• 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

longview said:
Tim is saying the YOU personally have to think for yourself, and that blindly accepting what others even leading say scientists is religion not science!
Click to expand...

Science has become extremely specialized and sophisticated. You can think for yourself. But you first need a strong background in the field. To someone uneducated in the field, many things can sound really crazy, counterintuitive, and bizarre.

Laymen use "common sense" to try to make sense of the world. That works great in most everyday kinds of situations. But when dealing with science, it is not useful and can lead you astray very quickly. "Common sense" is the reason why almost everybody, all over the world, and throughout almost all of human history (and probably even pre-history), thought that the Earth was flat and unmoving and the sky moved above it.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I'm telling you that I have had a suficently good education and have a suficently good aptitude
Click to expand...


Who says? I don't care how many science classes you have had. You don't have any qualifications or experience in this field. If I have a brain tumor which needs surgery, I want the licensed, board certified surgeon with decades of experience making the decisions and cutting on me, not you. What makes you think you have the background to make judgments on issues which effects the lives of everybody, just becaues you think you have a "suficiently" (sic) good education?

Given I have this capacity, of a basics physics education, it also gives me the ability to spot when somebody has no clue at all about physics. Like if I spouted off about BaseBall. You would immediately know that I had no clue. The same is true for physics. I know you and such as 3goofs have no clue. I know Longview has a reasonable level of understanding of the things he talks about. At least better than my understanding of them.
Click to expand...

Trying to decide between what 3goofs and Longview debating on an internet chat site is like trying to decide between two third graders debating black holes on the elementary school playground at recess. It's fun. But if you really want to take the issue seriously, like when people's lives and livelihoods are at stake, you want to be looking at more serious sources.
 
longview said:
Tim is saying the YOU personally have to think for yourself, and that blindly accepting what others even leading say scientists is religion not science!
Click to expand...

If you have cancer, you would never take the word of your uncle who works at a rugstore on the best course of treatment over the recommendation of every single cancer specialist you have seen.
 
ecofarm said:
Platitudes are not science. Don't get your wisdom from blue font; that's absurd.
Click to expand...
No, Science is about empirical data, what you can see, and measure.
Within AGW, there is very little empirical data.
Yes the average temperature has warmed over the last century,
and yes greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere have also increased.
These things we can measure.
The portion of the observed warming that is attributable to the increase in greenhouse gasses is much more subjective.
According to AGW, since
"there is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence"
Click to expand...
,
Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
then all the observed warming must be caused from Human activity.
Almost anyone with a Science background would agree that adding greenhouse gasses will force some warming.
The generally accepted level is that doubling the CO2 level, would force about 1.1C of warming, from an energy imbalance of 3.71W/m2.
This is expressed by formulas from the ACS,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(2) =3.7083W/m2, and,
ΔT ≈ [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] (3.71 W·m–2) ≈1.113C.
The ACS page says ,
Our calculated temperature change, that includes only the radiative forcing from increases in greenhouse gas concentrations,
accounts for 20-25% of this observed temperature increase.
Click to expand...
but this is not at all accurate.
The total decade averaged observed warming since the pre 1900 average(Hadcrut4) is .93C
CO2 alone using their formula is (5.35 X ln(410/280) X.3)=.61C
If we figure in the other greenhouse gasses, AGGI,
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Laboratory - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
then we see that the forcing from added greenhouse gasses in CO2-eq is ,
(5.35 X ln(500/280) X .3)= .93C.
Since the forcing and the observation are almost equal, there is no net feedback in climate sensitivity.
(This really makes me wonder what reference date the ACS used, I cannot think of a time period where the
forcing was only 20-25% of the observed warming.)
 
That's not a pop quiz. If you're gonna bust out a midterm, you gotta give notice. You can pick one piece and act like someone should be willing to do that.
 
ataraxia said:
Who says? I don't care how many science classes you have had. You don't have any qualifications or experience in this field. If I have a brain tumor which needs surgery, I want the licensed, board certified surgeon with decades of experience making the decisions and cutting on me, not you. What makes you think you have the background to make judgments on issues which effects the lives of everybody, just becaues you think you have a "suficiently" (sic) good education?



Trying to decide between what 3goofs and Longview debating on an internet chat site is like trying to decide between two third graders debating black holes on the elementary school playground at recess. It's fun. But if you really want to take the issue seriously, like when people's lives and livelihoods are at stake, you want to be looking at more serious sources.
Click to expand...

If you had 2 15 year olds talking about black holes and one said that they were eternal and guranteed to swallow the entire universe one day whilst the other said that they slowly evaportaed due to them giving off X-rays, which would be right according to today's best guess of science and Steven Hawkins?

Would you know?

I would.

But I do not pretend to know much more than I have been told about it than that.

In terms of working out what the gross amont of snowfall on Greenland is compared to the total outflow it is an easy thing to get to a decent level of precision. That shows it is gaining ice mass.
 
longview said:
Tim is saying the YOU personally have to think for yourself, and that blindly accepting what others even leading say scientists is religion not science!
Click to expand...

It is so shocking that so many people in a scientifically reliant society have no clue at all about how science works.
 
Tim the plumber said:
If you had 2 15 year olds talking about black holes and one said that they were eternal and guranteed to swallow the entire universe one day whilst the other said that they slowly evaportaed due to them giving off X-rays, which would be right according to today's best guess of science and Steven Hawkins?

Would you know?

I would.

But I do not pretend to know much more than I have been told about it than that.

In terms of working out what the gross amont of snowfall on Greenland is compared to the total outflow it is an easy thing to get to a decent level of precision. That shows it is gaining ice mass.
Click to expand...

You mean losing mass
 
Tim the plumber said:
If you had 2 15 year olds talking about black holes and one said that they were eternal and guranteed to swallow the entire universe one day whilst the other said that they slowly evaportaed due to them giving off X-rays, which would be right according to today's best guess of science and Steven Hawkins?

Would you know?

I would.
Click to expand...


How would you?

Because you probably read an article or a book somewhere that told you. Who wrote the article? Would you feel justified believing something contrary to what the folks studying black holes were saying?

We rely on experts to tell us about their fields of study. Science has gotten so complex and specialized that we have to rely on expertise now. "Common sense" just doesn't cut it anymore. Most of modern science goes contrary to "common sense".
 
ataraxia said:
Science has become extremely specialized and sophisticated. You can think for yourself. But you first need a strong background in the field. To someone uneducated in the field, many things can sound really crazy, counterintuitive, and bizarre.

Laymen use "common sense" to try to make sense of the world. That works great in most everyday kinds of situations. But when dealing with science, it is not useful and can lead you astray very quickly. "Common sense" is the reason why almost everybody, all over the world, and throughout almost all of human history (and probably even pre-history), thought that the Earth was flat and unmoving and the sky moved above it.
Click to expand...
I used an analogy earlier of a TV sound bar, that advertised that it could increase the volume by a factor of 4.
One need not be an electrical engineer, or a sound engineer, to hear that with the sound bar on and at maximum
amplification, that no difference in the sound can be heard with or without the sound bar attached.
The case for AGW is even easier, since we are not talking about perceived sound levels, but numerical temperature data.
The IPCC and other AGW proponents have advertised that the likely feedback factor for forced warming,
is between 1.36 and 4.09, after an equalization period. (As short as 10.6 years, but Hansen says 60% between 25 to 50 years.)
We had observed pre 1950 warming of .29C, and warming since 1950 of .623C. (decade averaged Hadcrut4)
Depending how you calculate the net forcing, the range of feedback factors is between 1.23 and 1.70,
of a 2XCO2 ECS between 1.35C and 1.87C.
This is not advance math, I am simply evaluating the data against the claim.
Here are the sources of the data and formulas used.
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Laboratory - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
prove me wrong, run the numbers yourself!
 
longview said:
I used an analogy earlier of a TV sound bar, that advertised that it could increase the volume by a factor of 4.
One need not be an electrical engineer, or a sound engineer, to hear that with the sound bar on and at maximum
amplification, that no difference in the sound can be heard with or without the sound bar attached.
The case for AGW is even easier, since we are not talking about perceived sound levels, but numerical temperature data.
The IPCC and other AGW proponents have advertised that the likely feedback factor for forced warming,
is between 1.36 and 4.09, after an equalization period. (As short as 10.6 years, but Hansen says 60% between 25 to 50 years.)
We had observed pre 1950 warming of .29C, and warming since 1950 of .623C. (decade averaged Hadcrut4)
Depending how you calculate the net forcing, the range of feedback factors is between 1.23 and 1.70,
of a 2XCO2 ECS between 1.35C and 1.87C.
This is not advance math, I am simply evaluating the data against the claim.
Here are the sources of the data and formulas used.
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Laboratory - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
prove me wrong, run the numbers yourself!
Click to expand...

I dunno. But if it's that easy, I am not sure why you are spending so much time here still trying to brush it up before you present it to some experts on the subject. Looks like you're ready for prime time. Good luck!
 
ataraxia said:
How would you?

Because you probably read an article or a book somewhere that told you. Who wrote the article? Would you feel justified believing something contrary to what the folks studying black holes were saying?

We rely on experts to tell us about their fields of study. Science has gotten so complex and specialized that we have to rely on expertise now. "Common sense" just doesn't cut it anymore. Most of modern science goes contrary to "common sense".
Click to expand...

So I, from reading a book on it and other stuff about this as it is an interest of mine, know what the general consensus is.

Thus if a 15 year old was talking about it I would know if they knew the general consensus. I would know if they understood it to that level.

Thus I know that Longview understands physics to a level beyond mine. I also know that you ahve not the slightest clue about the basic philosophy of science and VG is simply a Troll, nothing else. Obviously.
 
ataraxia said:
If you have cancer, you would never take the word of your uncle who works at a rugstore on the best course of treatment over the recommendation of every single cancer specialist you have seen.
Click to expand...
The evidence of AGW, or the lack thereof,is not the same as treating cancer,
At least with cancer the diagnosis, it is something that can be repeatably tested in a lab, and validated,
with the scientific method.
 
ataraxia said:
I dunno. But if it's that easy, I am not sure why you are spending so much time here still trying to brush it up before you present it to some experts on the subject. Looks like you're ready for prime time. Good luck!
Click to expand...

Experts would need to see something that is not the bleeding obvious. They know this stuff already.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Experts would need to see something that is not the bleeding obvious. They know this stuff already.
Click to expand...

Experts/specialists see lots of things that are contrary to what is "bleeding obvious" to the lay public.
 
longview said:
The evidence of AGW, or the lack thereof,is not the same as treating cancer,
At least with cancer the diagnosis, it is something that can be repeatably tested in a lab, and validated,
with the scientific method.
Click to expand...

There is only one universe. Does that mean scientists should never be able to make any statements about it?
 
Tim the plumber said:
It is so shocking that so many people in a scientifically reliant society have no clue at all about how science works.
Click to expand...
I cannot to begin to say how disturbing it is, that asking someone to think for themselves, is criticized!
 
Tim the plumber said:
If you had 2 15 year olds talking about black holes and one said that they were eternal and guranteed to swallow the entire universe one day whilst the other said that they slowly evaportaed due to them giving off X-rays, which would be right according to today's best guess of science and Steven Hawkins?

Would you know?

I would.

But I do not pretend to know much more than I have been told about it than that.

In terms of working out what the gross amont of snowfall on Greenland is compared to the total outflow it is an easy thing to get to a decent level of precision. That shows it is gaining ice mass.
Click to expand...

I guess you think being a qualified scientist means watching a lot of the Science Channel.
 
longview said:
Relevance?
Click to expand...

You were telling us that science cannot study anything where we cannot keep repeating experiments.

How can science make claims about the universe, things like expansion, dark matter or energy, etc...or make predictions about its eventual fate, when there is only one universe?
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess you think being a qualified scientist means watching a lot of the Science Channel.
Click to expand...

No.

But just like I would be obviously speaking from a position of knowing nothing about base ball it is obvious that you have no clue at all about the basics of all science.
 
longview said:
I cannot to begin to say how disturbing it is, that asking someone to think for themselves, is criticized!
Click to expand...

Science is not a democracy. I cannot begin to say how disturbing it is thinking people with no formal education or experience in a subject think their opinion is just as good as those with years of education or experience.

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
-Isaac Asimov
 
ataraxia said:
You were telling us that science cannot study anything where we cannot keep repeating experiments.

How can science make claims about the universe, things like expansion, dark matter or energy, etc...or make predictions about its eventual fate, when there is only one universe?
Click to expand...

To explain this to you who has obviously never encountered the idea of science before;

If you make the claim that Saturn has rings then you would have made a cliam that can be falsified by somebody doing the experiment of looking at it with a telescope.

The experiment of looking at Saturn can be repeated. You will get the same result unless the conditions exist where the rings are exactly edge on when you will not see them from earth.

The claim that the universe is expanding can be tested for in teh same sort of way. That test can be repeated. Other tests which would determine if it was true can be done in different ways and if they give the same answer then you can have a very high confidence in the claim.

So when there is a claim that Greenland is losing ice mass from one method which is uncheckable and the basic simple method which is very easy to check tells you the exact opposite why do you hold onto the claim that is shown to be false?
 
Tim the plumber said:
No.

But just like I would be obviously speaking from a position of knowing nothing about base ball it is obvious that you have no clue at all about the basics of all science.
Click to expand...

Weird that my employers- who are mostly scientists- would disagree.

But hey- you know more than all the experts on subjects that you never actually trained on, so you’re obviously a genius level plumber.
 
Tim the plumber said:

To explain this to you who has obviously never encountered the idea of science before;

If you make the claim that Saturn has rings then you would have made a cliam that can be falsified by somebody doing the experiment of looking at it with a telescope.

The experiment of looking at Saturn can be repeated. You will get the same result unless the conditions exist where the rings are exactly edge on when you will not see them from earth.

The claim that the universe is expanding can be tested for in teh same sort of way. That test can be repeated. Other tests which would determine if it was true can be done in different ways and if they give the same answer then you can have a very high confidence in the claim.

So when there is a claim that Greenland is losing ice mass from one method which is uncheckable and the basic simple method which is very easy to check tells you the exact opposite why do you hold onto the claim that is shown to be false?
Click to expand...

Your claim is false


TC - Unprecedented atmospheric conditions (1948–2019) drive the 2019 exceptional melting season over the Greenland ice sheet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom