A Response to the Science Be Damned Faction!

[Jimi H.]

.. sense and reason teaches us that you can't expect others to take seriously what you have to say unless you can explain to them exactly what you are saying and exactly how and why you are saying it. The anti science people however are not bound by such dilligence and rigour. They can just say stuff and if they want to appear credible, they can usually find someone to spin an argument in their favour.

That's it.

Another thing, when a scientist says that something is virtually certain but not proven, the angry anti-science folks cannnot fathom what is going on, they think it's a sign of weakness, or of a conspiracy. They want black/white answers or they tune out.

Scientists are poor at communicating to non-academics because they think like academics. So they wear all their cautions on their sleeves, to not say something false. As you say, "the anti science people however are not bound by such dilligence and rigour", so they speak in absolutes without trying to understand what's going on, or why the term 'proof' is so problematic to use. To prove climate change, you'd basically have to have another Earth available, and pump CO2 into it's atmosphere and observe. This is not going to happen ever, that's just the reality of it. The Earth is the experiment, and the proof is the looming disaster.

Personally though, I see proof of the climate change everywhere. E.g. the historical opening of the arctic shipping route speaks loudly about what's going on. Or the extreme runoff of the Greenlandic ice cap. Or the houses that crack in Alaska because of melting perma-frost. It's really happening.

 

[Han]

The way I see it, the reason that the anti-science movement is so strong is because the less people understand the greater their fear. We are predisposed to a fear of that which we do not understand.
For example I am scared of snakes.
if I a visited a friends house who owned snake and they were handling it and they asked me if I wanted to hold it I would say no, however if they reassured me it was not poisonous I would handle it, if they then said (whilst I was holding it) that it was actually highly venomous I would do my best not to panic, and return it to its vivarium. After that I would probably never speak to that person again, and under no circumstances would I trust anything they said again.
I think that is similar to how people feel about science and scientists due to "pseudo science". In short it only takes one bad apple to spoil a bunch.

The BBC website has a 24 hour team of moderators who actually do quite a good job at dealing with trolls, however they only allow comments on certain articles and stories, which can result in people hijacking topics, conversely CBS news will not even remove vile racist comments even when their attention is drawn to them, (I know because I tried*) After some research I discovered that in America you have very different laws regarding "freedom of speech" in the UK people have been jailed for making similar comments using social media**.
I now will not have anything to do with CBS as that is the only power I have.



*I contacted CBS and tried to draw their attention to the offending comments, and was totally ignored. I have screen shots, I have a copy of the email I sent them, I have the offending page saved and I have just checked and the page is still up including the comments:
(Man Arrested For Throwing Spear At Passing Vehicle « CBS Sacramento)

**rightly in my opinion as the internet should be considered a "public" space and governed by the same laws.

 

[ManitobaCanuk]

That's it.

Another thing, when a scientist says that something is virtually certain but not proven, the angry anti-science folks cannnot fathom what is going on, they think it's a sign of weakness, or of a conspiracy. They want black/white answers or they tune out.

Scientists are poor at communicating to non-academics because they think like academics. So they wear all their cautions on their sleeves, to not say something false. As you say, "the anti science people however are not bound by such dilligence and rigour", so they speak in absolutes without trying to understand what's going on, or why the term 'proof' is so problematic to use. To prove climate change, you'd basically have to have another Earth available, and pump CO2 into it's atmosphere and observe. This is not going to happen ever, that's just the reality of it. The Earth is the experiment, and the proof is the looming disaster.

Personally though, I see proof of the climate change everywhere. E.g. the historical opening of the arctic shipping route speaks loudly about what's going on. Or the extreme runoff of the Greenlandic ice cap. Or the houses that crack in Alaska because of melting perma-frost. It's really happening.

The big question is if humans are causing this? Not that the climate is changing. Climate is always changing, it is a very dynamic system. Our planet waves back and forth between ice age and extreme heat. The ONLY significant driver of this is the radiant energy output of our star. A decent size volcano puts out way more CO2 and other hydroflourocarbons than we have ever have. Humans were not around pumping this much hyped evil CO2 into our atmosphere for the last half dozen or so swings between fire and ice. So what caused this...you got it our sun. To an extent the orbital mechanics of the Earth changes once in awhile which turns our planet into a frozen ice ball. The IPCC completely ignores the Sun. Ignores what even grade schoolers know...the Sun is really, really hot. It's output varies over time. NASA posted years back that all the planets and observable moons are exhibiting temperature fluctuations. This is a solar system thing not a earth based anthropogenic cause. If CO2 has increased so much there would be noticeable side effects besides subjective heat increase. CO2 is a big part of plants respiratory cycle. If there was a significant increase of CO2 as the fear mongers want you to believe we would see a dramatic increase in foliage growth globally. More food equals bigger better plants...any signs of this? Anywhere? Nope. This whole CO2 scam is just to justify a carbon credit trading empire. If you take the time to think about it is chilling. If they get their way they will be able to dictate who does business and how. Dictate you pay to breathe...sounds silly but what do you think you exhale primarily. They tax you now for what you do, they are planning to tax you for what you are. Think about it. They are making such a big deal about all this to make us think they are on our side. They are not. They don't care about the polluted waterways world wide, poisons in the food, world hunger and starvation. Know why because there is no money to make curing those ills. There is TONNES of money to be made to make you believe that CO2 is bad. It is all about money not compassion for the wellbeing of all living things...give me a break. Don't believe what you see on TV and in newsprint, those avenues of expression are all corporate controlled. They ALL have the same agenda. Be a informed, intelligent, human being. Those things are not going to be spoon fed to you, you are going to have to work for the truth.

 

[Jimi H.]

The ONLY significant driver of this is the radiant energy output of our star.

What is significant to you? I mean, 5 or 10 degrees may not mean much in relation to the sun, but it sure would mean a lot to a lot of people, and a lot of animals. A lot of ecosystems would be devastated.

In the modern era, emissions to the atmosphere from volcanoes are only about 1% of emissions from human sources

No. I've heard that myth before, I wonder who spawns these kinds of 'facts'? Wiki has three references Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"In the modern era, emissions to the atmosphere from volcanoes are only about 1% of emissions from human sources"

More food equals bigger better plants...any signs of this?

I have no idea, but I know it's species-dependant whether any increased growth happens at all. Some studies suggest that overall growth will be retarded, because of limiting factors.

Dictate you pay to breathe...sounds silly but what do you think you exhale primarily. They tax you now for what you do, they are planning to tax you for what you are.

Oh please..

Think about it. They are making such a big deal about all this to make us think they are on our side. They are not.

I'm going to guess you've not studied natural science at college, and you don't know many biologists or climatologists, personally? Otherwise, I think you'd understand how ludicrous this conspiracy theory is.

Where did you get your info? I really want to know, is it from a political party?
With all the talk about a conspiracy, it sounds to me like you walked right into one. You don't have your facts straight, and your conspiracy theories are far-fetched but vicious. If you want to get some facts straight, start by going to a peer-reviewed magazine. Here's Nature's climate section: Journal home : Nature Climate Change

I'm genuinely curious though, where did you get these 'facts' about vulcanoes and such? Does it come from the Tea Party? Or some freak on FOX?

 

[ManitobaCanuk]

Believe me, I did.

The equations were already in place in the 70ies, scientists were already aware of the problem back then, long before the effects became apparent, as they are now. In the 90ies scientific awareness of the problem became acute. What has followed since then is all about politics, hence the IPCC committed an error in handling the poor science they refused during the 'email-scandal', because when issues are a political hot potatoe, you have to act accordingly. However, eventually it's good practice to refuse bad science.

But this is exactly the problem, people get the political battle, anyone gets the controversy of two groups yelling at each other, journalists understand this too, and interest groups certainly do. But the controversy veils the fact that climatologists basically all agree what's going on, and they understand that you cannot pump massive amounts of energy into a closed system, and not expect something to happen. It's basic physics, much more basic than the complicated equations seem to suggest.

It seems to me that you fell for the controversy and neglected to look at the science, perhaps you need to think for yourself?

The IPCC emails that were leaked included conversations between their so called scientists laughing about omitting, and falsifying data. Rigging climate models. You can get any model to react anyway you want when you monkey with the initial conditions and monkey with the ongoing variables. Computer models mean absolutely nothing. Oh by the way in the 70's they were shouting "Ice Age" not global warming...notice how they changed even the language involved... After the utter failure of the Coppenhagen summit they dropped the term "Global Warming" and started to call it "Climate Change"...Geez maybe because when almost ever country bugged out of Coppenhagen because of the validity of the "Climategate" email scandal...everyone involved knew that global warming is not happening. Almost all representatives left before the summit was over. Now its called "climate change". Ever wonder why they changed the name? Ever wonder why that prick Al Gore's carbon credit exchange failed around the same time? All evidence points to this being a huge scam. I think most people do not know the difference between climate and weather. One is microscopic the other is macroscopic. if you look out your window and think.."geez it hot and its been hot for a long time....global warming must be true...you are seeing weather not the climate. 2 different things. You can believe what you are told by your corporate masters or you can really question and research for yourself, just be cognizant of where your facts come from. The world may be heating up but it has done this before and it probably do it again. Nothing to do with us...Some problems can not be approached with the reductionist viewpoint. This is about a global cash grab beyond anything we have seen. These people screaming anthroprogenic global warming is true the loudest stand to benefit the most by taxing you and me to breath. There is no true compassion for the planet but for the insane greed of the global money makers. They are pushing to make you pay carbon offsets or carbon taxes to the world bank? Do you think the world bank is going to invest that cash into some sort of planetary CO2 reduction systems?

 

[ManitobaCanuk]

What is significant to you? I mean, 5 or 10 degrees may not mean much in relation to the sun, but it sure would mean a lot to a lot of people, and a lot of animals. A lot of ecosystems would be devastated.


No. I've heard that myth before, I wonder who spawns these kinds of 'facts'? Wiki has three references Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"In the modern era, emissions to the atmosphere from volcanoes are only about 1% of emissions from human sources"


I have no idea, but I know it's species-dependant whether any increased growth happens at all. Some studies suggest that overall growth will be retarded, because of limiting factors.


Oh please..


I'm going to guess you've not studied natural science at college, and you don't know many biologists or climatologists, personally? Otherwise, I think you'd understand how ludicrous this conspiracy theory is.

Where did you get your info? I really want to know, is it from a political party?
With all the talk about a conspiracy, it sounds to me like you walked right into one. You don't have your facts straight, and your conspiracy theories are far-fetched but vicious. If you want to get some facts straight, start by going to a peer-reviewed magazine. Here's Nature's climate section: Journal home : Nature Climate Change

I'm genuinely curious though, where did you get these 'facts' about vulcanoes and such? Does it come from the Tea Party? Or some freak on FOX?

Believe whatever you like, the real conspiracy is the official story. The government would never lie to you would they? What the hell does politics have to do with this? Tea party, FOX News what limited thinking you seem to have. Politics have nothing to do with this. It is a humankind thing. The US political system is so unimportant in the grant scheme of things. The world does not revolve around the USA. Open your mind to think globally not just from an American blindfold. FOX news ...good one. Peace.

 

[Jimi H.]

Believe whatever you like, the real conspiracy is the official story.

This is not about belief, doh, it's about the science!

If you demonstrated that you understood the science, it'd be easier to take what you say serious. I've already demonstrated that your 'facts' are wrong.

The email-scandal was a fuck-up, but it really has no relevance to the science of the fact, it was related to a 1990 article by Phil jones, who later stepped down because of it.

What matters is this, undeniable stats from the ice-core drillings. No politics involved:

Let me test your knowledge of basic physics by asking you:
When you pump additional energy into a closed system, can you expect the energy levels of the system to remain unchanged?

A YES or NO will be sufficient.

 

[Randall]

This is not about belief, doh, it's about the science!

If you demonstrated that you understood the science, it'd be easier to take what you say serious. I've already demonstrated that your 'facts' are wrong.

The email-scandal was a fuck-up, but it really has no relevance to the science of the fact, it was related to a 1990 article by Phil jones, who later stepped down because of it.

What matters is this, undeniable stats from the ice-core drillings. No politics involved:

Let me test your knowledge of basic physics by asking you:
When you pump additional energy into a closed system, can you expect the energy levels of the system to remain unchanged?

A YES or NO will be sufficient.

What I don't get is how people can look at a graph like the one above and remain in a complete state of denial. I'm not saying that human produced CO2 levels alone are behind everything the climate does, but there's no doubt CO2 goes straight into the atmosphere where it contributes to the greenhouse effect. This is like stuffing more insulation in your attic. If you stuff 50% more insulation into your attic, It has to have some effect one way or the other.