What will it take to convince you of climate change?

[V4]

Dont forget magentic core flip beepor

that too.

magnets, how do they work? but what causes them to attract and repel also comes into a major play on the heating of the earth's core.

Just imagine all the volcanoes as the opening of an anthill around the world and it all comes out from one source.

like a weinie in a microwave, slowly bursting open inside out.

 

[Caddywumpus]

I also heard there were islands of fire ants floating in flood areas. ISLANDS.

A sign of the end times.

 

[V4]

theyre not ants

water herpes.

 

[Caddywumpus]

But you can cure them....

 

[V4]

Im just thinking: when I wake up in the morning and not as drunk, I'm going to read this again and say "WTF??? "

haha

 

[mrmarklin]

You know there are other methods of determining global temperatures don't you?

Please don't be so naive about data collection and analysis. Lots of methods and contradictions. Lots of "correcting". The data you read about is at best an opinion.

My statement is not confined to the climate change crowd only.

 

[Hooli]

What does that indicate?

The hurricane brewery is open for business?

 

[Yakoo752]

I was talking to a friend the other day and they brought up a point I struggled to challenge

If we all believe that the Russian government interfered with our election and if we all believe there is some pretty wide spread corruption in the government and we all believe there is some wide spread corruption in our election... why is it so hard to believe that there couldn't be similar collusion and corruption in the science that supports this (climate change).

My only defense was private citizens are less likely to be manipulated and the quantity of private citizens scientist that have studied this would suggest it would be less likely to be manipulated

but it was a good argument imho

 

[augustiron]

LA/bejing smog is nonpartisan so is melting polar ice.

 

[m_asim]

I was talking to a friend the other day and they brought up a point I struggled to challenge

If we all believe that the Russian government interfered with our election and if we all believe there is some pretty wide spread corruption in the government and we all believe there is some wide spread corruption in our election... why is it so hard to believe that there couldn't be similar collusion and corruption in the science that supports this (climate change).

My only defense was private citizens are less likely to be manipulated and the quantity of private citizens scientist that have studied this would suggest it would be less likely to be manipulated

but it was a good argument imho

Very weak argument on your friend's part.

With Russian interference, it is very easy to find who will benefit from having a stooge or an idiot in the White House - Russia. Both in its national objectives being easier to attain with US out of the way and its oligarchs free to make billions more. There is money and power on the line.

Scientists, thousands of them spread all over the world, are not going to reap billions each. The future of the planet is on the line.

Any child, who can read numbers, can see temperature records fall all over the f'ing world in the past decade. Tell your friend to take off the tin-foil hat.

 

[Brokenlink]

What I am getting from this conversation is that nothing will convince some people. Nothing at all. And furthermore, the idea that science is an opinion and the completely opposite of science, with methods and processes, seems to be completely believed nowadays. I will say that our current administration has really been effective at one thing; convincing people that science is dumb.

Which is exactly why I have no interest or desire to discuss this issue or any of these issues. I remember a time when people could have reasonable discussions or debates. People would think for themselves and use rational arguments in support of their ideas. Nowadays it's all "Fake news".

So I won't. I'll keep doing what I am doing and you keep doing what you are doing. And I'll see on the other side.

 

[Brokenlink]

Very weak argument on your friend's part.

With Russian interference, it is very easy to find who will benefit from having a stooge or an idiot in the White House - Russia. Both in its national objectives being easier to attain with US out of the way and its oligarchs free to make billions more. There is money and power on the line.

Scientists, thousands of them spread all over the world, are not going to reap billions each. The future of the planet is on the line.

Any child, who can read numbers, can see temperature records fall all over the f'ing world in the past decade. Tell your friend to take off the tin-foil hat.

I will say this, as a scientist who has worked for government agencies as well as consulting firms. There is a tendency to argue for your client. It's hard ot make up data. But it isn't hard to spin the data. And this does happen. However, it tends to work itself out in the wash during peer review. It's awful hard to give a talk to a hundred people at a professional conference and back up false claims. People see through bullshit. Well, educated people that think do.

 

[CoorsLight]

What I am getting from this conversation is that nothing will convince some people. Nothing at all.

I don't think that's entirely true. I was once a denier, even with more than a decade of science research experience under my belt. Eventually I actually made the effort to take a hard look at the science, and I realized that every denier talking point was built on half truths.

A significant problem is that scientists are not in the business of public relations. A scientist with integrity will be quick to point out uncertainty and tend not to make sweeping, sound bite conclusions. The lack of sound bites from the scientific community has been used to the advantage of denier propagandists. Understanding the data requires a certain attention span, but corporate talking points and propaganda do not.

For people with little understanding of science who have bought into the corporate propaganda, yes, there is little chance they will change their minds. It does take a certain amount of patience and/or scientific understanding to comprehend the data, even data as damning as that surrounding climate change.

 

[Brokenlink]

I don't think that's entirely true. I was once a denier, even with more than a decade of science research experience under my belt. Eventually I actually made the effort to take a hard look at the science, and I realized that every denier talking point was built on half truths.

A significant problem is that scientists are not in the business of public relations. A scientist with integrity will be quick to point out uncertainty and tend not to make sweeping, sound bite conclusions. The lack of sound bites from the scientific community has been used to the advantage of denier propagandists. Understanding the data requires a certain attention span, but corporate talking points and propaganda do not.

For people with little understanding of science who have bought into the corporate propaganda, yes, there is little chance they will change their minds. It does take a certain amount of patience and/or scientific understanding to comprehend the data, even data as damning as that surrounding climate change.

I don't disagree. However you asked what it will take to convince you of climate change and as evidenced here, there are some people that no matter what, will continue to argue the point that it isn't real. And I am not arguing that they are wrong. I am merely saying that some people, some people, will never give in because they will never look deeper. They will never do any research besides hanging the channel from fox news to breitbart.

 

[Yakoo752]

I will say this, as a scientist who has worked for government agencies as well as consulting firms. There is a tendency to argue for your client. It's hard ot make up data. But it isn't hard to spin the data. And this does happen. However, it tends to work itself out in the wash during peer review. It's awful hard to give a talk to a hundred people at a professional conference and back up false claims. People see through bullshit. Well, educated people that think do.

and now that I am in a research/analyst role (as a non scientist), I'm learning how to cater to your client's needs while providing factual truth. I, at times, have to remove my opinion from my work to present non-biased information that my client will likely spin to support their argument.

It's a function of my job.

If I had studied climate science and was a climate scientist and wanted to keep my job, my opinion may likely influence my outcomes.


Obviously, I've condensed my discussion to keep it short. It was a pretty well thought out argument actually. I was shocked the friend put it all together because I dont' view them as intelligent

 

[tuxumino]

OK I'm not a scientist, I just have a BA in philosophy from a state university, so looking at the math is not my strong suit.
So let me see if I have this right.
There is a measurable rise in sea level around the world.
There is a measurable rise in surface temperatures around the world.
There is a measurable rise in sea temperature around the world.
There is a measurable lose of ice sheets and glaciers around the world.

if the above are all correct, doesn't that mean that the earth is getting warmer?

 

[TylerW]

Usually your posts are long winded and useless. Im glad youve kept this concise and useless. Saves time.

I'll to use more memes as communication aides in the future so you can follow along.

 

[Yakoo752]

OK I'm not a scientist, I just have a BA in philosophy from a state university, so looking at the math is not my strong suit.
So let me see if I have this right.
There is a measurable rise in sea level around the world.
There is a measurable rise in surface temperatures around the world.
There is a measurable rise in sea temperature around the world.
There is a measurable lose of ice sheets and glaciers around the world.

if the above are all correct, doesn't that mean that the earth is getting warmer?

yeah, but at some point in time all of those sentences actually started with

There is a measurable decline...

one of the reasons why it's no longer called global warming and is now called climate change

No, the real argument and science is in the rate of change. We, humans, are exponentially altering the rate of change. Where is the peak of this increase going to stop and what does the valley look like in the future. Will it snow in Florida?

 

[mean dad]

Remove the profit from Climate Change and it would disappear overnight.

Every regulation, seminar, speaking engagement, rule, law.amd treaty concerning climate change is directly tied to money leaving the middle class and dropping into the bank accounts of those orchestrating the fear.

Eliminate the profiteering and you couldn't get Al Gore to admit it gets warmer in summer.

Can you show any measurable wealth being generated by the Climate Change Conspiracy?
Like, actual companies making millions from the wool over everyone's eyes. Not just a few bucks being made off books or alarmist propaganda.

Because I can easily show you exactly who is profiting from the use of coal and oil...while we the tax payers hand them billions of dollars to go look for more oil to sell back to us, the tax payers.

Seems easy enough to pretend climate change isn't real so that a few corporations can continue to make ungodly profits while paying idiots to spout nonsense designed to muddy the waters of actual discussions; but I'm having a hard time finding the well-heeled players in the climate change game.
Sandbag sales? Is that where the big money is?

 

[Gabe]

When I started this thread, I naively expected answer like, "well, when the US government shows the Earth's overall temperature has come up X degrees, and there's no controversy about the amount of man-made CO2, then I'll believe it." That's naive because even 6 years ago there WAS such proof. Deniers have built such sturdy shells of doubt around themselves it will never be penetrated.

The most telling comments are the "who GAF? I'll be dead anyway" ones. I don't think there's any room for reasonable doubt that A the Earth is warming (which results in rapid climate change) and B it's caused by the trillions of tons of carbon we're dumping into the atmosphere. I think everybody reading this believes these two very obvious facts, but deniers have invested so much political and emotional capital into believing "the other side" is wrong they will never, ever admit the truth, even as their entire Florida subdivision disappears beneath the blue Atlantic or their Del Webb retirement castles are rendered uninhabitable by constant 120-degree plus temperatures and lack of water.

[youtube]qJh6EQ5gv7g[/youtube]
Their main challenge will be how to blame it on liberals.

All we can hope for is that Millennials will be more rational.