• 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 psychology of climate change denial

ataraxia said:
Yes, Science is always changing, and it’s good to keep up with the latest.

Do you want to deny the latest science because science changes?
Click to expand...

The scientific method didnt change. What changed were scientists willing to go against the consensus and prove them wrong. Science is about getting proof through testing, not deciding by popular vote.

vegas giants said:
I know. I don't go to doctors for their consensus medicine.


That would be crazy!
Click to expand...
Strawman. Medicine is advanced through testing, not by vote. Try again.
 
PoS said:
The scientific method didnt change. What changed were scientists willing to go against the consensus and prove them wrong. Science is about getting proof through testing, not deciding by popular vote.
Click to expand...

So who’s proved anyone wrong?

Science is approved through popular testing of the experts in the field. That’s what the peer review process means.
 
ataraxia said:
So who’s proved anyone wrong?

Science is approved through popular testing of the experts in the field. That’s what the peer review process means.
Click to expand...
For something to be proven wrong, you need a defined statement, upon which to compare the data.
AGW has no such defined statement.
Consider the current loosely bound statements,
ECS will be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 C, and the latency between the forcing temperature increasing and
all of the feedbacks equalizing, is somewhere between 10.1 years and several centuries.
What in that, is well enough defined, that someone could test it in a laboratory and say it is incorrect?
 
ataraxia said:
You are basing this claim on what?
Click to expand...
This is not difficult. Change will occur whether we cause it or not, so adjustments must be made. Just make the adjustments as you go.

It's the nature of life on a planet. However, the changes are slow and the ability to adjust is substantial. Small changes as necessary will get ti done. Otherwise you will be like Glacier national park, needing to take down signs that glaciers will be gone by next year.
 
ataraxia said:
So forget about government.

Should we ignore the overwhelming consensus of the experts in the field on this topic and just go with the handful of dissenting experts on this topic?
Click to expand...

You are free to do as you wish. I make my choice for myself.
 
longview said:
The perturbation is the warming, the 1950 date is used because the warming period between 1910 and 1944 had concluded and the temperature did not decline
after that point. I.E. a persistent perturbation, like what an increase in CO2 would cause.
The timing of the feedbacks is only important in that all of them are present, so lets say the water vapor feedback warming
to the pre1950 warming happens within a few years, that warming would still be present in 1988, and in 2018.
Hansen and other do not split out the individual contributors of the warming, but state an Equalization temperature, after all of the feedbacks have
as Hansen said "been allowed to operate".
Click to expand...

Sigh. Once again, water vapour feedback does not happen "within a few years". The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature and responds within a matter of hours, so there is no lag to speak of before the forcing due to water vapour has an effect. This means that the warming measured in, for example, 1950, is already partly due to water vapour forcing. It makes no sense at all to treat the warming before 1950 differently to the warming after 1950.
 
Surface Detail said:
Sigh. Once again, water vapour feedback does not happen "within a few years". The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature and responds within a matter of hours, so there is no lag to speak of before the forcing due to water vapour has an effect. This means that the warming measured in, for example, 1950, is already partly due to water vapour forcing. It makes no sense at all to treat the warming before 1950 differently to the warming after 1950.
Click to expand...
Whatever was part of the record in 1950, is the part that will be amplified by the feedbacks.
Do you think the feedbacks can tell the difference between warming from CO2 and warming from earlier feedback?
The point is that the 1950 temperature perturbation is what will be the input for post 1950 feedbacks.
 
PoS said:
The scientific method didnt change. What changed were scientists willing to go against the consensus and prove them wrong. Science is about getting proof through testing, not deciding by popular vote.


Strawman. Medicine is advanced through testing, not by vote. Try again.
Click to expand...

You is advanced about consensus about the testing.


You love consensus science
 
vegas giants said:
I expect it to rise and flood new Orleans
Click to expand...
Much of New Orleans is already below sea level, but it is behind high levies.
The subsidence is a much greater threat than sea level rise.
The entire toe of the boot of Louisiana will eventually disappear, and it will be because of Human activity,
just not global warming, and sea level rise.
 
vegas giants said:
I expect it to rise and flood new Orleans
Click to expand...

longview said:
Much of New Orleans is already below sea level, but it is behind high levies.
The subsidence is a much greater threat than sea level rise.
The entire toe of the boot of Louisiana will eventually disappear, and it will be because of Human activity,
just not global warming, and sea level rise.
Click to expand...

New Orleans has been doomed for decades, and sea level rise has little to do with it.

[h=3]Atchafalaya | The New Yorker[/h]
[url]https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1987/02/23/atchafalaya
[/URL]
Feb 23, 1987 - The consequences of the Atchafalaya's conquest of the Mississippi would include but not be limited to the demise of Baton Rouge and the ...




[h=3]Louisiana's Disappearing Coast | The New Yorker[/h]
[url]https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/01/louisianas-disappearing-coast
[/URL]



Apr 1, 2019 - ... for punching eight giant holes through the levees on the Mississippi and two more through those on its main distributary, the Atchafalaya.



[h=3]Letter from the Archive: John McPhee on the Control ... - The New Yorker[/h]
[url]https://www.newyorker.com/.../letter-from-the-archive-john-mcphee-on-the-control-of-...
[/URL]
Sep 20, 2013 - This weekend, read John McPhee’s “Atchafalaya.”. It was published in February, 1987, and it’s about the Herculean effort of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to control the flow of the Mississippi River, the fourth-longest river in the world. “Atchafalaya” is the name of the ...


 
Jack Hays said:
New Orleans has been doomed for decades, and sea level rise has little to do with it.

[h=3]Atchafalaya | The New Yorker[/h]
[url]https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1987/02/23/atchafalaya
[/URL]
Feb 23, 1987 - The consequences of the Atchafalaya's conquest of the Mississippi would include but not be limited to the demise of Baton Rouge and the ...




[h=3]Louisiana's Disappearing Coast | The New Yorker[/h]
[url]https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/01/louisianas-disappearing-coast
[/URL]



Apr 1, 2019 - ... for punching eight giant holes through the levees on the Mississippi and two more through those on its main distributary, the Atchafalaya.



[h=3]Letter from the Archive: John McPhee on the Control ... - The New Yorker[/h]
[url]https://www.newyorker.com/.../letter-from-the-archive-john-mcphee-on-the-control-of-...
[/URL]
Sep 20, 2013 - This weekend, read John McPhee’s “Atchafalaya.”. It was published in February, 1987, and it’s about the Herculean effort of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to control the flow of the Mississippi River, the fourth-longest river in the world. “Atchafalaya” is the name of the ...
Click to expand...

Yes AGW will finally kill it.


I agree
 
Jack Hays said:
New Orleans has been doomed for decades, and sea level rise has little to do with it.

[h=3]Atchafalaya | The New Yorker[/h]
[url]https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1987/02/23/atchafalaya
[/URL]
Feb 23, 1987 - The consequences of the Atchafalaya's conquest of the Mississippi would include but not be limited to the demise of Baton Rouge and the ...




[h=3]Louisiana's Disappearing Coast | The New Yorker[/h]
[url]https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/01/louisianas-disappearing-coast
[/URL]



Apr 1, 2019 - ... for punching eight giant holes through the levees on the Mississippi and two more through those on its main distributary, the Atchafalaya.



[h=3]Letter from the Archive: John McPhee on the Control ... - The New Yorker[/h]
[url]https://www.newyorker.com/.../letter-from-the-archive-john-mcphee-on-the-control-of-...
[/URL]
Sep 20, 2013 - This weekend, read John McPhee’s “Atchafalaya.”. It was published in February, 1987, and it’s about the Herculean effort of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to control the flow of the Mississippi River, the fourth-longest river in the world. “Atchafalaya” is the name of the ...
Click to expand...
I think the Corp of Engineers will protect the big Muddy at all cost.
I had an uncle who remembered before they correct the flow, and how Port Fourchon turned into a backwater port.
I think even if it went back that way, the river ports on the lower Mississippi would still be reachable by barge and ship,
so not much would change.
Salt water intrusion might be a problem, but I do not think of the lower Mississippi as a fishery that people eat out of .
Ether way quite a bit of land will return to the Gulf of Mexico simply because of the lack of replenishment, after the
Corp of Engineers last changes in the 30's and 40's.
 
longview said:
I think the Corp of Engineers will protect the big Muddy at all cost.
I had an uncle who remembered before they correct the flow, and how Port Fourchon turned into a backwater port.
I think even if it went back that way, the river ports on the lower Mississippi would still be reachable by barge and ship,
so not much would change.
Salt water intrusion might be a problem, but I do not think of the lower Mississippi as a fishery that people eat out of .
Ether way quite a bit of land will return to the Gulf of Mexico simply because of the lack of replenishment, after the
Corp of Engineers last changes in the 30's and 40's.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. The cost will be much greater thanks to AGW
 
vegas giants said:
Perhaps. The cost will be much greater thanks to AGW
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with AGW!
The Corp of Engineers after they diverted the flow down the Mississippi channel, found that the river was silting up too fast.
The problem was solved by creating a narrower (faster) channel that would deposit the silt offshore rather then in the delta.
This caused two other problems but solved the silting problem.
Without continuous replenishment, the land of the delta, starts returning to the Gulf of Mexico,
and the agricultural runoff in the river water now not filtered by the delta, causes a massive dead zone in the Gulf.
 
longview said:
It has nothing to do with AGW!
The Corp of Engineers after they diverted the flow down the Mississippi channel, found that the river was silting up too fast.
The problem was solved by creating a narrower (faster) channel that would deposit the silt offshore rather then in the delta.
This caused two other problems but solved the silting problem.
Without continuous replenishment, the land of the delta, starts returning to the Gulf of Mexico,
and the agricultural runoff in the river water now not filtered by the delta, causes a massive dead zone in the Gulf.
Click to expand...

Nope. AGW will make it worse
 
vegas giants said:
Is that consensus science you are quoting?


Answer that
Click to expand...
Nope, just NOAA tide gauges, which are also can be verified by PSMSL.
That is why I included the URL so you could see the source.
 
longview said:
Nope, just NOAA tide gauges, which are also can be verified by PSMSL.
That is why I included the URL so you could see the source.
Click to expand...

Uh....unless you took those measurements yourself you are basing your post on faith.

The faith of consensus
 
Jack Hays said:
Benign neglect.
Click to expand...

So why shouldn’t that be the policy with things like trans fats in the diet?

There are many scientists who dispute The harmful effects of that as well.
 
longview said:
I think the Corp of Engineers will protect the big Muddy at all cost.
I had an uncle who remembered before they correct the flow, and how Port Fourchon turned into a backwater port.
I think even if it went back that way, the river ports on the lower Mississippi would still be reachable by barge and ship,
so not much would change.
Salt water intrusion might be a problem, but I do not think of the lower Mississippi as a fishery that people eat out of .
Ether way quite a bit of land will return to the Gulf of Mexico simply because of the lack of replenishment, after the
Corp of Engineers last changes in the 30's and 40's.
Click to expand...

Best and most courageous choice would be to abandon New Orleans and destroy the Atchafalaya structure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom