Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10841 - 10860 of total 26688 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jul 24, 2013 - 10:47pm PT
FOX?

Can't stand em nor do I ever entertain the thought of watching or believing anything FOX puts out. They are just as fanatically destructive and bad as theses propaganda emitters:

http://www.dailykos.com/
Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Jul 24, 2013 - 11:02pm PT
A Brief Look at Typical Arguments Against Anthropogenic Global Warming

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/24/1226229/-A-Brief-Look-at-Typical-Arguments-Against-Anthropogenic-Global-Warming#

Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 11:00 AM PDT.


A Brief Look at Typical Arguments Against Anthropogenic Global Warming

According to Dunlap and McCright’s Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement's Counter-Claims the conservative movement and its think tanks play a large role in "denying the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming.” Shortly after James Hansen’s 1988 testimony to Congress that the science was fairly certain and that we needed to start taking action to prevent the worst effects of manmade climate change, the campaign to undermine the science began. The denial machine is a sophisticated, pro-business, politically active, and well-funded network of thinktanks, lobbyists, editorialists, and bloggers. We’ll talk more later in the semester about how they are connected and how they get their message out. But for now we are going to talk about the specific kinds of arguments that they make.

The first time we really started hearing about global warming on the news or in mainstream publications was in 1989. I was about to graduate from highschool. The reason it made its way into the mainstream was because a NASA scientist named James Hansen had appeared before Congress to tell them about global warming. Specifically, that the evidence was quite convincing that humanity was driving it via its means of energy production and industry. There was an explosion of coverage about the idea between 89 and 90, and the coverage by and large sought the opinions and judgments of practicing scientists. As time went on, global warming dropped out of the popular press for the most part, but when it DID appear, there was an increased likelihood that the coverage would not be focused on scientists but on politicians, economists, or think tank spokespeople. According to the Dunlap and McCright:

As the proponents of global warming theory eventually lost media dominance, the "skeptics" and politicians critical of the scientific evidence gained more visibility in the media (Lichter and Lichter 1992, p. 3; McComas and Shanahan 1999, p. 48; Wilkins 1993, p. 78). The prevalence of the "dueling scientists scenario," the tendency of most science-related news articles to cite scientists with opposing views, probably contributed to this shift in news coverage of global warming. Many researchers assert that the rising skepticism also reflected the entry of political sources, especially members of the Bush administration, into the media debate (Lichter and Lichter, p. 3; McComas and Shanahan, p. 51; Nissani 1999, p. 36; Trumbo 1995, p. 26; Ungar 1992, p. 494). Media attention eventually began to decrease after 1990 to levels lower than the peak coverage in 1989, but higher than the level prior to 1988 (Ungar, p. 493; Williams and Frey 1997, p. 298).

So what were these non-scientists and skeptical scientists saying? This handy chart taken from the McCright and Dunlap article summarizes the core arguments that climate change skeptics make:
The evidentiary basis of global warming is weak and even wrong.
Examples:
The scientific evidence for global warming is highly uncertain.
Mainstream climate research is "junk" science.
The IPCC intentionally altered its reports to create a "scientific consensus" on global warming.
Global warming is merely a myth or scare tactic produced and perpetuated by environmentalists and bureaucrats.
Global warming is merely a political tool of the Clinton Administration.

Global warming would be beneficial if it were to occur.
Examples:
Global warming would improve our quality of life.
Global warming would improve our health.
Global warming would improve our agriculture.

Global warming policies would do more harm than good.
Examples:
Proposed action would harm the national economy.
Proposed action would weaken national security
Proposed action would threaten national sovereignty
Proposed action would actually harm the environment.  

Science writer Christie Aschwanden further noted what climate scientist Sean Carroll called the “denialist playbook.” Carroll pointed out that the arguments against global warming mostly follow the same basic pattern:

1. Doubt the Science
(i.e.: It is warming on Mars too!)

2. Question the scientists’ motives and interests
(ie: Those scientists have to say that global warming is happening so they can keep getting grant money!)

3. Magnify legitimate, normal disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies as authorities.
(i.e.: Publishing leaked drafts passed between scientists before a final report is peer-reviewed and published, and making claims based on unfinished work. See also, using S. Fred Singer as a source.)

4. Exaggerate potential harms.
(i.e.: If these scientists have their way, we will all be living in caves again!)

5. Appeal to personal freedom.
(i.e.: Who is the government to tell me what kind of light bulbs to use? OR We’re Americans! We don’t do things because the UN tells us to!)

