The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

I don't think it's outside their purview when they are being used in the political arena to push agendas which would be pushed regardless of climate change and depend on politicians for funding.

So, you're saying that climate scientists should politicize their field? Because I don't think they should. That's what politicians are for.

And yet Nye, Gore, and other non-scientists have been claiming we must take "action" lest our coastal cities are all put underwater *imminently*. That's predicting the future. There's a saying that goes "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". In this case, Nye makes predictions, and wins the request to make more as a prize.

Agreed. But Gore and Nye aren't scientists. Political praxis inevitably takes the future into account, whether we agree with the programmatics or not. I'm saying we shouldn't demand this of scientists. I'm sure that some harbor personal opinions on the matter, but most of them try not to let those opinions factor into their data measurements.

I find it obvious that humans contribute to climate. The degree to which that is the case, and the degree to which and ways in which that is problematic is so far beyond our current understanding that the only possible non-partisan arena on this issue is one in which we agree that we don't know enough. Therefore, we should not take any action beyond more data and analysis collection - particularly not drastic action that doesn't involve more data and analysis, and which just so happens to align with ideologies which have nothing to do with climate whatsoever.

Well, you're going to have opinions like this every generation, because climate change isn't observable within the span of a lifetime. So it's fine if we're being skeptical and wary, but it's not okay if it resets every generation when the dying skeptics tell their grandchildren to hold out against the liberal scientists.

Clearly I'm being hyperbolic, I'm just pointing out that saying "we don't know the degree" is an argument that will continue to pop up, over and over again. But there actually is quantifiable data to show that since the 1950s CO2 has risen from around 300 parts per million to over 400 parts per million. In a single generation, this kind of change won't feel like much. At some point we need to acknowledge the data that's been gathered.

 

[rms]

The basic gist of climate change is that CO2 absorbs light at longer wavelengths, specifically infrared radiation, which we feel as heat

for clarity's sake, this is partially incorrect. CO2 does not only absorb types of radiation but instead reflects back to the surface and traps it rather than lets it escape. CO2 prolongs the time infrared and other heat sources are 'inside' our atmosphere

or at least to be skeptical of humanity's contribution to it.

to the projection of scientists, ultimately human impact will have minimal effect on CO2 levels. The fear is that 'we' will warm the planet just enough to warm the oceans, which traps more CO2 than anywhere else on the planet. No amount of human CO2 levels trump the ocean levels

unless we're willing to admit that scientists can predict the future

uhh scientists want us to believe they can predict the future? this is exactly what the global warming discussion is about. Scientists predict ice shelves melting, coastal U.S. will see rising sea levels ~10m or something and also predicts more volatile storms.

 

[Einherjar86]

for clarity's sake, this is partially incorrect. CO2 does not only absorb types of radiation but instead reflects back to the surface and traps it rather than lets it escape. CO2 prolongs the time infrared and other heat sources are 'inside' our atmosphere

It wasn't incorrect, it simply wasn't as detailed as what you just said. Are you trying to contradict my point, or no...?

to the projection of scientists, ultimately human impact will have minimal effect on CO2 levels. The fear is that 'we' will warm the planet just enough to warm the oceans, which traps more CO2 than anywhere else on the planet. No amount of human CO2 levels trump the ocean levels

According to the data, humans are already having a significant impact on CO2 levels. So I'm not sure what you're saying.

uhh scientists want us to believe they can predict the future? this is exactly what the global warming discussion is about. Scientists predict ice shelves melting, coastal U.S. will see rising sea levels ~10m or something and also predicts more volatile storms.

Scientists measure data and then offer suggestions about what they think will happen. No one is predicting the future. Ice shelves are already melting, sea levels are already rising. This is observation and--Humean critique of induction notwithstanding--it stands to reason that much of this will continue to happen.

 

[rms]

It wasn't incorrect, it simply wasn't as detailed as what you just said. Are you trying to contradict my point, or no...?

I was going to, but I had to ninja edit because I was apparently wrong, or just not interested in doing more research. Was taught CO2 reflects infrared light but some sites say absorbs and reflects. probably shoulda just deleted it

According to the data, humans are already having a significant impact on CO2 levels. So I'm not sure what you're saying.

well yes, most of the CO2 on Earth is stored in the oceans. So whatever effect we end up having on CO2 levels globally is marginal compared to the possibility of oceans warming enough to release their stored CO2. The biggest fear is that we will enter a positive feedback system, where CO2 is released much, much faster than it can be stored and become a 'very lite' Venus.

Scientists measure data and then offer suggestions about what they think will happen. No one is predicting the future. Ice shelves are already melting, sea levels are already rising. This is observation and--Humean critique of induction notwithstanding--it stands to reason that much of this will continue to happen.

it is not just suggestions, they make climate models and projections based off data to try and predict the future. That's why a lot of this talk about climate change is being refuted, the models are insanely off.

Well Arctic ice I believe is being 'lost' per-se but if i'm not mistaken Antarctica is 'adding' more ice. Have to verify that again

 

[CiG]

 

[tagradh]

At this point (and yes, it's cynical and silly) I'll start caring about science deniers on the right when people start evenhandedly criticising science deniers on the left. I'll care about what might happen to the planet a thousand years after I'm dead when you start caring that people on the left literally think you're born gay, but heterosexuality is fluid, there are more than 2 genders, a man can be born trapped as a woman inside a male body, yet biological sex is a social construct.

Science denying is much more rampant on the left and is even, like a virus, running through important structures of civilisation such as education.

...

At least in the UK and the US, 'the right' is in power. That makes right wing science deniers far more worrying.

The one issue you've decided to highlight doesn't have nearly the importance that climate/environmental science does, which is probably the main reason that there are far fewer scientists involved in its study, and there's nothing like the consensus among scientists on sex/gender as there is on climate science.

And fuck off is the left worse than the right when it comes to denying science. This shouldn't even be a right/left issue. Part of the problem is surely that so many, like yourself, can't help but try and turn it into one. It's the opinions of people that know what they're talking about, and the consensus among them, vs people people that, in most cases, don't know shit. Who gives a fuck if they're on the left or the right?

Far too much of politics and everything these days seems to be 'boohoo, these people said something silly/hurt my feelings, so I'm gonna side with those that oppose them even though they're a bunch of fuckwits'.

It's pathetic.

 

[CiG]

At least in the UK and the US, 'the right' is in power. That makes right wing science deniers far more worrying.

No it doesn't, not if you consider that the culture in the long run is more important than the next 4 to 8 years of right-wing policy. When you're fining people in N.Y. for misgendering people, or in Canada where laws in certain cities demand that you use alternative pronouns by force of law, that's a problem, especially when it's going unchecked and it's anti-scientific fundamentally.

Far too much of politics and everything these days seems to be 'boohoo, these people said something silly/hurt my feelings, so I'm gonna side with those that oppose them even though they're a bunch of fuckwits'.

It's pathetic.

This very thing seems to constantly play out in your political posts, so that's pretty funny.

And fuck off is the left worse than the right when it comes to denying science.

Emotional reaction? Where's your rebut though? In what way is the right worse?

This shouldn't even be a right/left issue. Part of the problem is surely that so many, like yourself, can't help but try and turn it into one.

Oh okay so it shouldn't be a left v right issue, but you're also saying the right is definitely worse. What the fuck?

 

[tagradh]

How are some bullshit fines, which weren't thought up by scientists, comparable to cutting funding for research that the right/business doesn't like or ending initiatives to protect the the environment?

Like the people that get all worked up about pronouns, you're making this issue out to be so much greater than it really is.

Left and right has to come into it because you always bring it in at the start. You seem to be so hung up on the fact that, as an adult, you were a daft lefty feminist that everything has to be about the left vs the right.

You provided no evidence for the left being worse so, as I only had 5 minutes, I didn't bother either. But I'm sure that if I search I'll be correct. When it comes to genuine issues, i.e. the environment, abortion, it's the right that acts idiotic. The best you can possibly hope for is a 'draw' in this regard.

 

[Einherjar86]

well yes, most of the CO2 on Earth is stored in the oceans. So whatever effect we end up having on CO2 levels globally is marginal compared to the possibility of oceans warming enough to release their stored CO2. The biggest fear is that we will enter a positive feedback system, where CO2 is released much, much faster than it can be stored and become a 'very lite' Venus.

Ha, lite Venus. That would suck.

This is really interesting, I'd never paid much attention to ocean's role. Peter Watts writes about it somewhere, but I hadn't done any more reading.

I don't have any critical response to this point, though, because I'm not here promoting political plans to "combat climate change." The only thing I'm emphatically in support of is continuing to fund government departments that observe the climate. The thing that irks me the most is when people mistake the denial and rejection of scientific measurements, and how these measurements correlate to the increase of human industry on this planet (and they do correlate, astoundingly), for a critical skepticism. A critical skepticism toward climate change can ask questions about the application of various policy measures and programs intended to "combat climate change," which in my opinion dumb down the situation into a kind of "us and them" scenario--i.e. the climate is an enemy that we need to defeat and/or control. I think there are plenty of ways to be skeptical of the political actions "against" climate change without denying the correlations between data.

it is not just suggestions, they make climate models and projections based off data to try and predict the future. That's why a lot of this talk about climate change is being refuted, the models are insanely off.

Well Arctic ice I believe is being 'lost' per-se but if i'm not mistaken Antarctica is 'adding' more ice. Have to verify that again

This is fair, I'll have to admit some predictive elements. My primary intervention here is that science facts are entirely different than science fiction. The predictive , or extrapolative, elements of science fiction aren't what we find in actual (or "normal") science. You used the word "projections," and that's much more appropriate. Too many people see normal science as predominantly speculative.

Also, there has been inaccuracy in some models because this is a live phenomenon; it's happening as we speak. That's not a reason to deny climate change, the evidence for which is everywhere. It's a reason to keep pitching models and see how close the actual climate adheres to the models we create, in the hope that we might better approximate climate systems, which are immensely complex. Accuracy in computer simulations for a global system that comprises every kind of terrestrial ecosystem (including underwater ecosystems, as you mention above) is no simple endeavor.

 

[CiG]

How are some bullshit fines, which weren't thought up by scientists, comparable to cutting funding for research that the right/business doesn't like or ending initiatives to protect the the environment?

Because it encodes into the law the idea that biological sex isn't a thing. Are there laws that encode climate denial as a legal fact? Scientists may not have created bill C-16 for example, but many in the scientific community supported it and called opponents of it bigots who should be fired etc.

I happen to think things like speech and expression are important. For me they are the top-tier issues. When a law forces us to say certain words or not say certain words, I think that's very important. I weight it up against the climate and I can't help but care more about the former.

Like the people that get all worked up about pronouns, you're making this issue out to be so much greater than it really is.

No, people like yourself flippantly dismiss it as an issue, the next thing you know you're being fined thousands of dollars for saying the wrong word. It is an issue, regardless of whether you care enough or not.

You provided no evidence for the left being worse so, as I only had 5 minutes, I didn't bother either. But I'm sure that if I search I'll be correct. When it comes to genuine issues, i.e. the environment, abortion, it's the right that acts idiotic. The best you can possibly hope for is a 'draw' in this regard.

The right doesn't want their taxes to fund climate activism or abortions. That's a desire to be excluded from specific practices. The left wants to force people to be included in specific practices. I think the latter is worse. Compelled action is much worse than choosing not to be involved.

Left and right has to come into it because you always bring it in at the start. You seem to be so hung up on the fact that, as an adult, you were a daft lefty feminist that everything has to be about the left vs the right.

You're one of those cretinous individuals that always pulls the but why the left vs right dichotomy when it suits you, but I've seen you do the same thing unprompted on here. Don't be a hypocrite. If you thought it shouldn't be about left vs right, you wouldn't have reacted the way you did by saying the right is way worse.

 

[rms]

Too many people see normal science as predominantly speculative.

I say projections since we do not know if these scientists are just making these models and then are asked by a reporter and then it's "OMG PLANET IS DEAD 2050"

That's not a reason to deny climate change, the evidence for which is everywhere.

Well, there's evidence to support the idea that CO2 increases the surface temperature levels but not change climate

I'm starting to think i'm pro global warming at this point. this warm week in buffalo is the greatest thing right now

 

[Einherjar86]

The increase in surface temperature is climate change. It's already happening.

It's been crazy warm in Boston. Also, I believe it's the first recorded January and February on record in Chicago in which they've had no accumulation of snow (some light dustings, that's it). That's insane for the Windy City.

 

[rms]

the 1-3 projected degree change isn't changing climates, Ein

California finally has rain to make its shitty state survive. Good times if you're not a wealthy elite with coastal property

 

[Einherjar86]

Sea levels are already rising. Climate change is already happening. In fact, it's always happening.

That's one of the things people don't get, they think climate change is this thing that might happen. No, it's happening now.

 

[rms]

show me one place where climate has changed

 

[Dak]

I've never really been skeptical about climate changes. We have a long record of climate change on earth with or without humans. I'm just skeptical about the degree to which humans actually influence the change, and the degree to which it's a problem.

 

[Einherjar86]

show me one place where climate has changed

Climate change isn't an event. It's a process; that's why they call it "change."

 

[rms]

*show me where one is changing

 

[Einherjar86]

 

[rms]

that is intellectually dishonest and I hope you know it