IMHO what the poster did recently was not on subject but an ad hominem, and I have to agree that it only looks like what it was learned before was forgotten. As many of the ones that I deal with issue usually do. What you posted here actually shows that you are not honest to yourself:
I also commented in my post that it is ok to use consumer power and do recommended actions to reduce one’s carbon footprint, but as I explained and you acknowledged, it is not were the bulk of the change will come, we do have to accept some price to pay but it will not be as much as expected thanks to government regulations and the help of industry.
That now you forget what you said in the tread seems to be the usual, as it is the complete disconnect of how you do not tell many the whole history when Cohen and the scientists that work with him are mentioned, that they do accept the past work of people like Mann and many others that you despise. And they agree that the global warming observed is caused by humans.
FWIW, I admire the bloke and am damn glad he’s here to confront the misinformation that is being cited. Yes, he is repetitive…because the misinformation is re-posted repeatedly. He’s not the bad guy in this game.
I find the accusation of dishonesty offensive and it’s probably against the rules of this forum about lying, though that isn’t really my point. It implies that I intentionally omitted some relevant part of the conversation. I did not. I saw that dasilva94 asked a question about climate models that was irrelevant to the thread about weather and that reflected one of the standard denialist talking points misrepresenting climate models. I took that as being his mindset on the topic and did not read any further in the thread. So whatever else, your accusation of “dishonesty” is false regarding my intentions.
Now that I’ve read further, I find no further clarification. His response of “OK, I get what you’re saying” is meaningless. What does he “get”? No one in the intervening conversation even came close to explaining what he doesn’t understand about climate models. I assume he still doesn’t understand it. Since his problem with GIGO seems to be that he just doesn’t like what GIGO is saying – and finds it to be “haranguing” – I assume he’s still on the denialist side of things. Perhaps he’d like to come back and tell us what he actually believes, and why GIGO bugs him so much. And also to explain if he now understands the difference between climate models and weather models. Meanwhile I’d appreciate it if you would cease accusing me of personal dishonesty.
I cannot understand how, when discussing funding, talking about funding is nitpicking. The paper, which apparently I have understood and you haven’t, is one where the autor simply tallies up all the funding to conservative institutions who, among other things are part of CCCM. It is absolutley, 100%, unquestionably important to know how much of the tally actually goes to CCCM and how much goes to, say, anti-Obamacare. It makes a BIG difference if it is 1% or 75%.
We started this when I said “10x” and you challenged me to get the numbers. I got the numbers and now you say they are unimportant.
Your new link, from 2007, says that Exxon gave 16m in 8 years for CCCM. Really, 2m a year is not that much.
I make a difference between two types of CCCM
a) Those who believe that AGW is a real problema that can be solved but still, because of money/power, decide to fight against it. I have no respect for them
b) Those who have some issue with AGW (magnitude of forcings, for example) and try to promote that. I respect them.
For this thread, no. This thread is not about the science of AGW but about why individuals who say they believe and care about AGW do nothing about it. It’s not about those who profit from lying or are ignorant or don’t care. It’s about the wolfpups of the world, not the FXMs.
Whatever. When I don’t talk about science, I’m not afraid to say it, especially in a thread that is not about the science of AGW and in a reply about funding.
How can a tiny post on an anonymous board be anti-science? What scienctific principle have I attacked?
I completely agree that an article only saying “record high” is as misleading as one only saying only “record low”. My point of “reagardless” is not that the difference between arctic and antarctic ice is not relevant, it is. Again, it’s not the science what I’m complaining about, simply that only mentioning “record low” is misleading.
Since you lost the funding fight you now want a moral point.
You appear to be conceding that AGWers get much, much more money tan CCCM, you now want to say that theproblem is not the ammount of funding but that the funding exists. Again, I never made moral points on the funding. It’s not the scope of the thread nor of my reply. You can start a thread about the morality of the funding if you want to discuss that.
I’m sorry I called your shot and won when you thought you had it easy.
Sorry, but that’s what happens when you play with the big guys.
Of course when looking at the big picture, one wonders what was was the game you are playing.
As I pointed before funding is not my main point about why it “seems” that no one cares but what you claim is not as clear, for example the report from the government you cited tell us that:
As the thread is indeed about why “no one cares” it was shown already that that was not the case, but a lot of disinformation is driving a lot of the politicians in government right now, and most of the media is dropping the ball showing that indeed they are not liberal as many on the right always told us.
As far as I can see none of that money from government goes to fund politicians, nor environmental groups, a portion though goes to research and science.
But that is not what is driving a lot of the ones that claim that “nobody cares” and try to tell others that that is the way it should be.
A lot of why that is happening is because on the other side they fund media that looks the other way or that constantly denies the science, they fund politicians that work to prevent the EPA from being effective, work to prevent giving the real price to carbon emissions and then get in the way of deals with over nations too. They also give money to scientists that deliver papers that the politicians and the denier groups want to get and then advertise the crap out of it.
He’s constantly hounded by the same old group of full blown deniers who constantly (and hypocritically, if not shamelessly) trot out the same exact old tired fallacies and cliches, yet he’s the one who is doing all of the haranguing.
Getting back to the issue of the misunderstandings that cause people not to care about climate change…
This question is silly, and reveals a basic misunderstanding of scientific phenomena that are stochastic rather than deterministic in nature.
For example, if EPA inspectors determined that polluters were putting dangerous levels of known carcinogens into your local water supply, they wouldn’t be able to predict with confidence exactly who would get sick from them at exactly what times. But you wouldn’t say they were being “alarmist” about the increased cancer risk just because they couldn’t make such specific deterministic predictions.
It’s true that it’s very, very difficult to identify exactly what problems a very complex nondeterministic phenomenon is going to cause, or exactly what measures will need to be taken to cope with them. In the case of your hypothetical carcinogen-poisoned water supply, what will be the specific effects on the local economy? Will it collapse because everyone will move somewhere else? Will it need additional aid because of the number of people who are going to get sick, and if so, how much? Will there be enough additional cancer cases to require a new cancer clinic in the area? These are tough questions to answer.
But it’s not difficult to recognize that the core problem needs to be addressed by stopping the practice of putting dangerous levels of known carcinogens in the local water supply.
Anybody who insisted that we shouldn’t try to do anything to address the source of such a problem unless and until researchers could predict exactly what year we would start seeing disastrous consequences from the problem would be a fool.
Of course, the real question posited in the OP and that many are trying to skirt is why people who fully beleive in AGW and fully believe very bad things will happen and fully believe that we can do something about it end up doing very little in their personal lifestyles to mitigate AGW.
I doubt it. It’s a valid reason for not trusting, and not liking someone, if they are perceived as hostile. It actually can defeat any progress, if you are trying to persuade. Even when somebody is right, if they come across as an unpleasant and emotional, it turns people off.
Like that, calling people names, attributing motivations to them, it defeats your ability to be effective, if you actually are arguing a point.
It also avoids dealing with the issues. Like claiming the debate is over, rather than debating an issue. It might make you feel good, and smug, but it doesn’t do anything for your cause.
Like if that was not dealt with already several times in this thread. Just remember, it is good to use our consumer power and to do the recommended things to reduce one’s carbon footprint, but this idea of thinking that all proponents of change should be shamed to do something first is mostly an effort to avoid doing work for what the real big change that it is more effective and economical.
As many big past changes made by nations to deal with human refuse shows, it is by accepting a slight increase in our taxes and prices for services and products that a big difference is made.
That indeed means that all the people has to raise a stink with our congress critters, and demand a concerted effort that history shows it is more economical and effective for all.
Actually the subject is on the appearance that no one is caring, as pointed before that is not the case, and as even the **Aji **points, this is not a place to discuss the science, as explained many times before the basics of the science are well understood and agreed, climate scientists and many proponents are not assuming that the science is settled, this misses that it is the preponderance of evidence that should guide change and many indeed do talk about this, what you should not do is to pretend that the contrarians deserve the same treatment when the basics have been investigated already by skeptical groups.
And paraphrasing DeGasse Tyson, to give a proper legacy to our current and future generations, politics has to yield to science. And again, the current weakest link in all this are the Republicans in the USA and other conservative governments like in Australia.
Well, now, aren’t you just full of vicious rhetoric and over-the-top haranguing! You even reference known eco-agitator and general no-goodnik Neil DeGrasse Tyson, with his crudely inflammatory analogies! Finally, have you no shame, sir!
And just today we get another dose of warmist propaganda…
I have, actually, on occasion “played with the big guys” – that would be the occasional qualified scientist who actually knows something about the subject matter but who has chosen to stake out a position with the denialists or “skeptics”, generally for mercenary reasons. They sometimes raise challenging arguments and in the process of proving them wrong I might even learn something new.
Here are several ways I know that I’m playing with the big guys:
they actually understand basic scientific facts and they don’t confuse Arctic sea ice with Antarctic sea ice, or otherwise reveal that they have no idea what they’re talking about,
they actually understand the basic scientific process and they don’t confuse the funding of scientific research with the funding of political front groups and lobbyists, or hilariously try to convince someone that they are exactly the same thing,
they don’t dismiss the consensus of national science academies as “irrelevant to the discussion” because they actually know what these organizations are and what they do, and
they don’t, after committing these basic blunders, give themselves a medal for their imagined brilliant argumentation!
Since I never confused them I have nothing to say on that. You, on hte other hand, confused what I wanted to say with what you wanted me to say.
I understand it and waaaaaay more than you, but I also don’t confuse accounting with climate science so, when discussing accounting I stick to that. Those without arguments shift the debate.
I will, again, repeat my suggestion that, if you want to discuss AGW qua AGW (and not about the personal changes of lifestyle people do or don’t do in the face of climate change) open as thread or join the one in the pit.
See previous answer.
Maybe they don’t but you do and plenty.
And, of course, you avoid the real deal of this threas. I’ll quote myself
Is that really such a puzzling question? Heck, there are people who fully believe their own doctors who tell them that very bad things will happen to their health if they don’t change their eating/exercise/drug use/whatever, but nonetheless end up doing very little to change the habits that are hurting them.
I don’t think you really need much of an explanation beyond “human nature” to answer the question of why people frequently do things that they know are bad for them.
Climate change is also largely an “externalized costs” situation, where most of the people in the developed world who are making the largest impact on climate are not likely to be the first or worst sufferers from the eventual effects of climate change. And even in the developed world, no one individual is making a significant enough impact on the climate that their individual mitigation measures would really make a detectable difference.
A similar situation arose with the chloroflurocarbons that were found to deplete the ozone layer in the atmosphere back in the 1970’s. Some individual consumers stopped buying aerosol sprays with ozone-depleting CFCs, and some companies voluntarily stopped manufacturing them, but there were still lots of CFCs around. It took concerted large-scale high-level policy agreements, such as the Montreal Protocol, to make a globally significant difference in mitigating ozone depletion.
Oh well, seems that Aji de Gallina is ignoring many of the posts that answered his self quote already. But the only result is to show all that ignoring others is just a very underwhelming move.
How many corporations do I own? How many diesel tractors? Hey, kid, I’ve done my part and more: I don’t own any big diesel tractors. I also turned off my backyard coal-burning electric generator, and I sold my fleet of passenger jet aircraft.
This is the same old “Al Gore lives in a big house” crap. It’s an ad hominem fallacy. The science must be wrong because those who believe in it live a particular lifestyle.
I’m quite serious when I say you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground about statistics or sales trends. 1st quarter car sales in general are trending up except for electrics which are trending down.
