• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Right’s Climate Change Shame

ataraxia said:
Anyone who knows anything about science knows that quoting a single scientist is not proof of anything, even if they have a Nobel prize. Individual scientists, no matter how accomplished, are still human, and so subject to bias, foibles, and eccentricities.

Isaac Newton spent more time on alchemy than on gravity and calculus. Albert Einstein was famously suspicious of quantum mechanics. Linus Pauling thought that vitamin C was the cure to everything. James Watson seemed to dabble in genetic theories of racial disparities in intelligence. They were all wrong.

I thought you knew how science worked.
Click to expand...

What's up with these old retired pet physicists opining outside their field of expertise? Sad really.

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Old Pet Physicists

Physicicts.jpg
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
There is unanimous agreement among all scientific organizations in the world that human activity is involved and plays a very significant, if not majority role. . The level of damage depends on how high we let it go. Since you seem to be so well read in the subject, how come you don’t know this? Quote one formal statement from any relevant scientific body that says otherwise.
Click to expand...

Scientific bodies do not form consensus, a consensus is a large portion of a group agreeing to something. For AGW the consensus
Is that it has warmed over the last century, and that human activity is likely involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
longview said:
Scientific bodies do not form consensus, a consensus is a large portion of a group agreeing to something. For AGW the consensus
Is that it has warmed over the last century, and that human activity is likely involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes. And another part of the consensus is that the consequences of this are too dangerously unpredictable to play with.
 
ataraxia said:
Anyone who knows anything about science knows that quoting a single scientist is not proof of anything, even if they have a Nobel prize. Individual scientists, no matter how accomplished, are still human, and so subject to bias, foibles, and eccentricities.

Isaac Newton spent more time on alchemy than on gravity and calculus. Albert Einstein was famously suspicious of quantum mechanics. Linus Pauling thought that vitamin C was the cure to everything. James Watson seemed to dabble in genetic theories of racial disparities in intelligence. They were all wrong.

I thought you knew how science worked.
Click to expand...

Yes, As one of those scientists once said, one is enough if they are right.
 
ataraxia said:
Yes. And another part of the consensus is that the consequences of this are too dangerously unpredictable to play with.
Click to expand...

Which are so dangerous that nobody, you included, can actually detail how any of them would actually effect negatively any place on earth anybody lives in.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yes, As one of those scientists once said, one is enough if they are right.
Click to expand...

Wait, I don’t understand what you are saying here. You are saying all it takes is one dissenting scientist to make any scientific consensus wrong?
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
Which are so dangerous that nobody, you included, can actually detail how any of them would actually effect negatively any place on earth anybody lives in.
Click to expand...

They have detailed many of the possibilities. Many of those things, like increased frequency and severity of heat waves, rising sea levels, more severe weather patterns like hurricanes, are already starting to happen. They have also acknowledged that some of the complications maybe unexpected.

Here is what NASA has to say about it:
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/


It’s like scientists saying that eating too much sugar and fat is high-risk behavior and can lead to some potentially bad things. Will it be a heart attack? Will it be a stroke? Will it be kidney failure? Will it be debilitating arthritis due to being overweight? Hard to say for an individual patient . The best the science can do is tell you it is at high risk to lead to those things. Which will it be? Or will it be all of them? Hard to say. Stay on this track, and you will find out for yourself.

You feeling lucky?
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
They have detailed many of the possibilities. Many of those things, like increased frequency and severity of heat waves, rising sea levels, more severe weather patterns like hurricanes, are already starting to happen. They have also acknowledged that some of the complications maybe unexpected.

Here is what NASA has to say about it:
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/


It’s like scientists saying that eating too much sugar and fat is high-risk behavior and can lead to some potentially bad things. Will it be a heart attack? Will it be a stroke? Will it be kidney failure? Will it be debilitating arthritis due to being overweight? Hard to say for an individual patient . The best the science can do is tell you it is at high risk to lead to those things. Which will it be? Or will it be all of them? Hard to say. Stay on this track, and you will find out for yourself.

You feeling lucky?
Click to expand...

So pick a place and we can discuss it. How can it be so hard if you actually believe in what you are saying?
 
Tim the plumber said:
If they can show why and show how. Yes.
Click to expand...

The AGW sceptics have thus far failed to do so. And not for want of incentive; any scientist who could convincingly demonstrate that AGW is not real or serious would be an instant millionaire, courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.
 
Surface Detail said:
The AGW sceptics have thus far failed to do so. And not for want of incentive; any scientist who could convincingly demonstrate that AGW is not real or serious would be an instant millionaire, courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.
Click to expand...

I hope you can see that is exactly the same as demanding that somebody prooves God does not exist.

It is also not the challenge I put.

Take a particular place, and a particular problem and lets see what trouble it will cause.
 
[FONT=&quot]Climate News[/FONT]
[h=1]The Heartland Greenpeace Business Report[/h][FONT=&quot]By Andy May An intriguing report on the Greenpeace business model and philosophy has just been published by the Heartland Institute and can be downloaded here. The report was researched and written by Dr. Michael Connolly, Dr. Ronan Connolly and Dr. Imelda Connolly all of Ireland, Dr. Patrick Moore of Canada is one of the…
[/FONT]
 
Tim the plumber said:
If they can show why and show how. Yes.
Click to expand...

But then every single scientific idea would have to get thrown out, including that the Earth is not flat. Are you ready for that?

The psychology of why people, perhaps even some scientists, get into this kind of conspiracy thinking, is very interesting. Here is an interesting article probing some of the reasons:

"According to psychologists, conspiracy theorists often feel they’re somehow special: whereas the majority of the population has fallen for a false rhetoric, a conspiracy theorist has risen above it. “They have this special knowledge, this special insight,” French tells me. When the community comes together, views are mutually reinforced, and the world becomes explainable, if not entirely secure.

Isn’t that dangerous? “Believing in the Flat Earth theory isn’t really dangerous in itself,” says Mike Marshall of the Good Thinking Society, a pro-science organisation, after the convention. “But Flat Earthers tend to believe in other conspiracy theories, too.” He means the “anti-vaxxer” movement, particularly, whose subscribers reject conventional medicine as false or unnecessary, sometimes with disastrous consequences and most often to the detriment of children. This “special insight” that French talks about, is a denial of the expert view, of years of scientific progression: the world was created divinely, evolution is nonsense, vaccinations are harmful, news is fake.

“And the thing about conspiracy beliefs is that they’re kind of non-falsifiable. There’s no piece of evidence that could convince someone they’re wrong, because any evidence that does suggest they’re wrong has obviously been put there by the conspirators. In the case of the Flat Earth, that would be the scientific community.”"

www.theguardian.com/global/2018/may...e-flat-earthers-conspiracy-theories-fake-news
Click to expand...
 
Tim the plumber said:
So pick a place and we can discuss it. How can it be so hard if you actually believe in what you are saying?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the roundness of the Earth either, nor the data for vaccination recommendations, nor all the arguments for the atomic theory of matter (after all, who's ever actually seen an atom?), nor the data on the latest recommendations of chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer, no can I claim that I really understand the details of modern quantum mechanics- and yet I believe all of these somehow. But I wouldn't personally be able to have a discussion with you on any of those, at least not in any professional level of detail. Does that make me too gullible?

Do you feel like you personally have to understand all the details of a particular scientific consensus before you buy it? If so, how do you really know the Earth is round? And if not, what makes this particular topic different?
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
That gets to be less true as the New Left increasingly demands strict obedience to the dogma handed down from on high in order to be a member of the New Religion.
Click to expand...

And the right demands strict adherence to a science free corporate agenda. Corporations know best and they are the "job creators" is the mantra.
 
ataraxia said:
Yes. And another part of the consensus is that the consequences of this are too dangerously unpredictable to play with.
Click to expand...

You will need a citation for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
longview said:
Quote Originally Posted by ataraxia View Post
Yes. And another part of the consensus is that the consequences of this are too dangerously unpredictable to play with.
Click to expand...

You will need a citation for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sure. But I am sure someone as educated as you can google such things as well as I can, or better yet, pick up a textbook on the subject. There are many to choose from on Amazon. Not sure why you are making me do it. But, for whatever it's worth: this is from the joint statement from the National Academy of Sciences in the US (perhaps the most prestigious scientific organization in the US) and the Royal Society in the UK:

"Further climate change is inevitable; if emissions of greenhouse gases continue
unabated, future changes will substantially exceed those that have occurred so far. There
remains a range of estimates of the magnitude and regional expression of future change,
but increases in the extremes of climate that can adversely affect natural ecosystems and
human activities and infrastructure are expected.
Citizens and governments can choose among several options (or a mixture of those
options) in response to this information: they can change their pattern of energy
production and usage in order to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and hence the
magnitude of climate changes; they can wait for changes to occur and accept the losses,
damage and suffering that arise; they can adapt to actual and expected changes as much
as possible; or they can seek as yet unproven ‘geoengineering’ solutions to counteract
some of the climate changes that would otherwise occur. Each of these options has
risks, attractions and costs, and what is actually done may be a mixture of these different
options. Different nations and communities will vary in their vulnerability and their
capacity to adapt. There is an important debate to be had about choices among these
options, to decide what is best for each group or nation, and most importantly for the
global population as a whole. "
Click to expand...

How about NASA?

Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Click to expand...

How about the recent report from the Trump administration's own scientists?

"With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century - more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states...Future risks from climate change depend primarily on decisions made today."
Click to expand...

Would you like more? I can keep going if these aren't convincing enough for you...
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Sure. But I am sure someone as educated as you can google such things as well as I can, or better yet, pick up a textbook on the subject. There are many to choose from on Amazon. Not sure why you are making me do it. But, for whatever it's worth: this is from the joint statement from the National Academy of Sciences in the US (perhaps the most prestigious scientific organization in the US) and the Royal Society in the UK:



How about NASA?



How about the recent report from the Trump administration's own scientists?



Would you like more? I can keep going if these aren't convincing enough for you...
Click to expand...

Weird.

It’s like he never read any threads in this section.
 
ataraxia said:
Sure. But I am sure someone as educated as you can google such things as well as I can, or better yet, pick up a textbook on the subject. There are many to choose from on Amazon. Not sure why you are making me do it. But, for whatever it's worth: this is from the joint statement from the National Academy of Sciences in the US (perhaps the most prestigious scientific organization in the US) and the Royal Society in the UK:



How about NASA?



How about the recent report from the Trump administration's own scientists?



Would you like more? I can keep going if these aren't convincing enough for you...
Click to expand...

You do understand that the supposed consensus is agreement among individual scientist, not groups or organizations right?
You claimed
Yes. And another part of the consensus is that the consequences of this are too dangerously unpredictable to play with.
Click to expand...
and then cited political position statements.
Here are what actual surveys found.
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence.
Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming
Click to expand...
The reality is that the large consensus numbers are scientist agreeing that it has warmed over the last century.
 
longview said:
You do understand that the supposed consensus is agreement among individual scientist, not groups or organizations right?
You claimed

and then cited political position statements.
Here are what actual surveys found.

The reality is that the large consensus numbers are scientist agreeing that it has warmed over the last century.
Click to expand...

No, it's more than that. Here is the actual statement they agreed to:

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Some went further. For example - 18 Scientific Societies said even more.

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."
 
Jack Hays said:
And you said "example."
Click to expand...

I said "for example". :roll:

So, just the one then. Just one solitary scientist representing the consensus opinion has spoken at all of the events organised by the Heartland Institute supported NIPCC. Not scientists, scientist. And that, of course, is because the NIPCC is a lobbying vehicle for the fossil fuel industry, not an actual scientific organisation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom