IGX

Turdacious wrote:
Key difference-- reasonable people doubt the validity of science behind climate change; they don't doubt the damage of pollution.

"reasonable people" would follow the evidence, which is the basis of the science. there is no serious scientific dispute.

powerlifter54 wrote:In Related News, Boston Residents have growing doubts about Global warming.

a look at the facts leads to just the opposite conclusion:

Monday’s storm in particular came via a coastal front that was strengthened due to the clash between cold Arctic air and the warmer-than-normal Gulf Stream waters offshore. That front remained stationary for more than a day, forcing the relatively moist air onshore where it was converted into snow via “ocean enhancement.” This is a common feature in Massachusetts winters, but Monday was an extreme example.

Since warmer air holds more moisture, there’s a good chance Monday’s storm was made worse by human-caused climate change. That would fit the trend with the general rise in extreme precipitation throughout the Northeast in recent decades. The recent National Climate Assessment reports a 71 percent increase in the amount of precipitation falling in the heaviest precipitation events since 1958.

Meanwhile, magnolias are budding on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. after a weekend of record-high temperatures that affected most of the rest of the country. In Denver, temperatures have been flirting with 70 degrees for most of the last two weeks, displaying weather more typical of May.

It's nice here today...like 72. Fuck y'all's snow

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote:
Key difference-- reasonable people doubt the validity of science behind climate change; they don't doubt the damage of pollution.

"reasonable people" would follow the evidence, which is the basis of the science. there is no serious scientific dispute.

Climate change is, at this point, just a hypothesis.

a hypothesis, if you will, supported by the preponderance of evidence.

intelligent and diligent scientists have questioned the evidence, for instance the physicist muller at berkeley who was unconvinced by tempterature data. funded in part by the koch brothers, he ran a study that found the data to be solid. climate change is happening, the project concluded. (we've covered this previously.)

"doubters" like muller have advanced our understanding. other doubter have simply held your hands against their ears and said, nah nah nah nah nah, and then pronounced themselves "reasonable."

i hope doubters take comfort in knowing that smet is their ally.

for the record, it has been ungodly cold here this winter. perhaps the freeze will kill off some of the invaders from the south that have recently arrived, like deer ticks, although the snow cover provides them with protection.

You mean like the 'intelligent and diligent' scientists who went around lowering tide gauges so they could say the oceans were rising? I'd ask Smet, but he probably gets lousy cell reception in New Atlantis.

you can make cavalier jokes about how scientists operate to get accurate data. the tide data is unequivocal: sea level has been rising. the only outstanding issue is whether it has risen faster recently.

you're only game is to quibble at the edges of various studies and findings, but they all head in the same direction. you have nothing that fundamentally challenges the accumulated findings around the globe regarding increasing temperature, rising sea level, declining ice sheets, northern migrating flowers, fauna, and diseases, and more.

you are among the last holdouts in the alamo of denial.

buckethead wrote:

Smet wrote:Pollution is a different thing altogether. I am all for reducing pollution and waste.

But that is my point exactly. What purpose does climate change or global warming serve that isn't served by investigating pollution and waste?

I think we are in agreement here. Warming and pollution are two different things. Arguing about the sea levels and melting glaciers does nothing to reduce pollution. Neither is tweaking temperature records to win the climate change argument. You want to reduce pollution - study its sources, effects and the ways to improve the situation.

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote:
Key difference-- reasonable people doubt the validity of science behind climate change; they don't doubt the damage of pollution.

"reasonable people" would follow the evidence, which is the basis of the science. there is no serious scientific dispute.

I am afraid evidence is very shaky here. When I read The Hockey Stick Illusion I lost track of the statistical methodology after about thirty pages, it is so complicated. If you need such an extensive data massage to prove a point it is the testimony to the weakness of the evidence.

Just a thought. Doesn't matter if it's about global warming, pollution or efficient use of natural resources, I believe the way it's going is leading nowhere. What I mean is, on one hand, they are trying to reduce emissions, burning of coal and petrol etc., on the other - encouraging the growth of the economy. The latter is pretty much stimulation of consumption, or - in other words - consumerism. It just doesn't make sense.

A third of a magazine and a quarter of TV time is advertising. And at least two thirds of advertised products is useless shit nobody really needs. Except for those who make money out of it. Our whole culture values people in numerical terms: salary, the size of the house, the price of the car, watch and so on. All of which will necessarily lead to increased use of resources and increased pollution. And the Western value system now successfully extends to the Third World countries as well, which will lead to further deterioration of the ecology.

Another big factor is the population increase, which also leads to increased consumption and relative shortage of resources.

I don't believe it is possible to change the value system and get people to be content with less. After all, greed is among the fundamental human qualities, and I personally am a good example of this. Penalizing - exponentially increasing registration fees for larger cars, for instance - will work to a degree, but I don't see politicians risking their re-election by introducing extremely unpopular policies.

So, the solution? I don't think there is one. Just like dinosaurs we are doomed. I don't think it will happen soon, but probably sooner than we think.

from your link:

This is where climate change comes in: the Arctic is warming much faster than elsewhere.

and "cold winter" is not universal. ask 'em about winter, snow pack, and water in california

dead man walking wrote:from your link:

This is where climate change comes in: the Arctic is warming much faster than elsewhere.

and "cold winter" is not universal. ask 'em about winter, snow pack, and water in california

News flash-- not everything is about Cali.

Smet wrote: What I mean is, on one hand, they are trying to reduce emissions, burning of coal and petrol etc., on the other - encouraging the growth of the economy. The latter is pretty much stimulation of consumption, or - in other words - consumerism. It just doesn't make sense.
. . . Just like dinosaurs we are doomed.

you're just now figuring this out?

welcome to the party, smet

thoughtful people have been asking whether climate science denial is about the science or about the implications for economies worldwide. if you accept climate science, there's major cognitive dissonance if you don't also embrace the urgent need to rethink how we do things.

dead man walking wrote:thoughtful people have been asking whether climate science denial is about the science or about the implications for economies worldwide. if you accept climate science, there's major cognitive dissonance if you don't also embrace the urgent need to rethink how we do things.

The former is not required to do the latter, and the latter is exactly what thoughtful skeptics are doing.

As CS Lewis said:

nature gives most of her evidence in answer to the questions we ask her

Thoughtful skeptics are coming to different conclusions because they refuse to be pigeonholed into asking the same questions your lot do. They're the ones defending science.

Turd is right. The "climate science" as it stands now is a purely political enterprise. In any credible scientific activity there is a debate, often quite personal and rough. General public has a say in pretty much all matters, from medicine to law to economics. Yet climatology has been completely sheltered from the criticism. How come? The skeptics are given derogatory name of denialists (semantically incorrect), while the correct term would be an oppponent.

Over-consumption of resources, pollution, widening inequality and other similar issues must be targeted directly and things need to be called their proper names. Indeed, we have to re-think the way we do lots of things. I don't see, however, climate science as it stands contributing anything valuable to solving these problems.

your statements are innacurate.

there has been and continues to be debate sbout and refinement of the science. you are unaware of it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. the great preponderance of research supports human-induced climate change, and evidence of it is apparent across the globe--melting polar ice, earlier springs, movement of species, expansion of disease vectors. drought, rising seas, acidification of the ocean.

you and turd refer to so-called rational skeptics. who are the climatetologists who have demonstrated reasons to doubt the science and who challenges have withstood scrutiny from their scientific peers. perhaps you are thinking of this icon of the scientific method:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ti ... -Soon.html

Odd thing this weekend, I met two women who are adamant about climate change but won't vaccinate their kids

buckethead wrote:Odd thing this weekend, I met two women who are adamant about climate change but won't vaccinate their kids

What kind of ride did they have? Prius or Suburban?

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

buckethead wrote:Odd thing this weekend, I met two women who are adamant about climate change but won't vaccinate their kids

What kind of ride did they have? Prius or Suburban?

This is Colorado. Prius or Subaru's are the law

buckethead wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

buckethead wrote:Odd thing this weekend, I met two women who are adamant about climate change but won't vaccinate their kids

What kind of ride did they have? Prius or Suburban?

This is Colorado. Prius or Subaru's are the law

OK, then, bumper stickers:

a. YES WE CAN!/COEXIST

OR

b. NOBAMA!/'....From My Cold Dead Hands....'

For either choice, extra credit for stick figure family window stickers or honor student brags.

I don't know but one of them has a great rack

buckethead wrote:I don't know but one of them has a great rack

OK, definitely not on the crunchy side.

dead man walking wrote: perhaps you are thinking of this icon of the scientific method:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ti ... -Soon.html

From the article:

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ti ... .html?_r=0
That's how the grant process works. Very few funders (governments, corporations, foundations, etc...) give grants expecting anything different.

nice job ignoring his ethical failures in disclosing sources of funding