What will it take to convince you of climate change?

[Pierre I am]

Climate is changing. I'm not arguing that. It's always changed.

Is Man responsible? That is unknown in the macro sense. I agree we all have a responsibility to not pollute, etc etc. I just don't think that the statistical models we have prove anything. And to act upon uncertainty is silly.

Of course another idea is that if we are currently warming is that necessarily bad? There's a lot of frozen tundra in the Northern hemispheres that could be turned into productive land if the growing seasons were longer, thus alleviating world hunger. In the 1200s Scotland was producing wine and crops were growing in Greenland. And the technology to deal with this in a positive way is more prevalent in the Northern hemisphere.

This is where tree ring / fossil / ice core date comes into play. Yes the climate has experienced these shifts before but never at the speed that it is doing so far. The issue is that we have increased the forcing so much from GHG and other factors that this shift is happening at an unprecedented speed.

The earth / climate will go back into equilibrium eventually (resident time of co2 in the atmosphere) but the issue is the damage it's going to cause to majority of the worlds population.

Most people live by the ocean -> rising sea levels
Extreme heat waves -> most people don't have AC
Extreme flooding -> massive relocation of refugees
Extreme droughts -> food shortages / deaths.


The sad reality is this won't affect majority of the middle class in the first world country, which is why most people don't see the point of getting involved.

 

[ThumperX]

A detailed description, and because the molecule is caged within a water molecule I will refer to it as a "hydrate." This is from a "factsheet" I made up back in early 2000

A methane hydrate is naturally occurring dependent on the presence of H2O, CH4, cool temperatures, and pressure. Because the relationship between temperature and pressure is variable, hydrates can be found on land and sea. On land they form underneath the Arctic perma-frost where the temperature remains below freezing while the pressure is not nearly as great as below the sea surface. Beneath the sea they form in sediments usually below 200 meters where pressure is the major factor in their formation.

 

[Pierre I am]

A detailed description, and because the molecule is caged within a water molecule I will refer to it as a "hydrate." This is from a "factsheet" I made up back in early 2000

I did a lot of research / study on permafrost-climate interactions in the future. It's going to be interesting to see how the shift occurs.

 

[Gabe]

Climate is changing. I'm not arguing that. It's always changed.

Is Man responsible? That is unknown in the macro sense. I agree we all have a responsibility to not pollute, etc etc. I just don't think that the statistical models we have prove anything. And to act upon uncertainty is silly.

You ducked the question very nicely. What evidence (amount of evidence or reliable source, etc) do you need to see that the majority of climate change is caused by human activity? Are you afraid of answering that question?

 

[Marlowe]

You ducked the question very nicely. What evidence (amount of evidence or reliable source, etc) do you need to see that the majority of climate change is caused by human activity? Are you afraid of answering that question?

Incontrovertible, explicit, peer-reviewed, direct evidence of causation, confirmed by multiple independent studies.

Or, you know, I could accept the assertions of a short, angry man in another field on a motorcycling forum.

That works too.

 

[Gabe]

Incontrovertible, explicit, peer-reviewed, direct evidence of causation, confirmed by multiple independent studies.

Or, you know, I could accept the assertions of a short, angry man in another field on a motorcycling forum.

That works too.

Isn't "incontrovertible" an impossible standard to reach?

And I'm not short in Asia. And in Russia I'd be considered happy.

 

[Marlowe]

But here's the problem, the basic tone of this thread is "y'all must be way dumber than I am, and let me prove it."

But there's no hard proof.

This doesn't mean I don't believe humans have an impact, but as a call to action here, you've fallen rather...well, forgive me: short.

If you want definitive, immediate action, there must be definitive, immediate proof.

 

[Gabe]

But here's the problem, the basic tone of this thread is "y'all must be way dumber than I am, and let me prove it."

I think that's just a reflection of your worldview.

But there's no hard proof.

There are millions of pages of "hard proof," if you mean collected data that's been analyzed, with repeatable experiments and peer-reviewed analysis. Thousands and thousands of studies that all agree--higher global temperatures are correlated with more carbon in the atmosphere. It's just fact.

But if that's not enough for you, than what is?

This doesn't mean I don't believe humans have an impact, but as a call to action here, you've fallen rather...well, forgive me: short.

If you want definitive, immediate action, there must be definitive, immediate proof.

I didn't want anything of the sort. I just want to know your threshold for believing what pretty much every single scientist studying the problem has found to be true. So far, you refuse to give a clear answer or accept a possible threshold.

I think you, and every other denier with any sensory or analytical capability know the truth and just don't want to admit it.

 

[nbean16]

But here's the problem, the basic tone of this thread is "y'all must be way dumber than I am, and let me prove it."

But there's no hard proof.

This doesn't mean I don't believe humans have an impact, but as a call to action here, you've fallen rather...well, forgive me: short.

If you want definitive, immediate action, there must be definitive, immediate proof.

 

[Pierre I am]

We should just lock this thread up

 

[RRR70]

http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

 

[Marlowe]

I think that's just a reflection of your worldview.

There are millions of pages of "hard proof," if you mean collected data that's been analyzed, with repeatable experiments and peer-reviewed analysis. Thousands and thousands of studies that all agree--higher global temperatures are correlated with more carbon in the atmosphere. It's just fact.

But if that's not enough for you, than what is?

I didn't want anything of the sort. I just want to know your threshold for believing what pretty much every single scientist studying the problem has found to be true. So far, you refuse to give a clear answer or accept a possible threshold.

I think you, and every other denier with any sensory or analytical capability know the truth and just don't want to admit it.

Who said I denied anything?

I said we probably had an impact, but I wasn't sure how to quantify it.

The fact that you spin that into outright denial, well, that's a reflection of your worldview, isn't it?

And this is the problem with this thread, Gabe, anyone that doesn't agree with you is some sort of Neanderthal knuckle-dragging mouthbreather. You make that very clear, and then wonder how you fail to persuade.

My only point here is that if you want to persuade, then persuade.

So, persuade me. Convince me that you're right.

 

[byke]

But here's the problem, the basic tone of this thread is "y'all must be way dumber than I am, and let me prove it."

But there's no hard proof.

This doesn't mean I don't believe humans have an impact, but as a call to action here, you've fallen rather...well, forgive me: short.

If you want definitive, immediate action, there must be definitive, immediate proof.

How many skeptics in this thread asked for data and then discussed data? Exactly. It's because they have no interest in discussing data and when you pin them down on it, well then all data is corrupt unless it comes from one off weirdos with no pertinent background. It's the same attitude as with religion and how religious folks have created these circular fallbacks so they never have to consider any thought which doesn't align. Fuck if I know, so it must be God's will, next.

 

[redruM]

I think that's just a reflection of your worldview

Pots 'n kettles

I just want to know your threshold for believing what pretty much every single scientist studying the problem has found to be true.

Like everything else, Gabe, it depends who you ask

Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found. The results contradict the oft-cited claim that there is a 97 percent consensus amongst climate scientists that humans are responsible for global warming....

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/

 

[n10sive]

there is plenty of doubt about the data, on where it is collected to how it has been analyzed, even among scientists, to make this anything but a black and white issue. (see NOAA data controversy)

 

[nbean16]

How many skeptics in this thread asked for data and then discussed data? Exactly. It's because they have no interest in discussing data and when you pin them down on it, well then all data is corrupt unless it comes from one off weirdos with no pertinent background. It's the same attitude as with religion and how religious folks have created these circular fallbacks so they never have to consider any thought which doesn't align. Fuck if I know, so it must be God's will, next.

These threads are very similar to the religious threads in that if you dont side with the group think youre an idiot and a fool. Most of the people in these threads are layman, including you. I dont really see high level data analysis coming from you either. You are barely understanding the charts coors posts, yet you totally agree with data in which you dont understand. Without doing the research for ourselves or being experts in the field it can be hard to breakdown every study. Then it becomes a matter of "well scientists are experts and theyre smarter than you and most of them agree, so unless you create your own data disproving them you must stop dissenting." I and others do not operate that way. There are experts who are in the field and even participating in the ipcc reports (like i linked) that are wary of the data and models and scientists chosen to gather the data. Its funny. If john christy himself came in here and said the same thing he said in that interview without anyone knowing who he was, he wouldve been torn apart here. People wouldve laughed, said he was basically a moron or just a political nutjob and told how he didnt discuss exact data points so he has no right to argue. The motherfucker was lead author on the 2001 ipcc report and has some of the exact concerns many here do that are made to look foolish. So is he an idiot too?

I am particularly wary of the climate models of which much of this research is based. Ive read about them and i know the trillions of factors they must take into account. But i dont know how to break down a mistake in the software and prove it wrong. I know that every couple years there is a drastic turn in the temperature estimates. It started as like 10°c in 100 years and over time dropped to like 2°c. Now it has started to climb again. Not one of these models saw almost static temperatures or a change of only .16°c in the last 15 or so years. That tells me these models are flawed. But these models are also why we are expected to act. I have an issue with that.

There are many other factors i take issue with but in terms of picking apart every study and describing where the data breaks down is not easy in 5 minute blips on barf. It could take many hours and what would be the point? None of the people fully invested in this are changing their minds. Im supposed to have data analysis with people that think a warm day in february is evidence? There is a couple of people in the field here and i do respect their opinions but smart people can be wrong.

 

[nbean16]

We should just lock this thread up

Why? Obviously its not discussing the finer points of climate change for the most part but still interesting. I think it was intended as a thread where one or two doubters came in and everyone could point and laugh at the monkeys "hey look dumb fucking monkeys, they have doubts! Hahaha, wheres the studies they conducted and had peer reviewed!?! They got no data! Theyre like jesus freaks!!! Haha! Look at em go!

But they got more than a few people and now its not as fun. And they werent all a bunch of far right wing nut jobs to laugh at. Thats all.

By the way. Still to busy to get back to all your responses, but i will. And im sure it will end up a stalemate but i appreciate the info you sent.

 

[Gabe]

Who said I denied anything?

I said we probably had an impact, but I wasn't sure how to quantify it.

The fact that you spin that into outright denial, well, that's a reflection of your worldview, isn't it?

And this is the problem with this thread, Gabe, anyone that doesn't agree with you is some sort of Neanderthal knuckle-dragging mouthbreather. You make that very clear, and then wonder how you fail to persuade.

My only point here is that if you want to persuade, then persuade.

So, persuade me. Convince me that you're right.

It's not my job to persuade anyone of anything, and any characterization of anybody is just your own projection onto what I write. If you don't want to believe overwhelming facts and evidence, that's your thing and I can't do anything about it.

I'm just curious as to the hows and whys of the denial.

Pots 'n kettles



Like everything else, Gabe, it depends who you ask

Yeah, um...did you actually read the study? Or just the highlights from the Breitbart article?

They surveyed 1800 scientists instead of looking at 11,000 papers, and asked very different questions, but whatever.

Here is one question:

What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human
induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?

66% of the respondents said more than half of global warming was human induced. Huh. That's not what the Brietbart article said at all.

But seriously, you guys--I'm not here to convince you of anything, because you've made it clear that there is no amount of evidence that will change your mind. So I'm not going to get into this game where you show me one piece of crap that "proves" all the work done over the last 100 years is fraud and that a brave cadre of people who can see the "real" story know the truth, unlike all the "sheeple."

It's exactly like that monumental waste-of-time 9/11 truther thread.

 

[Marlowe]

It's not your job, yet you felt compelled to start the thread, asking the question?

C'mon, Gabe, that's a copout and you know it.

 

[Gabe]

It's not your job, yet you felt compelled to start the thread, asking the question?

C'mon, Gabe, that's a copout and you know it.

I don't think so.

Here's what I wrote:

I'm not here to argue one way or the other...just wondering how much evidence you need to be convinced A) climate change is (has been) happening and B) it was caused by human activity.

I've talked to more than one climate change skeptic who told me that no amount of evidence would ever change their mind. How about you? And if that's the case, doesn't "skeptic" just mean "skeptical of every point of view except my own?"
__________________

So I don't know why you think I should have to change your mind. As if that's even possible.