My point was that the only real debate is on the mechanisms of global warming,
That may be the only "real" debate, but it is far from the only debate. I debate whether global warming is real with the stupids quite often and frankly saying, "scientists say it's real and there are other proofs," is just not good enough. If I'm to argue for global warming I need more information.
I debate whether evolution is real with the stupids quite often and frankly saying, "scientists say it's real and there are other proofs," is just not good enough. If I'm to argue for evolution I need more information.
However, who is it that has been making these "absolute predictions" that you are speaking out against? Show me examples.
Over the past week, it emerged that the doomsday date found its way into a 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) not from a peer-reviewed study but from an interview published in the New Scientist 10 years ago. That article attributed the prediction to Syed Iqbal Hasnain, a noted Indian glaciologist, who denies he put forth such a date.
The question was not over whether incorrect predictions were made, but of the specific wording used when those predictions were presented. I don't see a direct quote from the report.
That may be the only "real" debate, but it is far from the only debate. I debate whether global warming is real with the stupids quite often and frankly saying, "scientists say it's real and there are other proofs," is just not good enough. If I'm to argue for global warming I need more information.
Well, short of measuring temperature, there obviously can't be any other way of showing whether or not the globe is getting warmer. However, the change of 0.5 degrees in the past 50 years is more than could statistically be attributed to any of the sources of error in the temperature record.
Just a couple of decades ago we thought the earth was entering into a mini ice age. That ought to show that this field is a developing one. And that's my only gripe.
Science doesn't have to be old to be well-established. Modern plate tectonic theory, for example, was only established in the late 1960's. Would you suggest that plate tectonics is invalid because of this?
It depends on the complexity of the topic. Length of research alone is not dipositive.
George is asking, "What do I say to the stupid people who don't believe scientists when they hear that the Earth's temperature is rising?"
We are saying, "If they don't understand what data from studies are, then there is nothing else you can tell them because they will not understand ANY of it."
Aside from the ice core evidence of gasses or whatever, we have temperature records over the years we have been taking them that show a trend of increase. The increasing severity of weather phenomena can theoretically be partially explained by increased evaporation due to warmer temperatures (more water in the air -> more precipitation, both cold and warm). A reduction in the area of polar ice and the melting of glaciers would generally lead to the conclusion that it is getting warmer, since established ice does not generally melt absent a temperature increase. Does any of this matter to them? NO! Because they are not seeing it in front of their eyes RIGHT NOW, so they do not believe it exists.
>Isn't this run by that ex-TV Meterologist quack? EDIT: Yup
I thought we were past ad hominems? If you have proof the information on the site is false please show it.
1) Go to the Wikipedia entry for Anthony Watts. 2) Skim wiki text. Do not throw away information because it's Wikipedia, but go through the bibliography of studies and read them. 3) ???? 4) PROFIT!
If you didn't believe in global warming, what would it take to convince you? The answer,you can't be convinced.
Sadly, that article is true for a lot more than just global warming.
Perhaps we have to accept that there is no simple solution to public disbelief in science. The battle over climate change suggests that the more clearly you spell the problem out, the more you turn people away. If they don’t want to know, nothing and no one will reach them. There goes my life’s work.
I deal with the same thing when trying to tell people about the dangers of unpasteurized milk. Outbreak and recall related to raw milk? Raw milk sales increase. You can't win.
This is why I drink.
EDIT: Of course, you have to keep trying anyway. It might never work, but that's no reason to stop.
If you didn't believe in global warming, what would it take to convince you? The answer,you can't be convinced.
Sadly, that article is true for a lot more than just global warming... I deal with the same thing when trying to tell people about the dangers of unpasteurized milk. Outbreak and recall related to raw milk? Raw milk sales increase. You can't win.
I remember the very disappointing moment when James Randi, at a seminar we attended, basically admitted that he had never in his life witnessed, or known anyone who had witnessed, a "woo-woo" being persuaded by logic, reason, or evidence against their made-up bullshit. He seemed to have the sad conviction that people can in fact get themselves to a point beyond logic, a sort of event horizon of self-imposed cognitive blindness, beyond which there is no hope of return.
What if this is true? Say it were. How do you deal with a person who is demonstrably wrong, continues to act in a harmful manner in accord with their wrongness, and provably cannot be persuaded by any means otherwise?
What if this is true? Say it were. How do you deal with a person who is demonstrably wrong, continues to act in a harmful manner in accord with their wrongness, and provably cannot be persuaded by any means otherwise?
What if this is true? Say it were. How do you deal with a person who is demonstrably wrong, continues to act in a harmful manner in accord with their wrongness, and provably cannot be persuaded by any means otherwise?
1984, that's how.
Let people harm themselves. The moment their behavior harms anyone outside of themselves, society steps in and corrects the behavior. Of course, this will invariably lead to an undermining of freedom and self-determination.
Or we accept that we'll always have "woo-woos" to fight. Job security is a wonderful thing.
Being "The Man" is a lot more philosophically complicated than I imagined it would be.
What if this is true? Say it were. How do you deal with a person who is demonstrably wrong, continues to act in a harmful manner in accord with their wrongness, and provably cannot be persuaded by any means otherwise?
Apparently by putting them on the NY Court of Appeals.
So, apparently they made a new study called The Berkeley Earth Project, independent of all previous efforts similar to it and funded by, among others, Koch Industries. It also has been supported by plenty of climate change deniers such as Anthony Watts who is on record saying "I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." Well, the first results are in, the paper awaiting peer review and publication, and to the surprise of nobody who actually knows anything about it, the paper shows almost nothing new. It essentially only cross-confirms the already known measurements from NASA, HadCRU, NOAA, etc.
Of course, this leaves people like Watts reeling, as they now have to denounce the project they once supported, writing things like "I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by [the Journal of Geophysical Research] until such time that it can be reworked." After all, if it doesn't confirm what you already believe, it must be wrong. Here's a nice blog on the matter.
"I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."
There are only two reasons people say this - they're either entirely, absolutely and totally convinced they're correct, or a vanishingly small percentage of the time, they're telling the truth when they say it. Frankly, anyone who did not expect exactly this to happen has far more faith in people than I do.
But we had so many awful cars in the 1960s, why is it worse now? Because it's all the car's fault that the climate is changing, that's what they keep telling me.
Comments
I'm just going to keep posting this.
However, the change of 0.5 degrees in the past 50 years is more than could statistically be attributed to any of the sources of error in the temperature record.
We are saying, "If they don't understand what data from studies are, then there is nothing else you can tell them because they will not understand ANY of it."
Aside from the ice core evidence of gasses or whatever, we have temperature records over the years we have been taking them that show a trend of increase. The increasing severity of weather phenomena can theoretically be partially explained by increased evaporation due to warmer temperatures (more water in the air -> more precipitation, both cold and warm). A reduction in the area of polar ice and the melting of glaciers would generally lead to the conclusion that it is getting warmer, since established ice does not generally melt absent a temperature increase. Does any of this matter to them? NO! Because they are not seeing it in front of their eyes RIGHT NOW, so they do not believe it exists.
And yet many of them believe in God. Irony?
EDIT: Yup
2) Skim wiki text. Do not throw away information because it's Wikipedia, but go through the bibliography of studies and read them.
3) ????
4) PROFIT!
This is why I drink.
EDIT: Of course, you have to keep trying anyway. It might never work, but that's no reason to stop.
What if this is true? Say it were. How do you deal with a person who is demonstrably wrong, continues to act in a harmful manner in accord with their wrongness, and provably cannot be persuaded by any means otherwise?
Let people harm themselves. The moment their behavior harms anyone outside of themselves, society steps in and corrects the behavior. Of course, this will invariably lead to an undermining of freedom and self-determination.
Or we accept that we'll always have "woo-woos" to fight. Job security is a wonderful thing.
Being "The Man" is a lot more philosophically complicated than I imagined it would be.
Of course, this leaves people like Watts reeling, as they now have to denounce the project they once supported, writing things like "I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by [the Journal of Geophysical Research] until such time that it can be reworked." After all, if it doesn't confirm what you already believe, it must be wrong. Here's a nice blog on the matter.