How climate change denialism works

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by Alric, Feb 27, 2010.

  1. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    4 people like this.
  2. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    First of all ,global warming is a fact ,anthropogenic global warming is a fact as well but it may be insignificant.

    Theres an equal amount of denial coming from the alarmists.
    If you really dont want to consider any facts that go against your worldview,that would be in denial.

    Society holds scientists with utmost esteem.
    If the warmers were a religious cult,scientists would be the priests.
    How does it effect scientific opinion when you throw $2 billion a year at research for 20 years?
    Scientists who want jobs are going to brown nose their results.
    If they find there is no cause for concern then the $2 billion dries up.

    Scientists are not infallible.
    Consider the scientific opinion on menopausal Hormone Replacement Therapy.
    The entire scientific community was wrong for about 7 years until someone finally realized that the study they based their opinion on was flawed.
     
  3. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    In every instance where a scientific conclusion has been found to be insuficient or in error it has been more research by other scientists that have changed the consensus.

    If you want to be a skeptic you have to base your argument on data and publications not on stolen emails or blog opinion.
     
    2 people like this.
  4. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    I base my skepticism from ice core data showing that warming is a NATURALLY occurring event and has never been caused by CO2.
     
  5. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    I've never understood that position. You are saying that because there are natural cycles in warming and cooling it excludes the possibility of man-made ones?

    This is a logical fallacy.
     
    2 people like this.
  6. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    Your (Al Gores) argument is that if we dont control AGW ,then the glaciers will melt,the oceans will rise, and weather will become erratic.
    But without any AGW ,for the past 2 million years, the glaciers have melted, the oceans risen, and weather became erratic.
    Its a natural process that resolves itself with the onset of the next glacial period.
    It cant be stopped nor should it be stopped.
    And Global Warming has never been caused by CO2.
    Global warming causes a rise in CO2.
     
  7. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    This is a false equivalency. For better part of the past couple of million years there have not been humans. Yes, climate has change over geologic time but never like this in historical times and certainly never before caused by us.
     
  8. MSantos

    MSantos EcoAccelerometry

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    545
    173
    1
    Location:
    Canada, Winnipeg
    Vehicle:
    2018 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Technology
    Since this is a related discussion...

    How about this one?

    A23A


    Then again, anything sourced from the mainstream academia is likely to be dismissed by the same crowd anyway. :(

    Cheers;

    MSantos
     
  9. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    The point Im making is about the future .
    If the future repeats the past 2 million years,
    Global warming will naturally melt glaciers and oceans will rise.
    With man or without man.AGW or no AGW.
    We dont need to pay Goldman Sachs to prevent something that cant be stopped.
    Its like primitive people sacrificing virgins so that the Sun will come back after an eclipse.
    You are wrong about the history of climate BTW,
    AGW is insignificant compared to natural cycles.
     
  10. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Another way that geologic climate change is different from anthropogenic climate change is the rate of change. Climate change due to orbital changes over geologic time occurs over hundreds of thousands of years. What we are currently observing is occuring over decades.
     
  11. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    Untrue.
    Study the graph.
     

    Attached Files:

  12. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Exactly my point. Geologic time and scale is the wrong scale for current climate change.
     
  13. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    By the way; if you follow the link you provide you find this reference:

    Vostok - Isotope and Gas Data and Temperature Reconstruction

    Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica : Abstract : Nature

    With the following conclusion:

    The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the ice record of atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacial–interglacial cycles. The succession of changes through each climate cycle and termination was similar, and atmospheric and climate properties oscillated between stable bounds. Interglacial periods differed in temporal evolution and duration. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

    And going back to a previous discussion you do see from your own graph that at this point temperature should be dropping. Not climbing or remaining stable.
     
  14. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    You are making yourself a perfect example of being in denial.
     
  15. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Because I use published data and conclusions to make an argument? Do you deny your conclusion is diametrically opposite to the published science and the experts?
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    969
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A

    Please stop playing the Goldman Sachs card. First, there is virtually no chance that any Cap and trade bill is going to pass this gridlocked congress. Until we realize that a simple, clear/transparent carbon tax is a much simple, much more effective way of reducing emissions we are not going to make real progress.

    I don't accept the notion that it can't be stopped. It is clear that humans have an significant effect, and the solutions lie with humans!
     
  17. vegasjetskier

    vegasjetskier New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    269
    28
    0
    Location:
    East Coast of Florida, USA
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    I'm just curious, how does NOAA know what the temperature of the ice core was 400,000 years ago? :confused:
     
  18. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    I believe they use Oxygen isotope ratios.
     
  19. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    87,503
    38,951
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    these threads are so fruitless. we all drive prii, we all care about the environment. we all do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. what does it matter if we believe/accept the science or not?
     
    1 person likes this.
  20. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,512
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    This is a long lecture, nearly an hour long, but well worth watching. Although the science is not complete, there is a very clear picture that CO2 is fundamental to climate change, and that what humans are doing is leading to drastic change.

    Among other things, it is important to look at the whole picture, and not just clamp onto one seeming anomaly (as Mojo does, rejecting the role of CO2 based on one datum from ice cores).

    As far as cap and trade, in my own view, cap and trade will accomplish nothing unless you set the cap so low that there's nothing to trade. The problem will be that the criminals who run government will pander to their corporate cronies by setting the caps so high as to be useless except to give financial traders something to make money on.

    We need to stop burning fossil fuels. And we also need to stop raising beef. (Methane -- Every steak you eat is another nail in your grandchildrens' coffin, or even your kids' coffin, depending on how soon the shit of of climate change hits the fan of the economy.)

    Save the world; Drive electric.
     
Loading...