Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28721 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #555 on: May 20, 2019, 04:03:04 pm »
And ultimately this is the problem with climate science. There are few objective facts or hypotheses that can be proven or replicated with experiments. The majority of claims are subjective opinions dressed up with academic language. Different knowledgeable people can read the same paper can come to different conclusions on its worth because each person brings their own biases and preconceptions to the table that they cannot escape. In your case, your biases mean you want to believe that scientists can be objective even though you can't prove this belief. This blind faith in the process biases your view as much as my view is biased by the belief that climate scientists are not objective and have no desire to be objective. The bigger question is whether people who agree to disagree on many aspects of the science can then work to develop policies to deal with the plausible but largely unknown harms caused by future warming.

So you still believe that upwards of 97% of professionally trained climate scientists are publishing their peer reviewed findings simply based on blind faith. I suggest the actual "blindness" is ignoring such obvious examples such as sea level rise due to rapid melting of long term ice sheets. You can actually SEE that simply by looking up a sat. photo of the arctic. Other effects might not be so blatantly obvious to the untrained eye but it's a good place to start.   

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #556 on: May 21, 2019, 04:43:50 pm »
TimG doesn't really believe that. Lol

Apparently we can't trust the coal industry to tell the truth either. SHOCKING that the fossil fuel industries fund research and propaganda-philes to deny climate change!  SHOCKING I say! What are they going to try next?! The banks don't trust them either!

They must be getting quite desperate now.
Exposed.

A Major Coal Company Went Bust. Its Bankruptcy Filing Shows That It Was Funding Climate Change Denialism.
https://static.theintercept.com/amp/coal-industry-climate-change-denial-cloud-peak-energy.html

Moral of the story: Climate deniers go bankrupt?

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #557 on: May 21, 2019, 05:36:59 pm »
Apparently we can't trust the coal industry to tell the truth either. SHOCKING that the fossil fuel industries fund research and propaganda-philes to deny climate change!
And Granny drops by with a text book example of Type II symptom of group think:

Quote
Type II: Closed-mindedness

Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #558 on: May 21, 2019, 05:59:37 pm »
TimG doesn't really believe that. Lol

Apparently we can't trust the coal industry to tell the truth either. SHOCKING that the fossil fuel industries fund research and propaganda-philes to deny climate change!  SHOCKING I say! What are they going to try next?! The banks don't trust them either!

They must be getting quite desperate now.
Exposed.

A Major Coal Company Went Bust. Its Bankruptcy Filing Shows That It Was Funding Climate Change Denialism.
https://static.theintercept.com/amp/coal-industry-climate-change-denial-cloud-peak-energy.html

Moral of the story: Climate deniers go bankrupt?

I suspect Tim may be a fan of Chris Bookers: British journalist who thinks he's a scientist and who believes global warming is a hoax as well as that asbestos is good for you and smoking doesn't hurt you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker#Global_warming

Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is a British journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the satirical magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos.[3] In 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #559 on: May 21, 2019, 06:19:21 pm »
I suspect Tim may be a fan of Chris Bookers: British journalist who thinks he's a scientist and who believes global warming is a hoax as well as that asbestos is good for you and smoking doesn't hurt you.
And Omni follows without another slam dunk example of Type II symptom of group think:

Quote
Type II: Closed-mindedness

Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2019, 06:22:35 pm by TimG »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #560 on: May 21, 2019, 06:24:36 pm »
And Granny drops by with a text book example of Type II symptom of group think:

Hey now don't get mired down in "groupthink". You have to get your hand into your pocket to help subsidize the fossil fuel industry you seem to be so in favor of. The industry needs in excess of $5 trillion/year to keep them profitable so you better get off your ass and get to work and pay that tax.

The International Monetary Fund periodically assesses global subsidies for fossil fuels as part of its work on climate, and it found in a recent working paper that the fossil fuel industry got a whopping $5.2 trillion in subsidies in 2017. This amounts to 6.4 percent of the global gross domestic product.

Its last assessment in 2015 tabulated a value of $5.3 trillion — so not much has changed since then, despite growing alarm about rising temperatures and plummeting prices for alternatives like solar and wind energy. And it’s now clearer than ever that the political will to take on fossil fuels still hasn’t materialized.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #561 on: May 21, 2019, 09:32:58 pm »
Hey now don't get mired down in "groupthink". You have to get your hand into your pocket to help subsidize the fossil fuel industry you seem to be so in favor of. The industry needs in excess of $5 trillion/year to keep them profitable so you better get off your ass and get to work and pay that tax.

The International Monetary Fund periodically assesses global subsidies for fossil fuels as part of its work on climate, and it found in a recent working paper that the fossil fuel industry got a whopping $5.2 trillion in subsidies in 2017. This amounts to 6.4 percent of the global gross domestic product.

Its last assessment in 2015 tabulated a value of $5.3 trillion — so not much has changed since then, despite growing alarm about rising temperatures and plummeting prices for alternatives like solar and wind energy. And it’s now clearer than ever that the political will to take on fossil fuels still hasn’t materialized.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf

Political will in two parties now.
Trudeau will waffle.
Maybe Scheer will surprise us.  Lol

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #562 on: May 22, 2019, 07:58:19 am »
And Granny drops by with a text book example of Type II symptom of group think:

“You are not mature enough to tell it like it is. Even that burden, you leave to us, children. … Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money.”


Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #563 on: May 22, 2019, 08:38:36 am »
“You are not mature enough to tell it like it is. Even that burden, you leave to us, children. … Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money.”
And Granny decides to mix it up with wonderful example of a Type I group think symptom:

Quote
Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality

Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #564 on: May 22, 2019, 09:31:10 am »
in the mega-throes of climate denial groupthink, member TimG tags others with the groupthink label

by the by, those 5+ decades of study that support related prevailing science... are the foundation behind the climate 'consensus' and, accordingly, disproves your and anyone's accusations of groupthink

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #565 on: May 22, 2019, 09:50:08 am »
by the by, those 5+ decades of study that support related prevailing science... are the foundation behind the climate 'consensus' and, accordingly, disproves your and anyone's accusations of groupthink
Except it doesn't because almost all of the science is based on non-replicable hypotheses where acceptances by the "group" is the only criteria used to judge which science is good and which is bad. It is an environment where group think can easily lead people down a blind alley and why the fact that climate scientists demonstrate all of the symptoms of group think should be a major concern. Of course, denial of the possibility of group think is one of the symptoms of group think so it comes as no surprise that you refuse to acknowledge the risk.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 09:51:39 am by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #566 on: May 22, 2019, 11:13:26 am »
Except it doesn't because almost all of the science is based on non-replicable hypotheses where acceptances by the "group" is the only criteria used to judge which science is good and which is bad. It is an environment where group think can easily lead people down a blind alley and why the fact that climate scientists demonstrate all of the symptoms of group think should be a major concern. Of course, denial of the possibility of group think is one of the symptoms of group think so it comes as no surprise that you refuse to acknowledge the risk.

Huge tracts of polar ice melt is not "non-replicable hypothesis", it's reality, and it's actually the ice that is non-replicable. It seems simply that any scientific that happens to refute your idea must be "group think". Scientists also concluded back when that airplanes at specific weights, in specific density altitudes require specific lengths of runway to safely get airborne. You could call that "groupthink" too I suppose, but if you want to go outside of that I hope you never get in a cockpit.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #567 on: May 22, 2019, 12:47:17 pm »
Huge tracts of polar ice melt is not "non-replicable hypothesis"
Ice melting is not a hypothesis. It is a fact. Explanations for why the ice is melting are hypotheses and none of the suggested hypotheses are based on replicable science.

Scientists also concluded back when that airplanes at specific weights, in specific density altitudes require specific lengths of runway to safely get airborne.
A perfect example of a replicable hypothesis. In this case, a scientist proposes a hypotheses regarding aircraft then goes out a does real world experiments that will either confirm or refute the hypotheses. It makes no difference if the scientist is biased or an ideologue because the real world is the arbiter of the truth. Almost none of the claims made by climate scientists can be verified in such as way which makes their claims entirely dependent on their biases. If scientists want to believe that CO2 explains everything then any research that supports this will be deemed "good" and any that refutes it will be deemed "bad". IOW, without the ability to refute or confirm claims with the real world there is no way to determine if claims have any connection to reality or are simply the product of "group think". As long as climate scientists exhibit the behaviors associated with group think there is no reason to believe that group think is not a serious problem.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #568 on: May 22, 2019, 01:21:52 pm »
Ice melting is not a hypothesis. It is a fact. Explanations for why the ice is melting are hypotheses and none of the suggested hypotheses are based on replicable science.
A perfect example of a replicable hypothesis. In this case, a scientist proposes a hypotheses regarding aircraft then goes out a does real world experiments that will either confirm or refute the hypotheses. It makes no difference if the scientist is biased or an ideologue because the real world is the arbiter of the truth. Almost none of the claims made by climate scientists can be verified in such as way which makes their claims entirely dependent on their biases. If scientists want to believe that CO2 explains everything then any research that supports this will be deemed "good" and any that refutes it will be deemed "bad". IOW, without the ability to refute or confirm claims with the real world there is no way to determine if claims have any connection to reality or are simply the product of "group think". As long as climate scientists exhibit the behaviors associated with group think there is no reason to believe that group think is not a serious problem.

Um, I can show you on a daily basis what causes ice to melt. Warm it up and it melts. It's not a hypothesis. Trap heat with CO2 and you melt ice.
The very basis of proper science is not based on scientists "wanting to believe" anything. It's to do with studying what is happening and then doing research to find out why. You have yet to support this nonsense you spout about scientists exhibiting any particular behavior that supports "group think", so perhaps it is you who is afflicted. You are certainly outnumbered among actual scientists.
 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #569 on: May 22, 2019, 03:32:52 pm »
Um, I can show you on a daily basis what causes ice to melt. Warm it up and it melts. It's not a hypothesis. Trap heat with CO2 and you melt ice.
Natural variations in ocean currents, black carbon and reduced cloud cover due to cosmic rays also would melt ice. The non-relipacable hypothesis is that CO2 induced warming the primary cause of the observed melting.
 
The very basis of proper science is not based on scientists "wanting to believe" anything. It's to do with studying what is happening and then doing research to find out why.
Except when they can't do replicable experiments to verify their hypotheses then "finding out why" ends up being indistinguishable from "wanting to believe".

You have yet to support this nonsense you spout about scientists exhibiting any particular behavior that supports "group think", so perhaps it is you who is afflicted.
Any researcher who smears skeptical researchers as "deniers" or "oil company funded" exhibits the symptoms of group think. Any researcher who uses the "consensus" argument a justification to dismiss anyone who questions the consensus exhibits the symptoms of group think. Any researcher who conspires to keep competing ideas about of the peer reviewed literature exhibits the symptoms of group think. The symptoms are obvious and on full display to anyone paying attention, however, people who are caught in the group think themselves will obviously insist that it does not exist. This is why I have been pointing where you and other alarmists exhibit the symptoms of group think with your own arguments.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 03:35:30 pm by TimG »