Atheists and climate change

Great Debates
61

Remember the late '60s early '70s when the consensus was that we’d be waist deep in sewage breathing from oxygen tanks about now? As doomy and gloomy as any climate change today, maybe more so, but while there was some resistance, it was not nearly as organized. I think that was because there was a Republican president who more or less got it, so deniers didn’t have a home. Maybe the random river catching fire helped, but we have plenty of examples of climate change happening today. The predictions did not come true, but I think most people get it is because we changed our ways, not that they were bogus.

Not gloomy and doomy, to be sure. I was addressing the idea that we don’t trust predictions made by people working at levels above what we get.

I grew up not far from the center of Manhattan, every so often practicing hiding under my desk. Climate change ain’t half as threatening as that.
While it is true that we’ll have to change, it is not much for the average person. How affected are we by scrubbers or carbon markets?
The average person has a choice of experts to believe in. You’d think they’d choose the majority opinion, but they seem to choose the experts endorsed by the politicians or news people they believe in. Those are the people who stand to gain by denial, so perhaps the expediency is at one remove.

I agree atheism has little to do with it. Nor religion, actually, some evangelical churches are coming out for environmentalism.

62

I may have maligned Jesus - I don’t think there is evidence that he was nearly so much of a literalist as some of his followers. When I went to Hebrew School no one tried to teach me that creation happened like it said in Genesis - that and the “history” (beginning with Abram) were quite separated.

63

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Remember the late '60s early '70s when the consensus was that we’d be waist deep in sewage breathing from oxygen tanks about now? As doomy and gloomy as any climate change today, maybe more so, but while there was some resistance, it was not nearly as organized. I think that was because there was a Republican president who more or less got it, so deniers didn’t have a home. Maybe the random river catching fire helped, but we have plenty of examples of climate change happening today. The predictions did not come true, but I think most people get it is because we changed our ways, not that they were bogus.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, and the population bomb. And silent spring. And all the scary nuclear power stuff. I agree, there are plenty of examples of real, actual global climate change occurring, especially if you are paying attention to stuff like the coral reefs, shrinking glaciers and polar caps and (though this part isn’t as accurate from what I understand, since it’s more a short term verse long term trend…so far) the extreme weather we’ve been having lately. Like I said, I believe it’s only a matter of time before the public DOES come around to accepting that it’s happening and that we are a major factor. They just have to get over the hump of knee jerk disbelief because supposed wacky environmentalists are putting this forward as yet another in a long line of ecological disasters that are going to end civilization and the American way. Once pubic opinion really shifts then it won’t matter how complex the science is…people will just believe and leave it at that. This sort of thing can have a down side, as with nuclear energy (once public opinion shifted it’s nearly impossible to get it back), but in this case it might pan out well when it does happen. A couple more crazy ass weather years like the last few ought to do the trick.

Have you watched some of the gloom and doom shows on climate change on cable or satellite TV? It’s plenty scary when they start talking about new ice ages or mega-storms and hundreds of feet of flooding, submerging all of the major cities in coastal areas (including, sadly, Manhattan). Even if you just go by the real predictions by sober scientists it’s pretty scary.

The killer here is the uncertainty factor. No one really knows what it would cost. Again, you listen to some of the more hysterical shows and people have to stop driving their cars and using their electrical devices TOMORROW OR WE ARE ALL DOOMED™!! :eek: In real world terms, I DO think it would be costly to the average westerner/American…which is why countries aren’t doing well with the Kyoto Protocols, and aren’t fully engaging in them unless everyone does it. Because it makes them less competitive with countries that ignore it and continue on business as usual. This is all assuming we want real, significant change, of course. Such change IS going to be economically painful…and the deniers have used this to manipulate the general public’s attitudes towards all of this. It’s a seductive combination…play on peoples ignorance on the subject, and the fact that it’s technically complex…play on the constant wolf crying we’ve been hearing about environmental stuff for decades now…then play on their fears of real economic impacts and substantial lifestyle changes that would be necessary to effect real, significant change. And presto-chango…you have the current impasse. No atheists needed, but here is a nice ceramic dog as a parting gift.

Yep. I think the fear BY atheists about prejudices from a mostly apathetic public ABOUT atheists is way overblown. I know that I’ve never had the persecution or even interest by theist types that some on this board claim to have suffered through, and I’ve been pretty firmly agnostic/atheist since my 20’s. Even my own (hugely Catholic) family don’t really care all that much…and you ain’t seen real religion (unless you are a black southerner) until you’ve see Catholic Hispanics! :wink:

-XT

64

'twas a bad day for us all when Rupert Murdoch fled Australia.

65

Interesting article in Today’s Globe and Mail.

If anyone does try to tie atheism and science together to try to sow doubt about climate change - then this particular scientist would be a good example to refer to.

She’s taking quite a bit of flak for her message though:

I think this is an interesting take she has on the climate deniers;

66

Your parenthetical is, as it happens, the key to my changing views on the subject: I kept hearing experts on television get asked – at the end of a cold winter, or after an unusual amount of snowfall, or following a year-long decline in the number of hurricanes, or whatever – whether global warming was thereby disproved. Of course not, they’d reply; that’s short-term weather, not long-term climate.

They’d restate this in any number of ways, but not once did I hear 'em spend five seconds mentioning what would disprove it; only ever that, no, what we’re seeing isn’t yet enough. I therefore treated their predictions as on a par with astrology rather than astronomy; I didn’t care whether they were lapsed Catholics or practicing Jews, whether they were outspoken atheists or born-again Christians; I disregard the claims of anyone who shoots down such objections without going that extra step.

As I didn’t much care about the issue, it was a long while before I asked here about global-warming predictions; GIGO obliged with an answer; I don’t happen to know his religious beliefs, and, again, didn’t care; he showed it was entirely falsifiable, and so I reversed my approach: treating 'em like predictions in astronomy rather than astrology.

I don’t know why folks on television clam up right at the key part. I merely note (a) that they do, and (b) that it strikes people like me – well, as religion, I suppose.

67

I somehow doubt they really said that, because climate change is not only about things getting warmer, it is about more extremes in weather - so a series of record-breaking cold winters supports it, not falsifies it. But it is also true that trends cannot be determined from single events, so you’d need to look at hurricane number and strength over several years. They also probably would say that one very hot summer does not prove global warming either. This is how statistics works.

68

Oh, sure; I’ve also heard them say it that way as well. And, again, without the quick follow-up about what would falsify it.

But I’ve heard the other claim as well – word for word, “short-term weather, not long-term climate” – still without the quick follow-up about how long a term would shift it over from short-term weather to long-term climate. I’ve heard the flat statement of insufficiency expressed in any number of ways from experts on television, but never yet with the follow-up about what sort of evidence would suffice.

I agree; they probably would.

69

A series of record breaking warm winters also supports it, not falsifies it.

70

Yes. An unprecedented series of record breaking warm winters supports the hypothesis that there is a huge cycle of climate change occuring. An unprecedented series of record breaking cold winters also supports the hypothesis that there is a huge cycle of climate change occuring.

71

And wouldn’t a second ice age would support that hypothesis likewise? It wouldn’t support the prediction of “global warming,” but it’d sure be “climate change.”

72

Of course, since I was only responding to the words typed in this thread. Why would you think I wasn’t?

73

Why would you think I thought otherwise? I agreed entirely with what you wrote, and merely wanted to add a further point – which you seem to agree is ‘of course’ correct.

74

On the last sentence, one has to say: not quite, but close.

Some want to make the “cold winters should not happen if proponents of global warming are correct” argument, but just taking a look at the very cold days the USA (in many cities) can get shows how silly the idea is: 18 degrees Fahrenheit or -8 degrees centigrade (and even colder) winter days can be seen. The best estimates of what we can get before the end of the century, if nothing is done with our emissions, is that a 3 degree Celsius rise in temperature, plus or minus 1.5 degrees, is coming; as one can see, not enough to prevent harsh winters.

Unfortunately, more energy and water vapor is also getting into the atmosphere thanks to global warming, and that energy has to go somewhere (it is likely that the number of tornadoes and hurricanes will be just about the same as always, but more powerful). That goes for places that get lots of precipitation and water vapor; at the same time, the earth and the USA does not have the same weather in all locations, places that get less water on average will get less in a warming world.

75

But those claims are entirely separable, right? In years to come, there may be “global warming” even as hurricanes and tornadoes get weaker and fewer – because, regardless of frequency or power, the “warming” prediction will be falsified only if the temperature fails to rise by the specified tenths of a degree per decade?

76

Well, you are not going to get an easy answer on this specific item, most papers published do point out that hurricanes and tornadoes are a wild card, There seem to be evidence though that an increase is possible. One item that has been mentioned is that as temperature increases, wind shear also does, and that helps limit the formation of hurricanes. It seems that on this item researchers are at a similar level of the ones investigating ice loss 6 years ago, back then it was such a wild card that on the previous IPCC report they punted on the possible acceleration of the ice loss from the poles and Greenland, so their estimation on the future increase of the ocean level is deemed now to be very, very conservative.

The problem here is that there is not much agreement on the number of hurricanes or tornadoes thanks to factors that tend to reduce the number of hurricanes like wind shear, but there are more that agree that once a hurricane or tornado comes, it will be stronger and with more water to cause an increase in damage that it do thanks to a warming world. As mentioned, some very important research groups are leaning toward not only an increase of strength, but also an increase in their numbers.

As for the overall warming prediction, as mentioned many times before, one has to go to fantasy land to find a place where there will be a good chance to see it become falsified. (It can be falsified, but it is very very unlikely as 60 or more years of research has shown.)

77

As to how unlikely it is that we’ll see 20 years without warming, I can’t say. I merely note that, upon hearing that said 20 years would falsify it, I can’t imagine caring whether the guy making that prediction believes in three gods or one or none.

But, again, the opposite would be irrelevant, right? Just as both colder winters and warmer ones are compatible with the predicted tenths-of-a-degree-per-decade rise, neither an increase nor a decrease in hurricanes and torandoes would count against the claim? (And, as with dwindling numbers, so too with dwindling strength?)

78

And, as we are dealing with how a science reporter would deal with this, the reality is that deniers have grabbed this 20 years item and do make a lot of hay and imply that we have to wait for 20 more years to prove it, this also implies that we have to wait also to do something about it. But this is only possible now by going into a fantasy land where the previous tests and falsifiability of the predictions were never made.

To explain this properly it requires a longer explanation and that would really kill the effort as usually by then the average reader or viewer looks for something else.

So, the 20 years item really goes without saying in regular reports of this, because once it is mentioned an even longer note is needed to set the record straight to avoid giving an opportunity to denialist propaganda and to avoid glazed eyes from regular viewers.

There are reasons why the 20 year to falsify item is not usually mentioned, because the ones that know the score already did test and attempted to falsify this for more than 60 years, ever since the 50’s and Dr. Plass, the idea that AGW was coming was beginning to be accepted and by the end of the 70’s most scientists reported that already more than 20 years had confirmed what many predicted earlier, 20 years more has confirmed it (circa 1995), now almost 20 years after that confirmation we hear that we have to wait 20 more…

Well, the problem is that it is not from researchers and scientists that we get that fantasy advise, and as pointed out before, independent statisticians that looked at the data alone reported that it was dishonest for deniers to tell us to ignore the previous confirmations and trend and concentrated just on the very recent years to claim that we have to wait more to falsify this.

Again, colder winters are not exactly what the scientists expect, they do expect them but a few degrees up than the current average, less of them but when they do, it is expected for them to pack more material put in them thanks to a warming world. Scientists have plenty of evidence to report that this is very likely to happen in the near future, with more droughts and flooding depending on your location. As for tornadoes and hurricanes, (One gets the impression that many skeptics and deniers act as if problems like longer droughts that are more likely to come are not enough) they are just something that has to be taken into account IMHO, but as we have to stick with science it is not good enough to have evidence that points to just hints that hurricanes and tornadoes will not only become worse, but that there will be more of them in the future. A more likely prediction of the numbers that we will get in a future warming world can not be made as I see many reports concluding that there is more research to be done in this area.

79

You think they don’t say it’d take 20 years to disprove it – because they don’t want to imply it’ll take 20 years to prove it? Look how perfectly it sets up the following:

Bang. Done. Took you less than a sentence, and yet makes the argument twice as strong. You should be on television.

You seem entirely capable of explaining it in no time flat; it seems inconceivable that the folks on television can’t doubly make their case likewise.

80

But you should not, and me neither, as they will tell you that even those few seconds will take time away for the latest “head on” (apply directly to the forehead, apply directly to the fore head… ugh!) homeopathic head pain killer.

Heh, I’m afraid you don’t know how they use the word “inconceivable” in TV land.. :slight_smile: