Politics of Global Warming

[aNorthernSoul]

How sweet. Sorry, don't have time for this. Not interested in the slightest in having a dialog with someone who clearly doesn't do their homework and hasn't time for a well-written, coherent post. Thank you for demonstrating what the problem is.

Good luck to you.

That's what I thought, you have no interest in having a dialogue with someone... not because they don't do their homework, but because they disagree with you seeing as you didn't properly address my last article. You went with character rather than science and championed a celebrity instead of data. So kudos, say your shit about me, I don't give a rat's ass. You have been exposed, wall of texter.

You know somebody doesn't know what they are taking about when they never type their own words but alt for walls of text.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I sure hope that everyone caught Billie boy never actually addresses anything in those articles posted, he just attacked peoples' character like he was better than them. Of course, we all know he's just a TV dude, nothing in particular. I prefer to go with the old dude who has some actual claim to intellectual fame and whatnot.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

And yeah, Bill is a complete slouch. He didn't talk hard facts, he talked semantics and attacked people rather than data in those articles.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

Also, I laugh that you champion Mr. Nye over Dr. Dyson. Dr. Dyson destroys Billy boy when it come to credentials, and you just shrug that off. That really demonstrates how much you care about the truth.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

Do you actually read a post? I suspect not. You waste a person's time. I expend effort. You do not.

Read my post that you quoted. Bill Nye is no slouch when it comes to understanding the 'technical details' of Climate Change. Dyson admitted he was not in command of the technical details. You do the math.

How sweet. Sorry, don't have time for this. Not interested in the slightest in having a dialog with someone who clearly doesn't do their homework and hasn't time for a well-written, coherent post. Thank you for demonstrating what the problem is.

Good luck to you.

Bill Nye is nothing more than a glorified engineer. Do you read MY posts? You are full of crap.

 

[truthseeker]

Antarctica is gaining ice, NASA study says - CNN.com

 

[Tyger]

Antarctica is gaining ice, NASA study says - CNN.com

Always helpful to supply the text - assume nothing. Read carefully. This is an example of where a headline does not give the full story. Excellent video within link.

Antarctica is gaining ice, NASA study says - November 3, 2015
LINK: Antarctica is gaining ice, NASA study says - CNN.com

TEXT: "(CNN) Antarctica is gaining more ice than it has lost, according to a new study by NASA. A NASA team came to this conclusion after scientists examined the heights of the region's ice sheet measured from satellites.

"The new methods used by scientists to come to this study's conclusion, such as measuring small height changes in the ice over large areas, warrant consideration. But the findings do conflict with more than a decade of research indicating that Antarctica is losing ice and that the loss has contributed to rising global sea levels. The continent is roughly the size of the United States and Mexico combined, and changes in the ice are not uniform across Antarctica. Some places are gaining ice, and some are losing ice.

"Many scientists agree that the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica are losing ice and that the rate of loss is increasing. In the eastern part of the continent and part of the interior, there have been ice gains. These gains, scientists from the study say, are more than the losses in the rest of the region.

NASA: 10,000-year-old Antarctic ice shelf will disappear by 2020

"This net gain in ice would mean that Antarctica would not be contributing to sea level rises, but could help offset some of the major ice losses in places from Greenland and glaciers worldwide.

"Scientists suspect that increased snowfall, which began 10,000 years ago, is the reason for the gain in Antarctica. Over the years, the snow has accumulated and compacted to form ice. This snowfall added 112 billion tons of ice each year from 1992 to 2001, but the rate slowed to 82 billion tons per year from 2003 and 2008.

"However, this isn't good news for our climate necessarily. Authors of the study say the increasing loss of ice in the West Antarctic and the peninsula, plus slowing ice gains elsewhere on the continent, could mean that there will be overall losses of ice in the next 20 years. In fact, this may already be occurring, according to other research published as recently as this week, which suggests the West Antarctic ice sheet is destabilizing, which would more than overcome the ice gains and could result in 3 meters of sea level rise.

"Right now, it's believed that ice loss in Antarctica contributes to roughly 8% of global sea level rise. This rise can been seen in recent high tides in coastal cities like Miami. If this study is correct, and Antarctica is not contributing to this rise in sea level, that means scientists must be underestimating the impact from other sources of sea level rise -- such as from melting from Greenland or the heating of the oceans."​

 

[Tyger]

Global Warming: What We Knew in 1982

TEXT: "Published on Mar 26, 2012"

 

[aNorthernSoul]

Mr Semantics over here...

I like how a clear fact is stated and then comes the backpeddling... and THAT is what you focus on... but of course you do, because you are full of shit.

The "97 % of Climate Scientists" statistic that these fucking people always attempt to use as a giant FUCK YOU, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE AS MUCH AS I DO comes from published papers that were not only widely discredited, but have been proven over and over to be completely false and biased as all hell. Methodology in scientific papers is obviously of critical importance, yet these hack papers (which generally were peer-reviewed) prove that politics trump science every goddamn time when it comes to the climate change topic.

Follow the money... or do I mean Carbon credits?

 

[Tyger]

Mr Semantics over here... I like how a clear fact is stated and then comes the backpeddling... and THAT is what you focus on... but of course you do, because you are full of shit.

It's sentiments like these that make anything you say completely without merit. You cannot argue - rather you resort to gutter language. You are not making an argument. (This thread is not for argument - there are plenty of threads for that).

If you must comment (when you do, but on a debate thread) demonstrate what you mean: you are saying that a fact is stated and then there is backpedaling - present the facts, not just the suggestion that this occurred. Give sources - give quotes - on a debate thread!

The "97 % of Climate Scientists" statistic that these fucking people always attempt to use as a giant FUCK YOU, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE AS MUCH AS I DO

Again, gutter language. Also, science has nothing to do with belief. * See below for links and explanatory text.

comes from published papers that were not only widely discredited, but have been proven over and over to be completely false and biased as all hell.

You are making no sense. You are drawing connections that do not exist in the real world. What published papers have been widely discredited? What scientific papers have been proven to be completely false and biased?

Methodology in scientific papers is obviously of critical importance, yet these hack papers (which generally were peer-reviewed) prove that politics trump science every goddamn time when it comes to the climate change topic.

Again, making a statement is not an argument. You must provide evidence for your assertions. It's quite possible that you are suggesting that every peer-reviewed science research paper that favors AGW is a 'hack paper'. If so, that would be a bias that is global in scope. Pretty drastic 'conspiracy'.

Follow the money... or do I mean Carbon credits?

Always good advice. Have you been following the EXXON scandal currently coming to light? EXXON scientists knew as early as the 1970's that CO2 emissions would impact climate - but like the tobacco industry regarding nicotine, they squashed the information, choosing a path that kept the profits rolling in rather than a path that would have been more environmentally responsible.

* Regarding the 97% of Climate Scientists - Please note that Naomi Oreskes was the first to do the analysis, followed by the Skeptical Science study (John Cook), which was then followed by several other studies after 2009 [the following gives relevant links]. All studies have come to the same conclusion. Bashing all such studies as 'discredited' and 'proven over and over to be completely false and biased' starts to look like what it is: hysteria.

Global Warming Petition Project: 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
LINK: Global Warming Petition Project

LINK: The 97% consensus on global warming
Science Says: 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
Climate Myth Says: There is no consensus. The Petition Project [see link given above] features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ..."

TEXT: "Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

"But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

"So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

"In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

"A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

"Several studies have confirmed that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

"We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

"In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change."​

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

TEXT: "Published on May 27, 2015: John Cook et al - We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

The following video summarizes all the studies on the 97% as well as goes into the nature of the general consensus -

UQx DENIAL101x 1.2.2.1 Consensus of Scientists

TEXT: "Published on Apr 27, 2015: Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial in Denial101x, a MOOC from UQx and edX. Denial101x isn’t just a climate MOOC; it’s a MOOC about how people think about climate change. Any research used to develop this content has been cited on a references page within the subsection for this lecture."

 

[Tyger]

32000 Scientists

TEXT: "Uploaded on Jan 9, 2010"

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I speak in gutter language. It's how I talk, so what? At least I am honest. This topic is so frustrating because it is so obvious what is going on.

Also, I am not inclined to go back digging up years of research, actually done more by a friend of mine than myself just to prove a point. I rather just state what I know.

 

[Tyger]

The American Denial of Global Warming - Perspectives on Ocean Science

TEXT: "Uploaded on Dec 20, 2007: Polls show that between one-third and one-half of Americans still believe that there is "no solid" evidence of global warming, or that if warming is happening it can be attributed to natural variability. Others believe that scientists are still debating the point. Join scientist and renowned historian Naomi Oreskes as she describes her investigation into the reasons for such widespread mistrust and misunderstanding of scientific consensus and probes the history of organized campaigns designed to create public doubt and confusion about science. Series: "Perspectives on Ocean Science" "

 

[Tyger]

I speak in gutter language. It's how I talk, so what?

The 'what' is that you are making no pertinent points - just engaging in low-brow gutter talk. You're using up good air for nonsense.

At least I am honest.

Honest about what? The current status of your emotional life? Perhaps so, but is such relevant to science? I don't think so.

This topic is so frustrating because it is so obvious what is going on.

It's not obvious - that's why you cannot present a coherent argument and have to resort to gutter language. When you really get going you might even start to sprinkle in the tired old ad hominem attacks on every person who has ever dared to speak publicly in favor of AGW.

Fact is, the debate is over. There may be outliers, there may be points of debate within the overall picture (to be expected), but AGW is now a given. You are a fossil, created by the disinformation campaign begun in the 1990's. You have been used and know it not.

Also, I am not inclined to go back digging up years of research

There are no 'years of research'. The deniers only ever re-spun the research that was already done by Climate Science researchers. There was never one iota of original research (that I am aware of) that came out by a Climate Scientist disproving AGW. We have had re-calibrations - like in the Antarctic Ice Sheet shifting over time - but the general trend is unmistakeable. Even the disinformation campaign shifted from denying Global Warming (which is now accepted, even by politicians in the pay of Big Oil) to parsing what is causing it, or making the assertion that it's natural shift, etc.

actually done more by a friend of mine than myself just to prove a point.

I think we all are aware who your 'friend' is.

I rather just state what I know.

Try expanding your universe a bit more. Actually read what I post. Check out the videos. Fact is, you know very little.

I would also suggest that you strike up a conversation on a debate thread. You clearly want to debate this stuff.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I did post pertinent material but you ignored it.

 

[Tyger]

I did post pertinent material but you ignored it.

That's pretty rich. I've taken some time to respond to you to no avail. Your problem is two-fold -
1) You don't actually read a person's response.
2) You don't appear to listen to videos posted. There is an argument being made (in the posted video) that often directly addresses what you may have either personally asserted or had a video assert for you. It's for you to connect the dots. Contrary to what you think, I am not here to try to convince anyone of anything. I am exploring a line of reasoning that I find interesting. Full stop.

This thread is about the politics of the issue - and very often you supply a good example of the politics involved. However, I think you are interpreting my response as an engagement in a climate debate - it isn't. Not on my part. I use your posts to illustrate a point - no more. Hope that's clear.

If you want a debate, go to a debate thread - of which there are legion - and upon which your 'friend' posted copiously.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I do read responses. I do admit that I stop reading articles and stop watching videos when it is either the same old rhetoric, something I know has been disproven or shown to be fraudulent, something by someone unqualified to even be speaking on the topic such as Bill Nye or a known shill. (I hate that term but sadly, it is most fitting.)

I think you have my friend mixed up with someone else. He would never post on here. He thinks the paranormal is a bunch of hogwash. Heh.

 

[Tyger]

I do read responses. I do admit that I stop reading articles and stop watching videos when it is either the same old rhetoric, something I know has been disproven or shown to be fraudulent, something by someone unqualified to even be speaking on the topic such as Bill Nye or a known shill. (I hate that term but sadly, it is most fitting.)

Which is why responding to you is merely an exercise in demonstrating a point, no more than that. Hope you don't mind. You are such a classic demonstration of the problem. Your reply above is a perfect example. Thank you for participating.

I think you have my friend mixed up with someone else. He would never post on here. He thinks the paranormal is a bunch of hogwash. Heh.

Maybe I have. Apologies.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

Which is why responding to you is merely an exercise in demonstrating a point, no more than that. Hope you don't mind. You are such a classic demonstration of the problem. Your reply above is a perfect example. Thank you for participating.

See, it is that exact kind of response that gets me frustrated. You talk like I am the one backed by bad science or some sort of misunderstanding of the topic when I think it is completely the other way around. The worst part of it is that people on your side of the debate act and speak like they are somehow more better and more knowledgeable and then cry foul when treated exactly the same way they treat others. /shrug

 

[Tyger]

See, it is that exact kind of response that gets me frustrated. You talk like I am the one backed by bad science or some sort of misunderstanding of the topic when I think it is completely the other way around. The worst part of it is that people on your side of the debate act and speak like they are somehow more better and more knowledgeable and then cry foul when treated exactly the same way they treat others. /shrug

I am going to say this as slowly as one can in text-language: I.Am.Not.In.A.Debate. Please go to one of the debate threads. Okay?

But if you do go to a debate thread be certain to actually engage. Don't make statements and expect them to stand. You must back-up what you are claiming, otherwise you stand in a self-created reality. You must also absorb what is being said by someone else and not dismiss out-of-hand. You need to back up your claims. Just not on this thread.

By your own admission you do not read posts nor watch videos, so your posting on this thread comes perilously close to being trolling.