• 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

Jack Hays said:
Cartography is not only map reading, it's map making. It's very complex and sophisticated. It's certainly not like holding your finger in the air.
Click to expand...

Today, it's called GIS. Ever done it? I have too many hours in Arcview. I've created maps for countless things and each one containing too many things. From projection to dynamic and user-interactive data points, it's quite fun.

I don't know if someone who has never created a map in Arcview can have any appreciation of modern map making at all. However, we might note, the point in question that you addressed was regarding the reading of maps only as stipulated by the poster.

Obviously the skill to read old military maps, aerial or otherwise, is not relevant to a discussion of modern map making. Either someone knows Arcview or they don't. If they don't, I can't imagine how they'd have anything to say on the subject.
 
Last edited:
If anyone is interested in map making, I went a bit beyond (or below) ArcView as well. I took a land survey class to learn how to make a map from my own geographic (primarily elevation) data instead of using stock projection data. It was part of a long term project measuring erosion on a wooded hillside and not an easy place for tripods and such.

I've done map making from the dirt to ArcView to powerpoint presentation. Needed it for perspective on landscape.
 
Last edited:
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...

Damn, long... are you still ignoring all the other forcings??

:naughty

From your NOAA link:

Because we seek an index that is accurate, only direct forcing from these gases has been included. Model-dependent feedbacks, for example, due to water vapor and ozone depletion, are not included. Other spatially heterogeneous, short-lived, climate forcing agents, such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone, have uncertain global magnitudes and also are not included here to maintain accuracy. Figure 3 shows the results for carbon dioxide global monthly averages for 1979-2019. An index based on the total of these contributions to radiative forcing would be similar to the Consumer Price Index, for example. It would include all the important components but not all the components of climate forcing. In contrast to climate model calculations, the results reported here are based mainly on measurements of long-lived, well-mixed gases and have small uncertainties.
Click to expand...
emphasis mine

So, in other words... since there are more uncertainties with the other forcings only the GHG are counted in this index. They are pointing this out so readers would know that this index does not cover all the forcings that would determine the climate sensitivity.

From the radiative forcings page of your cited ACS website:

The complete story is, however, not just one of radiative forcing by greenhouse gases. Other radiative forcings, albedo changes, for example, and feedbacks, especially from increasing water vapor, also occur. The effects of both positive and negative feedback factors have to be accounted for in determining the climate sensitivity associated with an increase in atmospheric CO2. Attaining the new energy balance involves some processes that are relatively rapid, taking place on a decadal time scale, and others that are slower, taking centuries, millennia, or longer to reach the balance.
Click to expand...
emphasis mine

From a debunking of denialist misinformation about climate sensitivities at RealClimate.

... if you ignore the fact that there are negative forcings in the system as well (chiefly aerosols and land-use changes), the forcing from all the warming effects is larger still (~2.6 W/m2), and so the implied sensitivity even smaller!
Click to expand...

And this is exactly what you are doing to support your desire to show low climate sensitivity.

And the IPCC graphic of radiative forcings you keep ignoring:

ipcc_rad_forc_ar5small.jpg

The fact of the matter is that if you want to correctly calculate climate sensitivities from the temperature change then you have to include all the radiative forcings and you can't just ignore the negative forcings. Doing so makes the negative forcings look like negative feedbacks. And this is just wrong.

How many times do I have to point out that you are ignoring significant forcings before you quit misinforming people?

Or do you just not really understand what you are doing?
 
longview said:
Actually we do not know the food we eat is safe, we hope they are being careful, and take our risks.
If I get sick at a restaurant, I do not go back! But it goes beyond that, We can still see, and smell, and taste the food,
and have evolved some fairly good senses for detecting when things are not good to eat.
I think "blindly accepting" does not apply to the food we eat.
Click to expand...

Things are lot more complicated and complex then that. You for example have pesticides used in growing the food, food additives and also the deadly Listeria monocytogenes bacteria that you can't see, smell or taste. You also for example have long term risks of getting cancer and other illnesses. There this is just some of the factors that affect if the food you eat is safe.

While you seem not even to reflect much about those risks and instead trusts the experts. While at the same time demanding that people should think for them self instead of listening to the experts then it comes to climate change. While at the same time you have given no real reason for why the world's leading scientists shouldn't be trusted. That the only reason you are given is that your interpretation of the evidence is different from the world's leading scientist' interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Robertinfremont said:
Your problem is you do not believe the true scientists and take the word of those paid to do this. Such as grant money.

I would say I know less than the scientists. But one thing I did pass is the course in global weather. Before you dismiss it, know that weather is short term and Climate is long term weather. In other words, weather makes climate. Short term weather is a weather report.

There are thousands of meteorologists who do not blame climate on humans.

Want to know why? We know this happens on Earth all over and has for billions of years. So we embrace this and not deny it.
Click to expand...

For two years Republicans controlled both houses of Congress while Trump who have claimed climate change is a Chinese hoax was president.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

There Republicans still control the Senate and Trump is still president. There the result is that federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Climate change impacts | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 
ecofarm said:
Today, it's called GIS. Ever done it? I have too many hours in Arcview. I've created maps for countless things and each one containing too many things. From projection to dynamic and user-interactive data points, it's quite fun.

I don't know if someone who has never created a map in Arcview can have any appreciation of modern map making at all. However, we might note, the point in question that you addressed was regarding the reading of maps only as stipulated by the poster.

Obviously the skill to read old military maps, aerial or otherwise, is not relevant to a discussion of modern map making. Either someone knows Arcview or they don't. If they don't, I can't imagine how they'd have anything to say on the subject.
Click to expand...

Subject; Cartography.

Why do you presume that some particular computer program that will be superceeded in a few years is the be all and end all of a centuries old many faceted science??

You have not been to university.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Subject; Cartography.

Why do you presume that some particular computer program that will be superceeded in a few years is the be all and end all of a centuries old many faceted science??

You have not been to university.
Click to expand...

:screwy
 
vegas giants said:
It's not a climatology course. It is a weather course. Where in it do they discuss global rise in temperature due to AGW?
Click to expand...

Describe the climatology course

It explains global weather and if you passed it, you know that.

Why haven't you blurted out you took and passed the pilots FAA weather course earlier?
 
Robertinfremont said:
Describe the climatology course

It explains global weather and if you passed it, you know that.

Why haven't you blurted out you took and passed the pilots FAA weather course earlier?
Click to expand...

It's not a climatology course. Its on weather.


My god you have to be kidding. You never went to college
 
Threegoofs said:
Ah.

So you’re a cartography expert too.

[emoji849]
Click to expand...

I would put your chances of reading an Aerial map used by pilots at zero. And reading the Air Chart does not make one an expert map maker.
 
ecofarm said:
Today, it's called GIS. Ever done it? I have too many hours in Arcview. I've created maps for countless things and each one containing too many things. From projection to dynamic and user-interactive data points, it's quite fun.

I don't know if someone who has never created a map in Arcview can have any appreciation of modern map making at all. However, we might note, the point in question that you addressed was regarding the reading of maps only as stipulated by the poster.

Obviously the skill to read old military maps, aerial or otherwise, is not relevant to a discussion of modern map making. Either someone knows Arcview or they don't. If they don't, I can't imagine how they'd have anything to say on the subject.
Click to expand...

I looked that system up this Sat AM and see no relevance to the topic of climate change psychology.

My intent in mentioning Aerial maps has nothing to do either with that same topic.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Things are lot more complicated and complex then that. You for example have pesticides used in growing the food, food additives and also the deadly Listeria monocytogenes bacteria that you can't see, smell or taste. You also for example have long term risks of getting cancer and other illnesses. There this is just some of the factors that affect if the food you eat is safe.

While you seem not even to reflect much about those risks and instead trusts the experts. While at the same time demanding that people should think for them self instead of listening to the experts then it comes to climate change. While at the same time you have given no real reason for why the world's leading scientists shouldn't be trusted. That the only reason you are given is that your interpretation of the evidence is different from the world's leading scientist' interpretation.
Click to expand...

Why do the alarmists only believe SOME of the leading climate experts but not the others out there?
 
Robertinfremont said:
I would put your chances of reading an Aerial map used by pilots at zero. And reading the Air Chart does not make one an expert map maker.
Click to expand...

My point exactly.

You think you have a deep understanding of cartography because you can read a map.

You think you understand climate science because you can read a barometer.

What kinda psychopathology is happening there??
 
Buzz said:
Damn, long... are you still ignoring all the other forcings??

:naughty

From your NOAA link:

emphasis mine

So, in other words... since there are more uncertainties with the other forcings only the GHG are counted in this index. They are pointing this out so readers would know that this index does not cover all the forcings that would determine the climate sensitivity.

From the radiative forcings page of your cited ACS website:

emphasis mine

From a debunking of denialist misinformation about climate sensitivities at RealClimate.



And this is exactly what you are doing to support your desire to show low climate sensitivity.

And the IPCC graphic of radiative forcings you keep ignoring:

View attachment 67282007

The fact of the matter is that if you want to correctly calculate climate sensitivities from the temperature change then you have to include all the radiative forcings and you can't just ignore the negative forcings. Doing so makes the negative forcings look like negative feedbacks. And this is just wrong.

How many times do I have to point out that you are ignoring significant forcings before you quit misinforming people?

Or do you just not really understand what you are doing?
Click to expand...

That is a major problem for the alarmists.
 
Threegoofs said:
My point exactly.

You think you have a deep understanding of cartography because you can read a map.

You think you understand climate science because you can read a barometer.
Click to expand...

Depends on what part you speak of. I know a lot about Aerial maps due to pilot training and ordinary maps used for combat roles and traveling around. That does not have a thing to do with climate. And if one can't know the barometric pressure, how can they understand climate science, so yes I do know how to use the barometer and altimeter as well.

By the way, you must admit I did not use that reason to speak of climate science, not one time did I speak of the barometer as my reason to understand climate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom