact these 'idealistic' 'bandaids' may have? Any way to know that?

[shunyadragon]

OK, figured it was something along those lines.

Thanks

Do you have any expectation as to what impact these 'idealistic' 'bandaids' may have? Any way to know that?

The foolish concept of carbon budgets-credits invites creative phony bookkeeping by industrial and commercial interests.

[Cow Poke]

The foolish concept of carbon budgets-credits invites creative phony bookkeeping by industrial and commercial interests.

I agree wholeheartedly on that! The gas compression company I worked for had hired all kinds of emissions people to prepare for the impending "carbon credits" game. And from what we could tell from other players in the industry, there would, indeed, have been "creative bookkeeping".

[JimL]

So what, exactly, needs to be done about it?

Thats for the experts, the engineers, to figure out. With the rising ocean levels and the impending mega storms such as Hurricane Sandy and katrina the coastline cities need preventative measures to protect themselves from the inevitable. We may be able, though experts in the field disagree, to at least stop the greenhouse effects from getting worse by converting to alternative energy sources. had we begun the process in earnest a long time ago instead of sticking our heads in the sand and denying the problem existed we would most likely be in a better position today. Sure it will cost us all, but it will cost us all a lot more in both wealth and human costs if we do nothing.

How much money are you, personally, contributing to the cause?

See above. We are all going to pay for it one way or the other.

What will "fix" it?

Well, doing nothing certainly won't fix it. But that is why we have scientists and engineers who study the problems and and come up with the best solutions. You could probably google it and find out what many cities are already doing to prepare for the consequences of our inaction. But the problem itself, I don't think we can fix, we can only prevent it from getting worse from what i've read on the subject.

[Cow Poke]

Thats for the experts, the engineers, to figure out. With the rising ocean levels and the impending mega storms such as Hurricane Sandy and katrina the coastline cities need preventative measures to protect themselves from the inevitable. We may be able, though experts in the field disagree, to at least stop the greenhouse effects from getting worse by converting to alternative energy sources. had we begun the process in earnest a long time ago instead of sticking our heads in the sand and denying the problem existed we would most likely be in a better position today. Sure it will cost us all, but it will cost us all a lot more in both wealth and human costs if we do nothing.


See above. We are all going to pay for it one way or the other.

Well, doing nothing certainly won't fix it. But that is why we have scientists and engineers who study the problems and and come up with the best solutions. You could probably google it and find out what many cities are already doing to prepare for the consequences of our inaction. But the problem itself, I don't think we can fix, we can only prevent it from getting worse from what i've read on the subject.

So, you don't have a clue.