The ugliness of the Climate Change debate.

[Joshua T. Clark]

I find it very appalling that because folks have a difference in opinion that I gives someone carte blanche to start labeling people. Just because I do not believe what they say makes me some kind of kook? Galileo Galilei challenged the accepted "fact" that the heavens revolved around the earth. So why cannot I challenge those who support anthropogenic climate change?

 

[David Yoho]

I am right there with you, Josh. Was something said to you personally about your differences of the anthropogenic climate debate? I say challenge away! There is no need to be silenced about this when there is so much evidence contrary to what is being called a "settled science". Heck...they even have to to keep changing the terminology seemingly month to month because the facts and reality do not match the mantra of what the dire predictions have portrayed. The latest climate report that was released a few days ago is another pathetic attempt to alarm the world with more dire predictions of weather events/extremes that are nothing new. There have been predictions of famines, floods, less tornadoes, more tornadoes, fewer hurricanes more hurricanes, snow, no snow, sea level rise, etc. Sadly, when the Supreme Court sided that CO2 is a pollutant, I was to say the least, not impressed. If I hear it one more time that "this tornado outbreak, winter storm, hurricane, fire, etc is caused by man" I will puke! LOL!

 

[Dan Robinson]

When it comes to issues like this, you have to find out who the real experts in the field are and listen to what they have to say. The problem is that there are a lot of unqualified people on both sides (media, politicians, celebrities, etc) spouting misinformation.

 

[rdale]

I find it very appalling that because folks have a difference in opinion

Let's see who started with the "ugliness":

It is so naive, bordering on some kind of psychosis for these anthropogenic climate change fanatics to believe that way.

Oh - that was you... First off, science is not a belief-based system. It is an evidence-based system.

Galileo Galilei challenged the accepted "fact" that the heavens revolved around the earth.

He challenged it with data that proved his theory. Not just an opinion.

So why cannot I challenge those who support anthropogenic climate change?

You certainly can! Show us your theory and evidence to back it indicating humans have not influenced the climate variability today. So far the resounding evidence from experts in this field, accepted by experts in other fields because they used the scientific method, indicates that you're wrong.

http://cadiiitalk.blogspot.com/2011/07/announcement-and-one-more-thing-about.html

But you'll be famous when you pull out the data to support your "side"!

(PS please note that predictions of F6 tornadoes, Cat 6 hurricanes, etc. did not come from the mainstream accepted scientists, so please refrain from using them as "evidence" of missed forecasts. Also please do not bring up the "ice age in the 70s" claim either, as it was a very very small minority in those days and they're all dead now )

 

[Joshua T. Clark]

"Otherwise as scientists we don't give a rats batooty what you "think" about climate change, so take your conspiracy theories back to your compound and mount up your tin foil hat because the FEMA black helicopters are on the way."

Calling the kettle black there, Rdale.


Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.

 

[Mike Johnston]

The thing about it is, why is any skeptic labeled a "denier"? As if it's some kind of religious tenet or something. I always thought, if anything, science was supposed to be a search for the truth wherever it may lie. So be it. Make a case, and let's see if you're correct. If global temperatures have not risen over the last 15 years, doesn't that leave at least some room for doubt? What's wrong with that?

And you don't have for be a climate scientist yourself to question the conclusions. After all, the proposed public policy changes would make huge dislocations and economic interventions that would have real, lasting impact on actual human beings. Just saying "trust us, the science is settled" isn't gonna get it....especially when, for quite a while now, global temperatures haven't been on the track that those climate models projected.

 

[Joshua T. Clark]

It naive, borderline arrogant to say that our infinitesimal existence on this Earth is a source of all our planet's woes. It has been said that the entire existence of our planet( 4.5 billion years) if it was one year, then our moment is December, 31st at 11:59pm.


Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.

 

[rdale]

Joshua, again you are not aware of any of the science other than what you hear on Rush. Valid point Mike, but you're confusing policy changes with science. I'm not sure how you concluded that because one aspect of predictions haven't come true as expected that we throw them all out. If the NAM misses tomorrow's forecast, do we say it's crap and never look at it again? The majority of predictions based on human influence made in the 90s have come true. When models are re-run without man made CO2, the models are wrong. Seems simple to me.

 

[Joshua T. Clark]

If the NAM craps out tomorrow, I could attribute that to a poor initialization. Bad data in, poor output out.

Climate change stopped being about science ages ago, is in now a purely political issue.


Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.

 

[Joshua T. Clark]

You want to see what I just did with my five year old son, I just gave him his first chemistry lesson.

Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.

 

[Mike Johnston]

No, Rob, I'm not saying that we "throw out" all the predictions. I'm saying that there is room for doubt and skepticism. Why should anyone who is a little skeptical be called a "denier" as if it's some sort of moral violation against humanity? Not too long ago, a cabinet secretary (I can't remember if it was Dept. of Commerce, Agriculture or something like that) said she suspected her department had too many climate change deniers and implied they better change their belief or their jobs would be at stake. What's this all about? Again, it's something that's become like a religious tenet.

No, I'm not CONFUSING science with policy. I'm observing that when something, anything, has controversial public policy implications, you're going to have legitimate opinion and debate.

 

[rdale]

Climate change stopped being about science ages ago, is in now a purely political issue.

It's clear you are here for the politics, and not to discuss science. Everything you sent me in PM was a myth. If you don't care to use facts to discuss a factual topic, but instead choose to call people names because they use the scientific method as opposed to "feelings", that says much more than any lesson you give your five year old.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

[rdale]

I'm saying that there is room for doubt and skepticism.

Understandable.

Why should anyone who is a little skeptical be called a "denier"

I'm not sure I ever said that... But now that you brought it up, what's your reason for being skeptical? Have you honestly researched this and determined that there are too many flaws in the analysis?

What's this all about?

That's about politics. Which is pretty OT for ST

I'm observing that when something, anything, has controversial public policy implications, you're going to have legitimate opinion and debate.

Absolutely. When it first came out that smoking was a hazard, there were a lot of people who "denied" it could be the case. But those denials were not based on facts or evidence, it was denials because they didn't want to face the consequences (reduced profits, health worries, etc.) If people are "denying" climate change because there are flaws in the facts and evidence, that's one thing (but I haven't seen it.) Most people I deal with are "deniers" because they don't want to deal with the consequences.

 

[Michael Thompson]

A very large forum topic on climate change in an Australian forum that ran for a number of years across hundreds of posts had to be shut down due to the debate getting ugly and personal. While I still fence sit, most of the more aggressive posts came from the deny side, usually backing up with blogs posts rather than peer reviewed documents.

It used to be politics and religion, but climate change is now a third topic to avoid.

 

[Rob H]

I'd love to see some arguments against against climate change that aren't rooted in, or at least tethered to, a political or religious angle. It just seems ignorant to assume that the millions (billions?) of tons of crap we pump into the atmosphere isn't having some effect.

What about climate change pisses off people so much anyways? Is it the fear of losing your gas guzzling F150?