6. Show that accepting the science would represent the repudiation of a key philosophy.
(These scientists just want a government nanny state that tells us what to do.)

It is interesting to note how closely this playbook adheres to the blueprints provided by various think tanks, lobbyists, and political strategists. According to Rick Piltz’s The Denial Machine, in which he discusses the 1st Bush administration’s propensity to listen to political advisers and lobbyists before scientists:


In so doing, the administration became part of what I later termed the
global warming denial machine. Outside of government, political operatives working for policy groups and 'think tanks', funded by corporate sponsors, most notably ExxonMobil, the largest US oil company, sought to undermine the essential conclusions reached by the leading climate scientists. Making use of a small number of 'contrarian' scientists whose views they found convenient, they succeeded in elevating their views in the political arena, in the media, and with public opinion, far out of proportion to their standing in the science community.
Piltz later outlines one of the specific planks of global warming denialism and its origin:

In 1998, a 'Global Climate Science Communication Action Plan' developed at the American Petroleum Institute (the leading trade association and lobbying arm of the US oil industry) by industry representatives and political operatives with advocacy groups, laid out a media relations campaign in which contrarian scientists would be recruited, trained, and deployed to promote an air of scientific uncertainty about global warming. 'Victory will be achieved when average citizens "understand" (recognise) uncertainties in climate science,' the plan concluded. Thus, a method pioneered decades earlier by the tobacco industry was to be applied to fighting the battle against climate change regulatory policy. It wasn't necessary for them to 'win' the debate about the reality of anthropogenic global warming; rather, it was necessary only to create the appearance of a deeply divided science community, thus helping to dissipate the will to action among political leaders and the public. When the Bush-Cheney administration came to power in 2001, this campaign was able to move directly into the White House.


Though this playbook was established over 20 years ago, the arguments against taking action on global warming still take this shape. When you read articles that claim global warming is not happening or is not driven by humankind, check for the kinds of arguments made above. I am willing to bet you will find them.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jul 24, 2013 - 11:12pm PT
FOX?

Can't stand em

Yes I know - you have claimed as much before you clueless idiot. My point, evident by your completely ignorant observations about modern weather forecasting, is that you really should watch FOX snooze. Most people would actually become more ignorant with Fox.

You would actually learn something!

But thanks again for revealing your grasp of science. A cunning stunt most certainly.

Whenever you see someone being completely dismissive of the abilities of modern day weather forecasting it is a sure sign that you are dealing with someone who has no clue about what he is talking about, yet has no qualms of pretending that he does.

For your information the fact that they stated a 20 % chance of thunder showers dosn't mean that the storm -if it occurs - will be weak. The problem is that you don't understand what they are saying, not that they don't understand it, and it has a whole shitload to do with modeling.

I sure as hell won't be running to you for a forecast thats for sure
The Chief

climber
From the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jul 24, 2013 - 11:40pm PT
Yes I know - you have claimed as much before you clueless idiot.

You know absolutely nothing but the amount of insistent liberal ignorant selfish socialist Utpoian Scientism shet that consistently comes outta your mouth. If you ever utilized your brain, it would implode due to all the vile socialist propaganda bullshet that is stored in it. You and the rest of your Utopian Socialistic Scientism selfish croanies want nothing more than to have the world conform to your standards.

Fortunately for the rest of us MAJORITY that actually think freely, you and the rest of your very small tiny vile ungrateful clan will NEVER succeed. You'll just remain in your little world of hopeless nothingness wishing that one day someone will listen. Useless Noise. Nothing more. Ignorant Dumbass sheepheads comes no where close to identify you and the rest. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

Please do continue. We need to the laugh from the consistent noise you emit. You are Losing. Losing and will NEVER capture the attention of the majority. Never.

HA HA HA..... BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

DRF:

In the meantime, 10 MILLION plus humans die annually from cancer and your science has done nothing to remedy this #1 enemy to mankind.

And you want to fix the planets dynamic climate. "We need to save the world from the clutches of big oil!" All the while wading through the knee deep 100 plus million corpses of cancer victims that have succumbed to the disease over the past 70 or so years.

You are such a joke Craig. Nothing more than a socialist wanna be joke.


Nice.



Let me fill you in on something MONO, that is what it has done for the past 2plus Billion years on this planet. Nothing new. Nor anything different than what Mother Nature does on a regular basis.
Welcome to planet earth and it's very dynamic nature.

Nice.
kunlun_shan

Mountain climber
SF, CA
Jul 25, 2013 - 12:24am PT
The Chief - study up, dude!



edit - The Chief (down arrow) - I knew you'd appreciate this :) you do have a sense of humour!

btw. Brutus represented for the E Bay !!! EBMUD, baby!
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Jul 25, 2013 - 12:29am PT
Kunlan..Chief smokes his own home grown...?
The Chief

climber
From the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jul 25, 2013 - 12:37am PT
^^^^^^^^^^Clowns. Got it. Study up. SF BAY dude. Figures. Only in the Bay Area. Nice. BAAAAAAAAAAAH^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Tricouni

Mountain climber
Vancouver
Jul 25, 2013 - 12:40am PT
Bruce, don't waste your time with this guy. Not worth it.

Sorry you didn't make it to the Squam festival on the weekend.

Glenn
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 25, 2013 - 12:45am PT
Ed says, "but maybe I missed something"
Yes apparently you have missed reams of science papers by astrophysicists offering mechanisms with possible effects far beyond the measly 0.1 TSI variance accounted for in the farsical IPCC models. To begin with the 0.1 variance comes from satellite observation during the most pronounced solar maximum in 8000 years which just happened to coincide with the 77-98 run up in global temps. Their is some indication, from interpretation by serious astrophysicists, that their was as much as a 0.4 difference in TSI from the depths of the little ice age to the late twentieth century.You take this level of variance over decades and it adds up. Second the UV spectrum varies by up to 6-8 % during the typical cycle and energetic flares aimed earthward can easily double this value. Ozone in the stratosphere intercept this radiation but not without some of the energy being transferred down into the troposphere affecting atmospheric circulation. Other solar mechanisms of climate change the IPCC GCM's ignore are very pronounced variations in the energy and velocity of the solar wind and magnetic flux and its affects in increased/reduced radiation at the poles. Not to mention the increase/reductions of the solar magnetic field and the rate of earthward cosmic ray bombardment and subsequent rates of cloud nucleation resulting in albedo changes in the 2% range. The Sun is the primary driver of climate change on planet Earth. For the GCM's to not explore all its effects and range of variation is a crime but the only way they could attribute CAGW and the mythical molecule CO2 properties and production as primarily human caused. And this doesn't even begin to go into the oceanic currents and oscillations, volcanisms, windblown particulates, galactic dust variability in our slow revolution around the galactic center, etc. etc.

Bruce, if you can't refrain from trash talking your vile line of shet perhaps it is time for a breather for you. You have been treated respectfully regardless of your hardline-return the favor.
The Chief

climber
From the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jul 25, 2013 - 12:57am PT
BRUCE:
For your information the fact that they stated a 20 % chance of thunder showers dosn't mean that the storm -if it occurs - will be weak.

If? That there is the fallacy in all them models. That option wasn't even there. "IF" was actually WILL. Everyone in the area knew it. Except for all three forecast models predicting only a 20% or so chance of any kind of precip. Real time local observations told the real story. Just as has been done with the General 44 plus Climate Science Models. Fail at best. That was the reality of it all.

BTW SHEEP Bruce, the storms were no where near being "weak". We had three days of severe TSers with down slope winds of 50-60 mph and a total of 3.6" of precip just in my rain water collector alone. All due to the prevailing Southerly Monsoonal flow that any idiot like yourself could see on the IR & Water Vapor Sat shots.

That is just more of your insistent 20% socialist know nothing bullshet.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 25, 2013 - 01:11am PT
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^



The Chief

climber
From the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jul 25, 2013 - 01:36am PT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Chief

climber
From the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jul 25, 2013 - 01:54am PT
ED
No one thinks that the relatively low energy cosmic rays have anything to do with cloud nucleation. The observations of large solar cosmic ray storms are extremely difficult to even measure.

So how can they think what they do if observing the storms are "difficult to even measure"?

Nice Ed.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jul 25, 2013 - 02:05am PT
Rick - thanks for your finger wagging reprimand. If ever I gain some appreciation for any of your opinion I might even consider it. As for trash talking I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you are offended by my characterization of Chuff as a "Moron" or "Idiot" or "Clod" or "Bombastic bloviating Buffoon" or whatever I called him, you should understand that it was a clinical and objective observation of his grasp of modern day weather forecasting, which in fact was restrained and understated yet accurate. He clearly dosn't know the difference between forecasting and nowcasting nor the inherent uncertainty in nailing forecasts of instability in airmasses nor the meaning of percentage of probability. Nor does he apparently know anything about cancer treatment. Come to think of it, you have to wonder if he can substantiate anything he produces.

