1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Nov 21, 2009.

  1. dsl987 Member

    Member Since:
    Apr 16, 2003
    (Scooby voice) Ruh - Roh !

    "Hottest October on record"

    Seems as though (yet again) another headline is based on flawed data.

    "The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running."


    The world has never seen such freezing heat - Telegraph
  2. Swamp Fox Veteran Member

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2000
  3. ethics Pomp-Dumpster

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2002
    And the whole thing is not political. /facepalm.

    Basically, if not for ANECDOTAL evidence and people going, 'huh'? This would not be even looked in to.
    Wait, so this TREMENDOUS SCIENTIFIC issue had it's holes poked by READERS? And then Scientists wonder why people don't believe them as much as they should.

    The whole thing is a farce. FARCE. And I blame all of the idiots who are making money off this and all the shills who jumped on their bandwagon. They should all be ashamed of themselves because this isn't about GW anymore, it's about scientific integrity.
  4. Copzilla dangerous animal

    Member Since:
    Nov 12, 2002
    Isn't it amazing that these scientists who insist that the readers just don't understand what they're looking at are the ones who are just getting *creamed* by those very same readers?

    All the "Chicken Little" shills just jumped right on the bandwagon, in the meantime slinging all manner of ridicule on people who simply said they weren't convinced. "Debate is over, GW is happening" is what they said, and now they're saying "The debate isn't over."
  5. joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2002
    You do realize that you're quoting from an op-ed essay that is over a year old, right? And that the correct data was released way back last year?

    And you know what the correct data indicate? That last year's October was not the warmest on record, true. It was the second warmest on record. And 2008 was the ninth warmest year on record--with all nine of the warmer ones occurring after the mid 1990's. (2009 is shaping up to be the fifth warmest year, with 2000-2009 easily the warmest decade) (and in fact, of course, individual months or even years are really not very relevant).

    You can keep throwing little bits of nonsense, but the facts, the data, are unquestionable.
  6. ethics Pomp-Dumpster

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2002
    It's as relevant as it were yesterday. Not sure why you think it's not.

    I don't believe it, I don't believe you nor the "science" that keeps coming up with these retarded data. What now? You can thank the politicization of GW.

    Like it was for 10/2008!!! LMAO! Keep praying to the idol of GW. It shall set you free, or something.
  7. joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2002
    Yes, it's clear. It's a very sad state of affairs. People who really should know better have just decided to "not believe" the facts. "I don't like it, I don't believe it, you can't persuade me otherwise, I know what I know and the evidence doesn't matter. Scientists are just bogus. They're all liars."

    Yes, I can blame the politicization, and yes, I do blame the deniers as well as the scientists for not doing a better job of communicating.

    But facts are facts. And the facts, the science, which demonstrate anthropogenic global warming are as solid and well-documented as the facts which support evolution, gravity, germ theory, etc., etc.

    Some science (evolution, climate change) gets this "I refuse to believe it" attitude--always because of politics or religion, not because of any flaw in the science itself.

    If only Carl Sagan were still alive. On the other hand, it's better that he isn't. This would distress him thoroughly. "I won't believe it because I don't want to believe it." The demon-haunted world, indeed. Science, the best candle we have in the darkness, is flickering low. Nearly extinguished by the powerful winds of ignorance, obstinance, and prejudice. And it's a terrible thing to see.
  8. ethics Pomp-Dumpster

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2002
    I am sorry but people didn't just "decide not to believe". There were plenty of flags raised initially as to questions, and then a tidal wave of assertions, and God forbid you question their science. It was politics more than science and it continues to be so. Much more so than before and of course, on both sides.

    Please don't wedge in Global Warming with Evolution. It's not even in the same boat, less mass of water.

    Let me present something that was very profound for me and it was not in an article, or a book, or a magazine, it was in an Amazon review of the book Denialism.

    And there's a wealth of issues just seeping out of that one review on a book. But I've highlighted in bold type the root of the problem for understanding as to the root of the issue pertaining to this thread.

    Facts don't mean squat, Joe, not when you are trying to sell something as huge as GW to the people YOU NEED to be onboard. But what you and the rest of the "academia" and science is doing is exactly what Carl Sagan (the irony) quelled, calmed, and tried to do it in a sense where he knew that people needed not to be bashed but to be sold. His selling is not the same as I've seen with Dawkins (even though I believe his theories on evolution the most), and others. I dare say there's been no scientist that has been forthcoming, a human being without the pomp and the air of authority who knows better.

    EVEN if GW is a fact -- and I don't agree it's there yet as far as Evolution is, no where near in fact -- it doesn't matter.

    Your side has failed and it continues to fail as a human being issue, especially on the education side (irony once again), without the arrogance, without the conceit.
  9. Arc Full Member

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2004
    I admire your patience and persistence.

    [Engage sarcasm mode]

    You simply don't understand though that there is good science and bad science. Good science is what comes from any scientist that says there is GW. Bad science is what comes from any scientist who disputes GW as preached regardless of the the credentials of the scientist or of the strength of the evidence they offer. (Not to mention the numbers of said scientists.) Naturally, if you are not a scientist or you dispute GW it is because you are too stupid to understand the difference between good science and bad science.

    [Disengage sarcasm mode]
  10. joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2002
    On the "side" of anthropogenic climate change, we have facts and truth and science. Attacked, unfairly and dishonestly, because of politics. I'm not talking about Al Gore (and anyone who does, obviously doesn't understand the issue in the slightest). I'm talking about the overwhelming, solid, fact-supported, scientific consensus. This is happening, it's caused by humans, and there is no serious or reputable scientific disagreement with that fact. There is plenty of room for debate and plenty of politics about what to do about it. But the fact that it's happening is not in any doubt by anyone who is knowledgeable or informed about the issue.

    If one doesn't understand (I won't say "agree with" or "believe," because facts don't need agreement or belief) that premise, he is really not even on an equal intellectual footing with people who have a right to discuss this--he is just bloviating.
    It's exactly the same. And you're probably right with some of your points--it's not worth arguing with people who don't care about facts and don't trust science. You're not going to convince them because their belief is not susceptible to evidence or rational argument. Just like creationists, just like moon-landing-conspiracy believers, etc. etc. It might be best to just ignore them.

    But the problem is that the know-nothings, the ones who reject fact and evidence, have an easier time arguing, and (more often than not) know that they can go ahead and make unfair arguments and appeals to ignorance and be more successful with those. "Common sense" is a very powerful argument, even (especially) when it's utter nonsense.
    This is a big truth. And a big problem.

    It is a fact, as much as evolution--and you may be right that that doesn't matter.

    It doesn't matter because most people decide based on ignorance, based on bias and opinion and uninformed ideas about what they would like to be true.

    And it's even worse that it doesn't matter because most people feel hostile, angry, when they are told that they don't know as much as people who actually have studied and worked and thought to achieve a degree of expertise, and who actually have a higher degree of native talent and intelligence and ability.

    Everyone is not above average. The average person's opinion is not as good as the experts'.

    It takes a great deal of intellectual maturity and security to understand and to recognize that there are people who are smarter than you are, who understand things that you don't, and to be able to evaluate and accept the authority of people who have earned and acquired that by ability and work and commitment.

    The average person doesn't think that an auto mechanic is arrogant or unfeeling just because he knows more about fixing cars. The average person doesn't think that his opinion about how to build a bridge is "just as good as" the opinion of an engineer.

    Yet "academics" and "scientists" are considered susceptible to the judgment and contradiction of people who don't have anything like the ability, experience, or knowledge it takes to come to the conclusions they have.

    I do agree that it's tough to reach people if you make them feel dumb, like you are talking down to them or like their opinions don't matter. But false humility, "dumbing-down," won't work either.

    And your analysis is omitting one crucial point. The people who are attacking the facts of climate change are intentionally, dishonestly, taking advantage of ignorance. They are pandering to an anti-intellectual trend, which is ultimately the most harmful and dangerous attitude in our society.

    Yes, the burden is high on the scientists, and no, they haven't always managed to rise to that burden. But the other side deserves to be contradicted, called out, ridiculed, treated with contempt. They are not only wrong, they are intentionally wrong--and intentionally working to keep people in ignorance and in danger--for political and economic reasons.
  11. LtC Dan No horse too dead to beat

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2009
  12. joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2002
  13. ethics Pomp-Dumpster

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Joe, did you ever hear of Cholesterol and High-Fat diets? From 1957 (look up Ancen Keys) till about 1992, the science, the facts, all pointed to what was killing Americans was high-fat diets, the Cholesterols, etc... Remember the whole Margarine movement? Mazola's "Listen to your heart" campaign?

    That was all science.

    Well, not really, because as Gary Taubes demonstrated in his awesome book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" what every research done on the matter, wasn't. Dissent was stifled. Dissent was not published (until --- thank GOD -- JAMA started going rogue), dissent was not heard of in the press. Know why? Because high fat diet was linked to American's consumption and in the world of Ethiopia's hunger, India's slums, it matched the ideology that we must cull high-fat diets from our eating habits and go... well GREEN!

    This whole GW movement not just reeks, there's plenty of fact, evidence, and research that points that we are not going in to what you are saying, with same vehemence as I.

    Joe, you can't side-step Gore. He won an Oscar, and is a huge part of the whole Global Warming awareness, education, and "science". You just can't say, "I chose this type of GW and not Al Gores's". They are one and the same, same root research, even same companies/organization that are trying to prove that this is all man-made.

    Yes, remember Margarine? People higher than yourself on the totem pole of specializing in this field said the same thing about that. Hey, everyone, let's substitute saturated fat with POLYsaturated fat and you can shed about 5mg of cholesterol (really matters, when you are looking at 260ml vs. 255 but a COMPLETE change of diet) while increasing our chances of all types of Cancers.

    Really? There's plenty of room for debate? In your own post, right after mine you write:

    If one doesn't understand that premise, he is really not even on an equal intellectual footing with people who have a right to discuss this--he is just bloviating.

    So much for that, eh Joe? But please, don't let me stop you on your podium. Do go on.

    And this is where you get it ALL wrong, sir. People DO care about facts, really do. They just don't care for the means it's being delivered. Science is all about dissent, it's the foundation of science. And yet, it's the Dark Ages of Christianity when it comes to dissent and Global Warming.

    You have no idea how many creationists are really aren't once I get to talk to them. We are all human, capable of good thought and when you present the topic without your nose in the air, you will be surprised what yields. Hell, most Creationists don't believe what you and I define as Creationism. But most people don't know that, because they don't communicate properly.

    Know-nothings? See? This is the root of the issue, Joe. There's not such a THING as a know-nothing. A know-nothing wouldn't survive anywhere in the world. Just because they don't specialize in GW does not mean they don't have a logical mind capable of reason. What you need to understand-- and I am shocked *I* am the one discovering the world to a professor -- DELIVERY of facts is most of the time more important than facts themselves. I am not knocking you, I am sure you know this already and what makes you a decent teacher. It's that sometimes we don't see the trees when we are looking at the forest.

    Bias takes root somewhere, but it's not permanent until you get them in to a corner and start bloviating (I love that word, can I use it since it's MUCH more applicable to the holier than thou?) about WHAT they need to think and HOW they need to think. God, nor evolution created the human being to be pomp-dumpsters of the arrogant.

    Agreed, and it takes a LITTLE deal of intellectual maturity and security to understand that when you try to shove things down people's throats you will be met with consternation. I can't believe how EASY that concept is that people of high IQ can't grasp this very simple thing?

    And yet, survey after survey about trust of mechanics tends to be at 40% level.

    Excuse me, but engineers are scientists, the same as those that build and architect bridges.

    I would absolutely LOVE for you to call up the Board of Ed and ask them if you can come in with that attitude, as a teacher, to an inner-city school. See how far that gets you. ;)

    Some do, sure. It didn't start with that though, it was started with when dissent was shouted down, threatened, and never published. Not unlike the entire Cholesterol scientific evidence.

    [IMG]

    WRONG approach!!! You will never get anywhere with that MO. You want people to buy in to the GW? Start treating them as people and not subjects, no matter what they are trying to do intentioanally or not. You will win most over because humans are curious, can reason, and apply independent thought.
  14. ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Member Since:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Leon, Joe's post did more to prove the points that you were making than any reason can possibly do.
  15. joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2002
    Nonsense. Gore is not a scientist (and the Oscar is not a scientific award), he has absolutely nothing to do with the science or the data. Not a bit. Yes, he made a movie (which put me to sleep, to be honest). Yes, he's done a lot in terms of popularizing and polemicizing. But that's not connected to the science or the facts. He has no involvement in any part of that. It's a red herring.

    I said there's plenty of room for debate about what to do about the problem. And I've never said anything to contradict that. That's an important discussion, and needs to be carried out with honesty and real information.

    If you don't understand that the problem is real and that it's human-caused, then you don't have any role in the discussion about what to do about the problem. I guess I didn't make that clear. The debate is perfectly valid (and completely essential) about solutions.

    There is no legitimate or rational debate about whether the problem is real and whether it's caused by human activity. Those questions are fully answered, with facts and data, fully-examined and openly questioned and thoroughly demonstrated.

    If you don't understand that we are experiencing anthropogenic global climate change (or if you understand it but dishonestly deny it, which is often the case), then you don't have a place in the essential debate about what to do about it. And doing nothing about it (or thinking that nothing can be done) is an argument that can be made. But nobody who tries to claim that the problem is non-existent or not anthropogenic has a leg to stand on to make any argument at all.

    Seems to me you're contradicting yourself. Who said "facts don't mean squat, Joe"? You did. I think the facts are all that matter--but unfortunately, for the average person, it's all about perception and sound-bite and biases, not about facts at all.

    I know that as well as you do--but I also know that, just as in this case, most people don't even take the time to think through what they're being asked or to look at the evidence and facts. Just as in this case, they hear convenient, ignorant, dishonest sound-bites like "no transitional fossils" or "water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas," and they just stop right there. That's sad, and it's common.
    Yes, there is such a thing. I was making a historical reference, because I think there's a very direct analogy between the bigotry and nativism of the know-nothing party and the bigotry and false populism of the climate-change-deniers. Perhaps the analogy was a bit strained--and I guess it was too obscure. But it's not just a made-up term, and the history of this kind of attitude in American (and other) cultures is worth remembering.

    I love "pomp-dumpster." Great phrase!

    Maybe you're forgetting. I've actually worked as a teacher in inner-city schools. You can't approach students as if they're dumb. It doesn't work. But you also can't let them think that uninformed opinions are just as valuable as informed, educated opinions.

    I thought I was the liberal humanist? :)

    On good days, I probably agree with you. But there are times when I think (like I believe you've said) that most humans are selfish, narrow-minded, want only to follow the easiest path, and will only think independently if they're very carefully coaxed and led and helped to do so.
  16. Swamp Fox Veteran Member

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2000
    Yes, but Joe, you didn't discuss the crucial issue of intent. The organization used the wrong data from the wrong months. That sound very suspicious to me, and it goes to their credibility. What do you say about that?


    OT - as for Sagan and his so-called Demon Haunted World, I'd like to start a debate on that with you and Leon, because I've been wanting to take a swing at him. Up to it, bud? :)
  17. joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2002
    It turned October 2008 from the second warmest on record to the warmest on record. Not terribly suspicious, especially because the mistake (and that's clearly what it was, no intent) was immediately found and fixed.
  18. Swamp Fox Veteran Member

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2000
    What about the scientists asking the American Physical Society to rescind it statement? That shows even scientists are concerned about the validity of GW, doesn't it?

    BTW, even if the scientists are right and the ignorant public doesn't understand that calculations, the scientists are still required to make public the raw data, assuming those scientists receive public funding. This is the essence of democracy, and ignorance is no reason to be denied access to information. IOW, I could believe in the flat earth society, but that's no reason for geologists to deny me data on oil drilling or whatever. Or to mislead me with incorrect information.

    You wanna discuss the Sagan and his ideology? :)
  19. joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2002
    No, not really. You're talking about five people. Just five. Four of them physicists, not climate scientists. And the fifth?

    Take a look:
    Let's make sure that when we say "scientists are asking," we be really clear about who it is doing the asking, eh?
    No, Swampy, not in this thread. I know how you get about skeptics and the paranormal and conspiracy theories. :)
  20. ethics Pomp-Dumpster

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2002
    And yet I've never seen the Left nor the Scientists who believe and want others to believe in GW, denounce him as you did above. Never. That's a huge problem and until something IS done, he will be fused with the entire movement. Hell, if I ask anyone on the streets of America who is the face of GW, do you honestly think Al Gore will not be above 50% margin?

    There's not enough schools, classes, and thinkers who NEED, hell, REQUIRE to teach that one mother of all philosophies. Discuss it to death and you will come to a conclusion that there's no such thing as a bad person. There ARE people who are more lazy than others, but each of us has life full of experience that molds us in to what we are today.

    I think The Song of Arbonne should be required (and fascinating) reading for all High-Schoolers.

Share This Page