Another thing I meant was, and this thing is probably bigger than the above two, you shouldn’t have to “trust” anybody when it comes to a scientific subject.
Such as AGW. As long as I’m not mentally retarded, I should be able to understand any a priori argument you throw at me about this matter, and you should, if you know this topic from head to toe and have concluded that AGW does indeed exist, be able to give me that argument. It shouldn’t matter whether you’re a scientist in the pay of a famous university, or merely a layman interested in meteorology; that argument should be comprehensible, and the same (assuming you believe the same theory, of course).
Here’s a situation where trust is vital: “I love you, dear. Do you love me too?”
And another: “Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins. Go and spread the Good News.”
Matters like “CO2 is opaque to IR and therefore the subsequent warming of the Earth will cause the oceans to rise by 10 ft within the next decade” should not have anything to do with the concept of “trust”.
First things first, you are aware that many other studies also found those super majority consensus numbers among researchers and the published science?
Wait, the OP is trying to claim “science” for the denial side and “trust” for the AGW side? It’s weird even to type that, it’s so backwards.
PBS should do that program. You are correct, OP! Unfortunately, the PBS of our youth is gone. Defunded! The new monster that wears its face works for the same Koch Foundation that has funded the denialists. Corruption has kept that show off the air.
As a matter of fact, the ombudsman for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting received many complaints about the Koch connection and its influence on program content, including science programs like Nova: http://www.cpb.org/ombudsman/display.php?id=207
As for the OP, he seems to be on a mission of denial rather than learning. There is no shortage of basic information at all levels of interest, one has only to look. One can buy a textbook, or read the IPCC reports – and if those are too long or detailed, one can read the technical summaries, and if that’s still too long, one can read the SPMs (Summary for Policymakers). There are many reports from many national academies. The National Academy of Sciences recently published a booklet called Climate Change: Evidence and Causes which covers exactly the kinds of basics the OP claims to be looking for. There’s no excuse for ignorance.
Well, this is one case where were the ignorance is going both ways.
The OP is wrong, PBS NOVA did the show in 2000 (!) many denier sites out there do count on the shows not being available anymore to confuse their readers.
But PBS keeps a record of the contents and the sites they created for the shows:
Whats up with the weather?
Since the show was from 2000 (!) only excerpts are available:
(The point of the show was that indeed global warming was going to be a big problem and alternate sources of energy are suggested. The good news is that currently alternative energy is getting better and cheaper)
It has been noticed in the FAIR media watchdog group that ever since the Kochs began to fund NOVA a lot, then the documentaries on the subject have almost disappeared, but there are a few; the recent documentaries on the issue seem that they are not titled in a way that it would be easy to look for. (Or are the NOVA creators trying to prevent the Kochs from not looking at what they are really making? :dubious: )
Yes, they did called it "**Extreme Ice**" (2015) (sounds like a sports documentary) but that title now seems inappropriate as the main subject does deal with how climate change is accelerating the cap ice loss in Greenland, Antarctica and the majority of the glaciers on the mountains of the earth.
I support this Pitting. I’ve never understood string theory so I assume it’s all hoodoo. For that matter, I barely understand Minkowski space. Until someone posts a YouTube that even I can understand about Minkowski space, tensors, etc. I’ll think Einstein’s General Theory is some sort of fraud.
Several months ago Napier asked a question about a particular heat transfer equation and got no response. Just for practice I went Googling, found the equation in several textbooks, but never with its derivation. Setting up the differential equations seemed like far too much work for rusty me. Thanks to OP, I’ve now decided that heat transfer equation was just another fraud.
If you haven’t found these arguments, you haven’t been looking or you are too biased and/or ignorant to understand them.
Have you looked into the work of the Berkely Earth group? Richard Muller felt the scientific AGW skeptics had some valid criticisms and started an independent group to address them. They got broad funding from both presumed skeptical funders and others. So far they’ve concluded taking the valid criticism into consideration does not significantly alter the conclusions.
There are 349 members of the Swedish parliament as AFAIK there are zero climate deniers among them. Even the conservative government we just had for 8 years made a point of putting it on the agenda. The debate is always about what actions to take, not whether it is happening or whether humans are involved.
Ironically the blogpost that you quoted is about how embarrassing the remaining “lobby” of climate skeptics are, and how they in a letter to the government is accusing the them of Stalinism. The title of the post translated to english would be “Climate skeptics embarrass themselves”.
Among the 8 political parties represented in the parliament every one of them has policies based on the fact that the climate is changing and that it depends on human activity. The least progressive is of course the right wing anti-immigration party, but even they accept that it is happening. Their policy is mainly about how Sweden should not have to do so much about it considering how environmentally aware we already are, and pointing out that a warmer climate is actually beneficial for us (which is actually a good point).
There are people in Sweden who believe in chemtrails or that a foreign planet is on collision course with Earth. That does not mean they are a part of the real debate or that their opinions are taken seriously. This political issue is resolved for all intents and purposes.
But you didn’t comment “You guys are STILL debating this issue…?” on a political debate somewhere. You commented on a two post long thread on an internet forum, and you probably don’t know exactly where the two posters involved are from.
As far as your AFAIK goes, nearly 15 % of the Swedish parliament belong to a party that does it best to tap dance around acknowledging they disbelieve the IPCC, just like they tap dance around all their other indefensible positions:
From Swedish, my translation:
I have noted that there are groups like that, but in many countries they can be dismissed. The biggest influence they have is AFAIK is in places like the USA, Australia and others.
They are still wrong. And the latest research and data shows that indeed they are being relegated to the same column as creationists by groups that investigate pseudoscience in general.
Ok, so your point if i understand it correctly is that a party that got aprox 13% of the vote in the last election is “tap-dancing” around the issue. And that this would mean that there is not a super solid consensus on the issue?
On their own website they have suggestions on how to reduce the impact on climate from food transports, for example. This is the most reactionary party in Sweden, and their position is basically “Well… we don’t think WE should have to do TOO much about it because it’s really not our fault. We think China and the others should do it.”
Seriously, I don’t understand what you’re trying to argue here. The political consensus regarding whether climate change is real and caused by humans is 100%. And even if the most reactionary party in Sweden actually did not come down on that side, which they do, there would still be an 87% vs 13% majority which in itself would be enough to say that the issue is well past decided.
Good question. I don’t know. Almost half of the US population seems to think that the Earth was created 6-10.000 years ago and that pumping pollution into the atmosphere can’t change the atmosphere.
What can be done? I don’t know. For some reason you seem to have ended up with a large part of your population being idiots, my guess is that it stems from problems with the system of education, and you may want to reform that. Not sure what can be done in the mean time, but for your and everyone else’s sake I think it would be best if you could keep them away from the decision making apparatus. I think just plain out saying “We’re sorry, but you’re idiots and we can’t afford to listen to you any more so we are just going to go ahead and do this whether you like it or not.” It’s not like these idiots are going to change their mind by talking, so why waste energy doing that?
No, my point is that your first contribution in this thread was worthless, devoid of necessary context and dismissive about a vague and unspecified group of “you guys”. I further assumed that “the rest of the world” at least contained Sweden as a core and posted evidence that you still have climate deniers around. When you then specified the political arena, quaint though it is to do so when you originally commented on two people of unspecified profession on a messaging board, I posted evidence that indicate the Swedish parliament has climate deniers as well, even if they pretend they aren’t.
But as this is a complete derail from the actual topic of the thread, except insofar as you’re inadvertently supporting the points the OP thinks he has against AGW consensus by using the state of Swedish politics as an argument in what is framed as a scientific discussion, I’m going to butt out.
I think what he’s suggesting is that there is no real debate here, and the facts have been discussed many times in many threads here with countless cites given, and all to no avail with those who are not interested in the facts. And I agree that this pretty much sums up the situation. Unless there is some specific new technical point that someone wants to discuss, all the basic science and all the denialist babble have already been extensively discussed in these threads.
Case in point is the OP. The OP post is just a cut-and-paste of what was already posted here, and responded to in that thread. The point seeming to be that the OP for some reason doesn’t trust the scientists who study climate science and the OP wishes to understand it himself. I’ve already told him how he can do so. So have several others. The recently published free booklet from the National Academy of Sciences sounds like just what he was asking for.
Perhaps he will come by and say thanks, and he’s read it and now understands climate change better. What do you suppose the chances are of that ever happening? My betting is that it’s more likely he starts another pointless turd of a denialist thread somewhere else.
It doesn’t help that just last Friday Rick Santorum infested my favorite show, Real Time with Bill Maher, and spewed more anti-science nonsense. It was complete garbage but I don’t have the time or inclination to go into it now. Suffice to say that it was annoying and so misleading as to be intellectually offensive.
That is true, my initial comment was coming from a place of high annoyance and not very constructive.
Yes this is exactly it. The issue has been discussed to death and all the evidence is out. Those that still want to deny it are not relying on or interested in facts, that much is obvious.
What is also obvious is that this is essentially a global issue that decides our living standard over the next generations, and is for many people a question about survival. To put it bluntly, the US and China are pretty much threatening to kill a big part of the world and have a large and mainly negative impact on the rest. In defense of China, their average emissions per capita is actually quote low, they just happen to have a huge population. The US on the other hand has more than 4 times as much emissions per capita as China (and 3 times as much as Sweden) and are still at the stage of ”debating” whether there is anything happening at all. Except it’s not even a debate because one side is completely uninterested in looking at the facts and seem to be compromised of mainly two types of people. Those stupid and paranoid enough to think it is a ”hoax” and those who’s financial interests are threatened because they happen to be the SOURCE of the problem. I doubt idiots, conspiracy theorists and oil barons are going to change their mind and I would appreciate it if the non-idiots who does seem to have a majority actually do something about it before everyone is fucked. By still thinking it is a ”debate”, you’re just wasting time, which is another resource that is pretty scarce. It’s not a debate, the issue is settled. The real debate now is ”What do we do about it?”. Don’t let the retards set the agenda.
Thank you Lightnin’ and GIGObuster for your links, which for reference may also be found on grude’s “Is the doom and gloom environmental movement another expression of moral/religious anxiety?” thread in the “In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)” forum. I’ll be sure to check them out.
PS Thanks for not continuing to hijack grude’s post. (See my “the Jupiter effect [Hijacking threads on hot-button issues]” thread in the “About This Message Board” forum for more info.)
My betting is that it’s more likely he starts another pointless turd of a denialist thread somewhere else.