At any rate, if you think I am deserving of a time out in the dog house wouldn't you agree that Huff and Chuff should by a manner of fair proportional application of penalty be dragged behind a car at full speed for a half mile or so? Or perhaps because he is on your team you can overlook a little "vile shet" so long as it is directed at the right people? And perhaps you can explain to me why he keeps claiming I am a socialist?

But anyway if you find a few GFYS's too tragically upsetting what the hell are you doing here?

The Chief

climber
From the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jul 25, 2013 - 02:14am PT
At any rate, if you think I am deserving of a time out in the dog house wouldn't you agree that Huff and Chuff should by a manner of fair proportional application of penalty be dragged behind a car at full speed for a half mile or so?

Manner of penalty is that I sincerely forgive your parents for bringing such a selfish ignorant socialist one way fuktart asswipe as yourself, into this world. That indeed is the true tragedy in your measly existence, Bruce.

BTW Bruce, I aint on no "team". None. Soloist all the way. Move faster that way. But you would never understand that concept. Team Boy.
The Chief

climber
From the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jul 25, 2013 - 02:16am PT
Point ED H, you just completely contradicted yourself in your last post. Simple.

No one thinks that the relatively low energy cosmic rays have anything to do with cloud nucleation. The observations of large solar cosmic ray storms are extremely difficult to even measure.

So far, that mechanism remains unknown, and perhaps that suggests that that hypothesis is incorrect.

How can a hypothesis be incorrect if the data/information is unknown? Clearly more reliable research needs to be done to disprove the hypothesis. Stating it is incorrect due to lack of viable data is not a reasonable conclusion.

Clearly pointing to an issue that prevails in this entire GCC issue.
Tricouni

Mountain climber
Vancouver
Jul 25, 2013 - 02:22am PT
Ed wrote:
You are correct in your statement that the sun has the largest effect on the climate, though... it's variations are not sufficient to explain the climate changes we are observing.

And, AFAIK, they aren't sufficient to explain the RATE of changes we are observing.
QITNL

climber
Jul 25, 2013 - 03:43am PT
This thing has been going on for like 3 years - does the audience ever get to vote on this show?

Sample questions:

Do you believe in global warming?
Did any of the information presented change your mind?
Most awesome insult hurled?
Performer of the year?

[I'll tip my hand, Ed gets my vote there. He can take complicated scientific computation and explain it to the everyman. And I can't understand that either. But he's just so lovable! Isn't he?]

You guys are so smart - so when are you gonna monetize this sucker? Like a cage-match at Facelift with a couple bookies in the crowd? Jer-ry! Jer-ry! I can see it now. If you're down with global warming, hey, you might need a carbon credit to offset all this hot air.

Y'all are just having fun. Nothing wrong with that. Carry on.
The Chief

climber
From the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jul 25, 2013 - 08:45am PT
I'll tip my hand, Ed gets my vote there. He can take complicated scientific computation and explain it to the everyman.

Yeah. According to the way ED wants you to read it. Tactical verbiage. Just like the rest of the Climate Science propaganda. Nice.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jul 25, 2013 - 09:30am PT
^^^^^^^^^

Tactical verbiage huh? So let me get this straight. Ed spends a considerable amount of time both researching and analyzing your assorted cut and pastes (which you couldn't research or analyze if your life depended on it) then concisely explains in plain english his assessment. This in your infantile knee jerk manner you immediately assume is all a ruse and smoke screen of "tactical verbiage" to further his socialist agenda of global acquisition of research grants and OW sends by baffling and hoodwinking paranoid low self esteemers such as yourself. This triggers your impulsive and uncontrollable defense mechanisms into unrestrained full red alert resulting in your own particularly refined verbiage.

You don't like what he comes up with, but we have already established that you don't understand the most basic concepts of ninety percent of what he has to say so whatever you think about it is of little consequence, other than being a perfect example of the decay of American culture, which you are a shining example of.

So congratulations! You and your majority and your fine brand of "tactical verbiage" is winning the day and all for the sole purpose of maintaining your shakey sense of self importance in the face of a changing world that you never had a grasp on right from the get go. Your no solo man Chuff. you are just one of many delusional dingbats completely out of your depth but incapable of the most basic levels of humility required to accept it, thus the need for "tactical verbiage" or in your case, tactical diarrhea.

No need to project your own psychology onto others
Messages 10841 - 10860 of total 26688 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews