Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 18781 - 18800 of total 20087 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Jan 26, 2015 - 08:39am PT
The oceans are warming.

Now what?
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jan 26, 2015 - 09:04am PT
The oceans are warming.
Now what?

Are you waiting for oceanographers to tell you?
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Jan 26, 2015 - 09:25am PT
No. I'm asking where we go from here.

The oceans continue to warm. How are we going to use this information?

What's it take to move the conversation forward, beyond the same old verbal sparring?
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jan 26, 2015 - 09:29am PT
No. I'm asking where we go from here.
The oceans continue to warm. How are we going to use this information?
What's it take to move the conversation forward, beyond the same old verbal sparring?

Have you done any reading? Has anyone ever addressed this question before?
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jan 26, 2015 - 10:41am PT
What's it take to move the conversation forward, beyond the same old verbal sparring?

Lead the way, Eddie T!

Seriously.

DMT
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jan 26, 2015 - 10:57am PT
intellectual progress is made one funeral at a time
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dominique-browning/an-interview-with-michael-oppenheimer_b_4985770.html



powerpoint at
http://www.pace.edu/paaes/sites/pace.edu.paaes/files/PPT_Oppenheimer_PaceLawSchool_Nov2014.pdf
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jan 26, 2015 - 11:16am PT
So where DO we go from here? Your lead, bro!?

DMT
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jan 26, 2015 - 11:17am PT
Put in really simple terms, we've got something like these three questions:

1. Is there a problem?

2. If so, what can we do about it?

3. Do I like the answer to 2?

A huge amount of good science answers "yes" to point 1. However, many people who can't read science reason backward to declare that since they don't like the solution (point 3), the problem (point 1) must not exist. This way of thinking has a name in psychological research, solution aversion.

So that's been studied, but on this thread you see some variations on solution aversion that I don't think have a name yet. One of them is for the solution-averse posters to proclaim things like "if you can't answer 2 then shut up about 1!" That's another way of saying nahnahnahnah, and just like that child's trick it does not make reality go away. Physics doesn't care whether we've got a solution or not.

The other variation I see here is that solution-averse people who reason backwards from "no" on 3 to "no" on 1 imagine that other people, scientists for instance, must be equally dishonest but in reverse: those scientists are saying "yes" on 1 because they have some solution they want to push, some version of "yes" on 3. Just as childish as nahnahnahnah, but now with the nastier edge of hate and conspiracy ranting.

What scientists for the most part are doing instead is reporting what they see, such as warming oceans. That's alarming enough that many are trying to make the transition to 2, at least by trying to explain how they know there's a problem. Seen through solution-averse dark glasses that confirms their conspiratorial intentions, but so would their silence, it's truly a closed cognitive system.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 26, 2015 - 12:57pm PT
The argument Chiloe just made coincides with the one I've been making for several years, so, of course, I think he's spot on. Much of the attack on orthodox climate science comes from people who don't like proposed remediation measures. The logical arguments should focus on the likely marginal costs vs. marginal benefits of each proposed measure. While this necessarily involves estimates of climate change, the focus on costs can sharpen and clarify debate much more than arguing often arcane points of statistical inference.

Part of the problem is one that I've seen in environmental law and environmental economics generally since I first started studying these areas in the 1970's: Peoples' values differ, so their opinions of costs vs. benefits differ. That makes it hard to have a rational debate about any particular action. As a result, we end up with policies that often resemble either trying to kill a fly with thermonuclear devices, or trying to bail out a sinking aircraft carrier with a thimble.

That said, I wish those who think some proposed solutions are worse than the problem (this set includes me, by the way, at least for some proposed solutions) would be better served - and better understood - by making the argument focus on the proposed solution, because intelligent minds can differ there. Trying to argue about the science in lay terms strikes me as a lost cause. Every time I've tried to do so in just about any field, one side or the other feels the victim of condescension or ignorance, and therefore tunes out the other side.

John
Cragar

climber
MSLA - MT
Jan 26, 2015 - 01:02pm PT
Good words John the Armenian!!
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Jan 26, 2015 - 01:40pm PT
Attempting remediation measures for something that is not
happening is the real danger. Taking money away from Warmists
to shut them up seems the best plan. I'm sure the 30 Billions
being spent on falsified global warming paperwork every year can
do some good elsewhere.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Jan 26, 2015 - 03:40pm PT
You say that as if you HAVE.

Deny everything,why be responsible.......man child.

Go ahead call me names.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jan 26, 2015 - 03:56pm PT
At this stage, only assholes deny the science.

As DMT asks, the real topic is what we do about it.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jan 26, 2015 - 04:03pm PT
At this stage, only as#@&%es deny the science.

Yet they seem to be driving the bus.

As DMT asks, the real topic is what we do about it.

In a better world, that would be true. In this world many people deny the science because they don't want to do anything about it, so as JE notes that conversation barely gets off the ground. Note all the loud cries here (mostly from people who do deny the science) to skip that reality and risks stuff and come up with some magical solutions.
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Jan 26, 2015 - 04:16pm PT
Put in really simple terms, we've got something like these three questions:

1. Is there a problem?

2. If so, what can we do about it?

3. Do I like the answer to 2?

A huge amount of good science answers "yes" to point 1. However, many people who can't read science reason backward to declare that since they don't like the solution (point 3), the problem (point 1) must not exist. This way of thinking has a name in psychological research, solution aversion.

So that's been studied, but on this thread you see some variations on solution aversion that I don't think have a name yet. One of them is for the solution-averse posters to proclaim things like "if you can't answer 2 then shut up about 1!" That's another way of saying nahnahnahnah, and just like that child's trick it does not make reality go away. Physics doesn't care whether we've got a solution or not.

The other variation I see here is that solution-averse people who reason backwards from "no" on 3 to "no" on 1 imagine that other people, scientists for instance, must be equally dishonest but in reverse: those scientists are saying "yes" on 1 because they have some solution they want to push, some version of "yes" on 3. Just as childish as nahnahnahnah, but now with the nastier edge of hate and conspiracy ranting.

What scientists for the most part are doing instead is reporting what they see, such as warming oceans. That's alarming enough that many are trying to make the transition to 2, at least by trying to explain how they know there's a problem. Seen through solution-averse dark glasses that confirms their conspiratorial intentions, but so would their silence, it's truly a closed cognitive system.

You do a nice job summarizing the state the issue. In essence, it's a closed loop. The Deniers' constant harping keeps climate researchers focused on proving themselves, allowing them to avoid dealing the unpleasantness of tangible, achievable solutions.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Jan 26, 2015 - 04:19pm PT
True ,Edward.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jan 26, 2015 - 04:38pm PT
So, tangible, achievable solutions....

cap and trade is a bullshit paperwork scheme, as are carbon credits leveraging existing forests. I can't believe people tout that sh#t as a tangible, achievable solution.

Tangible and achievable would start with trade sanctions but the world is not ready for that. Green energy is not even a remotely achievable [i[solution.

So what to do? Given that the oil is going to get burned come hell or highwater, what are tangible and achievable solutions?

Pour money into nuclear energy research. Build more reactor power plants?

Wasting billions and trillions on ill-advised bullet trains to nowhere? See, this is why people get cynical; Gov. Brown is willing to sham global warming climate change debate to fund his Amazing Legacy of Public Service.

Politics are politics, right? Is there any reason NOT to be cynical, about 'just-in-time' solutions? I mean, we the people ARE GOING TO WAIT, right? Will we say no to oil-intensive high-carbon imports?

The solution involves replacing the energy source, not choking off the economies that will fund those energy replacements.

Stop the carbon cap shams. They are ludicrous.

DMT
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 26, 2015 - 04:55pm PT
Well Chiloe, what you got to start fixing this. Post it up. Or are you one of those that is warm and cozey in the problem banging the drum of CAGW and how the science is good.

I don't get it, why is it Chiloe's, or Ed's, or my problem to solve? Why don't you do some reading on your own and come to the table with some viable solutions.

The truth is, whether you want it or not, this problem will change the status quo, like it or not. The question is, are we going to control part of that change, or not.

How about this for a start--stop planned obsolescence, stop wasting oil on importing crap, nationalize all oil reserves and use the oil only for very specific needs, etc, etc.

I've posted radical ideas such as these before. But nobody responds to them because they seem so unrealistic--way too far out, too much out of the status quo. Capitalism must live on, ya know. It's the only way we know!

But keep denying that radical change will be needed to get things working, and you might as well be looking at your kids while saying "We're choosing the Easy Bake Oven for you because I don't want to change my ways too much."
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 26, 2015 - 05:02pm PT
How can there be global warming when there's a Huge Blizzard on the east coast? What, are you folks daft or something?


Just sayin' ...
Mike Bolte

Trad climber
Planet Earth
Jan 26, 2015 - 05:18pm PT
Hang on The Chief. Are you giving up calling climate change a big hoax designed to fill the pockets of all the unscrupulous scientists and switching to complaining that those same scientists are doing nothing about this looming catastrophe? That's a whole new thread isn't it?
Messages 18781 - 18800 of total 20087 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews