Climate change - a retard’s perspective

I was challenged to comment on global warming in a thread that wasn't about that. Figure I'd start a new thread.

If the world needs me to get my head on straight about global warming, the world is doomed. I just don't see myself getting that up to speed on such a complex issue. There has to be a better way to insure our future other than relying upon me.

Sheepishly I will share my opinions, based on hearing stuff, just to document my current state of ignorance as one documents the beginning of a journey just for the entertainment value later.

1. Earth's atmosphere is slowly warming.
2. CO2 content in the atmosphere is a significant factor in the warming.
3. Human production of CO2 is a significant part of observed increases in atmospheric CO2.
4. Our atmosphere and our oceans have hot spots and cold spots and therefore currents.
5. Temperature alone is an inadequate measure of heat energy, due to chemistry and stuff. So we're not going to see linear warming as the Earth's greenhouse traps a little more of the Sun's energy than before. More like ups and downs in average temperatures per year.
6. People have developed atmospheric models using all the understood significant variables. They test these models by seeing how well they predict the past and also, how well they work for Venus.
7. The models have worst-case and best-case scenarios. Both are not so great.
8. The models can't account for future technology that might reduce our dependence upon CO2 producing fuels.
9. Political opportunists use the climate issue just as they use all crises, to rally personal armies to fite! So it's hard to figure out what's real and what is spin.
10. On the one hand, the Kochs and other oil fat cats have been pouring millions into think tanks tasked to poop out "global warming is a hoax" papers. They need to fuck off.
11. On the other hand, the crazier parts of the green movement tend to say alarmist things. They promote conspiracies and seem to want a revolution so they can get some kind of New Age utopia.
12. Scientists are pretty good at sifting evidence if they are left alone to do just that.
13. Scientists inform policy but they generally don't promote policy. Once they take on that role, they’re functioning as activists, not scientists. That’s fine. Any citizen can be an activist.


Okay, that's my starting place. I will add dox of interest as I come across them.

A significant increase in the frequency of severe weather events, including extremes of both hot and cold, is happening because... (finish this sentence)

I'm enjoying watching the Australian Open tennis, but I'm not sure why the women's games are allowed to be put on hold due to extreme heat but the men's games are not.

The only thing I know about global warming that hasn't been said is the some scientist think that even if humans we to completely abandon all CO2 generating emissions, then the temperature will still rise because the warming is delayed.

Scientists aren’t supposed to have ideological lines. Their job is to summarize the evidence. That summary may change, but not because we think people are too close minded, or mean, or group thinky or whatever. The only thing that can change a summary of the evidence is moar evidence.

So if it really is the case that the evidence --meaning, papers published in recognized, peer reviewed scientific journals (all the relevant papers, not just some of them)-- is best summarized like this: “human CO2 production is causing a greenhouse effect which may cause rapid shifts in climate over the next 100 years,” then that is that, really.

You don’t have a “debate” over what is the evidence, once you know what it is.

Propagandists kick up controversy outside the scientific literature to fool the public into thinking a controversy exists within the scientific literature. This is very sneaky and we need to get wise to this so we can stop such efforts.

There are some debates over how people extrapolate from their models for the future. But as I understand, the evidence is like, 99.9% in support of the claim that the Earth’s atmosphere has been getting warmer over the past 100 years, and over 90% in support of the claim that human CO2 production is contributing to that warming trend.

Who defines what is "evidence" and what is not? This where they slipped "consensus" in.

All the papers published in the peer reviewed scientific literature that are relevant to some question count as evidence. The scientists have methods for adding together all those bits of evidence into review articles which are peer reviewed prior to publication, and reviewed again by peers after publication. So review papers that survive that process usually are pretty good.

Ya'll posting in a troll thread meant for me. I left the thread he is referencing TWO days ago. he must have been stewing in his juices all this time.

TI, I have a request for dox. I want the exact references where this incredible consensus was reached. It would be nice if you could make a list of all the scientists working in the field. That Curry interview you wouldn't listen to mentioned that "Climate scientist" is a relatively new term, the last decade, so be sure to include those working in fields that study the subject but with their traditional name.

Second, I wonder if you have read the confounds on any of the studies you have looked at. This is the section in the conclusion where the scientists talk about all the confounds, that is, those things they cannot control. In complex systems such as weather, the confounds are profound so I am wondering if you are familiar with what the scientists themselves say about this.

Then, I would like the exact consensus you say these scientists have reached. By this I mean the exact wording showing the exact ideas this alleged consensus covers. The more specific, the better..

If you can't produce those dox and statements, then ya'll niggars are posting in a troll thread

I will take that further. Is it one of the most profoundly anti science phrases in the lexicon today. It does all those things you say, and it deliberately associates critics with Nazis.

It's brilliant internal PR, but the average person will look at that and wonder what the fuck is wrong with those people for talking like that. It works if you are a true believer, otherwise, it makes you look like an idiot who refuses skepticism and approves of confirmation bias, the very reason science exists.

AS I said, the most profoundly anti science phrase in use today.

This is not a troll thread. Other people have brought up the global warming thing.

I’m not going to pretend to be a climate scientist writing a review article because I’m not competent to do so.

I am not either BUT WHERE HAVE MY FUCKING COLD WINTERS GONE

For some claims the evidence is iffy and reasonable people may disagree. For others, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor or against.

People are skeptics when they say, “I will withhold judgment until someone shows me the evidence."

People are deniers when they pretend that the evidence is iffy when it actually is overwhelmingly in favor of some conclusion.

North America. Polar Vortex FTW.

Permafrost gone in canada , not coming back houses of the inuit collapsing

If you have evidence that contradicts the prevailing view, that is interesting to people and likely will mean that your paper will get published in a high impact factor journal.

But if you don’t have evidence and you go around saying that the many thousands of scientists working in fields related to climate, such as oceanography, forestry, ethology, atmospheric physics, organic chemistry, geology --if you say that all the work done by all these people in countries all around the planet for the past 50 years is corrupt, you will seem like a retarded moonbat.

The key thing is evidence. If you have it, you are good.

We have bugs here now that formerly stayed way the hell south like the tiger musquito or how it translates

Very good point. I will try to find some scientist saying something about the consensus.

Are you refering to 12,500 years ago ?

If you can’t back your claims and you’re in the middle of some politically hot issue, yeah you probably are going to suffer. That’s unfortunate because scientists need room to be a little speculative and creative in order to come up with new ideas.

But if you have evidence you are safe. Suppression of evidence is still a very uncool thing in science. If other people can double-check your findings somehow, you’re good.

You are right nothing to see here carry on

The same payed for Scientists that once helped the smoking industry are now paid for shills for the oil industry

There is zero openmindedness in America just corparate governance through the all (not so mighty anymore) dollar

Scientist in the US let themselves be .... in the ass for a cheap thrill of being on the frontpage of a science magazine

Because scientists are just like you and me. They want to understand what is really going on. They get mad and act like SPs sometimes, but usually with good reason. Just like when we have moonbats coming here and bringing up the same tired bs about 9/11 being an inside job or BigPharma trying to lower our IQs so the New World Order can take over. We don’t usually engage with that stuff. Often we just send it to the Thunderdome.

It is good to be open minded, but not so open minded your brains fall out.

We do have our little culture here that can sometimes suck us into error. For example, we recently had someone claiming Hubbard sexually abused one of his daughters. That kinda fits with our idea of Hubbard, who was pretty pervy. But to our credit, we asked for dox and there were none so that claim got no traction.

Why didn’t we just fall for that pedo claim about Hubbard? I think, in part, because we know that making claims we can't support can damage our credibility. So even though the claim, if believed, might help to end Scientology, we’re not going to embrace it because we don’t want to be accused of making shit up.

When people say that there exists peer pressure within science that is negative toward those who question climate change, they are probably right. But that bias may be based upon evidence and may be rational and appropriate. Still, you can get new evidence into the discussion if it really is new evidence. People love surprises.

Here is your consensus, bb. Nothing like what the Kochs say.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

Sure. But it’s hard to corrupt *all* the scientists working on some problem all around the world. Plus, the corruption is not likely to be in just one direction. Oil and coal producing countries are more likely to be biased toward minimizing concerns about global warming, while countries with strong green movements may have a bias in the other direction.

A paper presents evidence and relates it to what is already known. Good papers don’t stray too far from the evidence at hand. So my guess is, the papers that made no comment on the role of human CO2 production in global warming simply did not have enough new evidence in them relevant to that question specifically.

For example, if you’re studying growing seasons and noting that they’re getting longer in certain places, you say just that. You don’t add in stuff about how humans are causing the longer growing seasons and OMG we’re all gonna die.

Can somebody please come and change MY fucking climate.

The permafrost issue is pretty scary because it’s a positive feedback issue. A little warming triggering much more warming.

So even if we all decide that we just don’t know how much human CO2 production is impacting the warming process, it’s not a bad idea to try to cut back. How to do this, I can’t say. Moar telecommuting? Helping the 3rd world to Internet ASAP so they can skip industrialization and go right to info tech incomes? Tons more forests? I dunno.

That’s my impression.

The most interesting thing to me is, how some media outlets make it seem like scientists have diverse views and no real consensus. That is simply not true.