• 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

flogger said:
Well call me cynical but that by modulating the 0.01% of our atmosphere we are allegedly responsible for (100PPM) of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas we can somehow control our climate is utter nonsense. Use your common sense fella does this seem logical to you ? Not only has the human fingerprint on climate or temperature never been empirically quantified, its effect has never even been detected against the noise of normal natural climate variation. Here in the UK I already pay an extra 20% on my energy bills as a consequence of this nonsense and that is dwarfed by countries like Germany and Denmark. This agenda is worth BILLIONS to the governments peddling this green guilt.

Our climate is just fine and well within the natural norms of recent millennia as I already illustrated
Click to expand...

Common sense tells me light is a wave and matter is not and the Earth is flat and doesn’t move. It turns out though that all that’s wrong.

One thing you learn in science is common sense is not the best guide to the actual world.

That being said, there are many different lines of evidence linking human carbon fingerprinting, each one overwhelming by itself . To deny it is is like looking at a picture of the round Earth and denying it because it’s not “common sense”.

The human fingerprint in global warming
 
ataraxia said:
Common sense tells me light is a wave and matter is not and the Earth is flat and doesn’t move. It turns out though that all that’s wrong.

One thing you learn in science is common sense is not the best guide to the actual world.

That being said, there are many different lines of evidence linking human carbon fingerprinting, each one overwhelming by itself . To deny it is is like looking at a picture of the round Earth and denying it because it’s not “common sense”.

The human fingerprint in global warming
Click to expand...

Pardon me if an alarmist blog run by a cartoonist doesn't really cut it as empirical evidence :doh

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about Skeptical Science
 
ataraxia said:
Studies have looked at this in all sorts of ways- and consistently shown the same thing.
Click to expand...
We reconstruct the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet using a comprehensive survey of thickness, surface elevation, velocity, and surface mass balance (SMB) of 260 glaciers from 1972 to 2018. In the last several decades, the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) has lost mass to the ocean (1⇓⇓⇓–5). The mass loss has been quantified by three independent techniques using changes in ice volume (6, 7), time-variable gravity (8), and input versus output fluxes or mass budget method (1, 2, 4, 9⇓–11), for the time period 1992–2016 or 2002–2016... The mass loss has increased sixfold since the 1980s. Greenland has raised sea level by 13.7 mm since 1972, half during the last 8 years.”

Forty-six years of Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance from 1972 to 2018 | PNAS
Click to expand...

Analysis of gravity data from GRACE satellites indicates that the Greenland ice sheet lost approximately 2900 Gt (0.1% of its total mass) between March 2002 and September 2012. The mean mass loss rate for 2008–2012 was 367 Gt/year.
Click to expand...

See the thing is that 367Gt/yr would be 1mm per year of sea level rise so 13.7mm since 1972 is utterly inconsistent with it.

Time variable gravity is a hopelessly bad way to measure the ice on Greenland.

Input and output fluxes, adding up the precipitation (snowfall) and taking away the outflows of rivers/glaciers, means you have to have the correct figures for that. The rivers have to be Mississippi sized, or bigger, and lots of them.

Mass budget methods is the same as above.

None of them are taking radar images of the whole of Greenland's ice. Which would be lots easier.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Apocalypse Deferred[/h][FONT=&quot]This discussion with Mark Steyn is the only time Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, and Anthony Watts have appeared together on stage. It occurred while on the Alaskan Mark Steyn Club Cruise in September.~cr From Mark Steyn online. Joining me for the discussion were three people at the forefront of pushing back against Michael E Mann…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
ataraxia said:
You are asking so what to something every single scientific organization on the planet is saying? And instead you want us to listen to Roy Spencer?:lamo
Click to expand...

You can listen to Roy Spencer or not. That is a matter of indifference to me. I find him quite a bit more persuasive than consensus AGW advocates.






​

​
 
Jack Hays said:
You can listen to Roy Spencer or not. That is a matter of indifference to me. I find him quite a bit more persuasive than consensus AGW advocates.






​

​
Click to expand...

You are free to ignore NASA as well
 
ataraxia said:
You are asking so what to something every single scientific organization on the planet is saying? And instead you want us to listen to Roy Spencer?:lamo
Click to expand...

Ideally you would discuss the actual situation rather than choose which priest to follow.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm agnostic. I don't believe the question can be answered. But I'm not a bigot, so I respect others' views.
Click to expand...

You are free to respect the views of people who believe in something that has no evidence to support it.


It's called religion
 
vegas giants said:
You are free to respect the views of people who believe in something that has no evidence to support it.


It's called religion
Click to expand...

Exactly why we think CAGW is a religion.

You beleive but there is no way you will ever discuss the evidence issue. Just bash the outside of your various bible substitute.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Exactly why we think CAGW is a religion.

You beleive but there is no way you will ever discuss the evidence issue. Just bash the outside of your various bible substitute.
Click to expand...

I present tons of peer reviewed studies.



You just dont like them.


They are heresy to you
 
Tim the plumber said:
Ideally you would discuss the actual situation rather than choose which priest to follow.
Click to expand...

We can't be experts in everything. In the modern world, at some point you have to trust the expertise others have developed through a lifetime of study and experience in a particular field. Do you question aerospace engineers on their latest wing design for the 747, doctors on their latest chemotherapy recommendations for pancreatic cancer, or physicists on their latest models in solid state physics? Do you think you can "common sense" your way through their findings and recommendations and criticize them with just a "they are just trying to make money"?
 
Tim the plumber said:
But you will not read them.

You will not think about the issues.

You just bash the bible.
Click to expand...

Have you read any science textbooks on climate change? Or have you just dismissed them because you think you know better with your "common sense"?
 
ataraxia said:
We can't be experts in everything. In the modern world, at some point you have to trust the expertise others have developed through a lifetime of study and experience in a particular field. Do you question aerospace engineers on their latest wing design for the 747, doctors on their latest chemotherapy recommendations for pancreatic cancer, or physicists on their latest models in solid state physics? Do you think you can "common sense" your way through their findings and recommendations and criticize them with just a "they are just trying to make money"?
Click to expand...

If the engineers had predicted that the last 20 wings they had designed were going to add 50% lift to the wing but could not fly at all would you start to doubt them?

So in the same vane; how wrong do the predictions of warming have to be to get you to change your mind? If it fails to warm by 0.1c over the next decade will you consider the fuss to have gone away?
 
ataraxia said:
Have you read any science textbooks on climate change? Or have you just dismissed them because you think you know better with your "common sense"?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think there are any text books on climate change as such. Certainly there wernt when I was a lad.

I have read some of the IPCC's reports though does that count?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom