• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

What will it take to convince you of climate change?

Do you know how extrapolation of data works? If one were to plot out the data and fit a curve to it, it would be fairly easy to estimate where things are going. Not all impacts are readily quantifiable, of course, but many are.
 
The opposite, actually. We have sufficient data to make predictions about long term changes. There is a bit of variability, so short term predictions are often incorrect (unless you are talking a few days out, which is much tighter)
 
teg916 said:
Forecast vs forecast.

People are good at looking at trends and predicting the future based on the past. For short term forecasting that works great. For predicting where a hurricane will hit 10 days from now, or what the global temperature will be 100 years from now, not so much.
Click to expand...
Stick to something you know, not sure what that is yet. :laughing :twofinger
 
Think of it a similar way. Your parents and grandparents were smokers and died of cancer. Now you smoke and don't have cancer yet, but your doctor says there's a really good chance you're going to die of cancer. Do you continue smoking because he's unable to tell you when?
 
I feel, based on what you are writing, that I might have a bit more experience in data analysis and predictive modeling than you do. That's not a knock on you. It's not something that everyone deals with on a regular basis. Given how things are reported, I can absolutely see why you would believe what you do, and I really can't fault you for it. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, I think. :thumbup
 
I agree with Adams that the hurricanes are not definitive proof of anything. They do, however, represent additional data in the overall pool of data.
 
teg916 said:
This is a good read.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/165227772726/when-to-trust-the-experts-climate-and-otherwise
Click to expand...

Adams brings up some excellent points regarding the logical problems in ascribing a couple weather events as proof of ongoing climate change. Unfortunately, he doesn't really provide much more than that from a logical or scientific viewpoint.

Moreover, he provides a litany of false equivalencies with other extraordinarily variable scientific topics that are essentially impossible to study in a fashion that provides controls. I don't know if this is coincidental or unintentional since he has no science background, or if he is depending on his readers being uninformed to the point where they think that nutrition and exercise can be studied effectively in a non-epidemiological fashion. The comparison of climate science to stock market prediction is so absurd that it almost shouldn't be mentioned, but Adams for some reason finds this a valid point, and I'm certain that some of this readers do, too.

The "Money Distortion" would be an excellent point if scientists were actually promoting carbon credits. The money incentive is on the other side of the equation, where a climate denying scientist stands to make great personal profit and grant money, but Adams is very careful to avoid this fact.

Here's a related article that addresses the fallacies about "alarmist" use of weather events, and actually provides some knowledge regarding the aggregate data available.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...bout-the-climate-change-hurricane-connection/

Importantly, the article concludes with a rational viewpoint that juxtaposes Adams' tendency towards dismissal of evidence:

It would be imprudent, however, to conclude that we must wait for the results of formal detection and attribution studies before we can say anything about the effects of climate change on hurricanes as they are happening. There is much that we know based on physics, and we should state those things clearly and immediately, as they can provide insights that can help guide people as they begin to recover and plan for the future.
Click to expand...
 
I just saw this thread, and didn't read 12 pages. :)

I don't even bother to argue about the cause. The friends that either don't believe in CC or don't believe humans are responsible get my standard statement: "You keep your house clean, don't you? Since when did your responsibility to clean up after yourself end at your property line?"

This usually ends the debate. :thumbup
 
bruceflinch said:
What do you personally do about it?
Click to expand...

By acknowledging it exists, we as a country can put more resources into dealing with it. Planning documents can address climate change and put effort into dealing with sea level change, increases in disaster funding, resource planning, etc.

Or we can hide our heads in the sand and throw paper towels at people and pretend this isn't happening.

In other words, we can be better prepared for these events, or we can clean up after them. What would you prefer?
 
Gabe said:
More than less than nothing.
Click to expand...
I meant more than just starting a thread on BARF.. :laughing

Brokenlink said:
By acknowledging it exists, we as a country can put more resources into dealing with it. Planning documents can address climate change and put effort into dealing with sea level change, increases in disaster funding, resource planning, etc.

Or we can hide our heads in the sand and throw paper towels at people and pretend this isn't happening.

In other words, we can be better prepared for these events, or we can clean up after them. What would you prefer?
Click to expand...

I have acknowledged the possibility. As individuals, we can do little besides recycle, compost, & use less resources as possible. I believe it is up to everyone to be a good steward to the Earth.

But as a Country, how do we really organize to elect Politicians to effect good policies? With all the corruption I think eco assassinations would be faster. :party
 
I'd be for eco suicide if we could learn lessons instantly, but in reality it's a long, slow, sad and painful path.
 
bruceflinch said:
I meant more than just starting a thread on BARF.. :laughing



I have acknowledged the possibility. As individuals, we can do little besides recycle, compost, & use less resources as possible. I believe it is up to everyone to be a good steward to the Earth.

But as a Country, how do we really organize to elect Politicians to effect good policies? With all the corruption I think eco assassinations would be faster. :party
Click to expand...

LULZ!

I like the cut of your jib, sailor.

I started this thread not to debate climate change, but to see if the CC deniers had the capacity to change their views. Some do, and some don't. I think the why of what people believe is much more interesting and informative than the what itself. Here on BARF there are a lot of older dudes who feel they've worked hard and want to enjoy the rest of their lives without being told what to do or pay extra fees or taxes for what they think are useless, wasteful programs. Fair enough. There are also dudes who post stuff to make the "other side" pissed off. Again, fair enough. In fact, I'm probably one of those guys. :laughing

I love EVs and am a proponent of alternative, renewable energy. I also try to conserve electricity, water, recycle, blah, blah, blah, though I think a lot of that stuff is just posturing. I'm also a proponent of strong federal government and international cooperation, which I think are necessary to either slow/reverse CC as well as prepare for the chaos it is causing and will continue to cause.

At the end of the day, it's all self-interest, isn't it? But believe or not, we're ALL guilty of causing it and therefore partly responsible for fixing the problems.
 
Gabe said:
How about now?
Click to expand...

I've always been a big believer that man has interrupted the natural cycle of climate changes however I don't see how this fire can be use as evidence to support the theory in any way.
California summer droughts are nothing new and the right combination of strong wind and an unfortunate spark could have that same outcome any late summer for the past 50 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top