Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Phage

Do you think constant denial that anything at all is happening is beneficial? Is denial more productive than awareness? 

They are both equally meaningless.
But you already knew that.

Awareness can lead to action.
Denial leads to nothing.

a reply to: Gothmog

Ice weighs more than water.

Then why doesn't it sink?

a reply to: Phage


It's interesting to see that the actual numbers of skeptics in the news doubled from 2007 to 2010. This is either a sign for growing Idiocracy or/ and an indicator, that we now live with twice that much aganda-driven disinfo than we did so in 2007.

Don't phage on me, please! Yep, kinda peculiar increase. Not a very good sign, innit?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

This is either a sign for growing Idiocracy or/ and an indicator, that we now live with twice that much aganda-driven disinfo than we did so in 2007.

Or that the deniers (and note that they specify warming, not AGW) feel the need to be more strident, for some reason.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Phage

Do you think constant denial that anything at all is happening is beneficial? Is denial more productive than awareness? 

They are both equally meaningless.
But you already knew that.

Awareness can lead to action.
Denial leads to nothing.

And the oceans continue to rise, the Earth continues to warm and the Pacific trash mass continues to grow.
I am aware of that. Thanks to all for making me aware.
Maybe if you had more money to throw at the politicians than the corporations do, you would see change.

a reply to: butcherguy

Maybe if you had more money to throw at the politicians than the corporations do, you would see change.

Maybe.
Or maybe if enough people acknowledged the problem they would fire the politicians who fight attempts to change.

a reply to: butcherguy

With public awareness about the reality of AGW, we can hopefully prevent the dogmatic climate deniers from being elected or reelected. If the general public was truly aware of the problem then we would be in a better position to keep the ill informed or the straight up corporate climate denying shill from holding positions of power.

While this is a bit of a tangent, look at gay marriage for an example something that most deniers also seem to hate. Look how because of public opinion and elected officials who actually care about doing the right thing helped it become the law. If the public opinion is strong enough, our elected officials will be forced to address man made climate change.

Discussions like this matter, that is why the Merchants of Doubt pay shills to spread straight up bad information on forums like this all over the internet.

a reply to: Phage

Or maybe only if enough people fire their corrupted politicians and boycott goods (from corporations) with big environmental footprint.

Thanks for starting the thread. I have read it all and enjoyed the comments. A few points to make:
1. How many of you have spent lots of time building and running models? I have. You should know that models are not for predictions, that is misuse except in a few instances. Models are for determining the consequences of assumptions. They are sort of a glorified accounting. It is possible to build models that prove anything. The only exception is when you can demonstrate that the factors which are not included are insignificant, and with climate, that is nowhere near being anywhere near to anything like true. So relying on models to determine the direction of your life and how to spend your time is very chancy.
2. Ditto for data analysis. In the real world, this is a hard thing to do.
3. It would be good if both sides in this debate could pick the best source of information, websites or reports or whatever you like, from the other side and read it carefully. There might be a bit more convergence, then. Reading one's own story re-hashed in new ways doesn't lead to any meeting of the minds.
4. It would also be good if both sides in this debate would denounce and rebuke those who have made exaggerated claims on their own side. Enough of this "Them or Us" stuff. There has been enough time in this process so that many claims have had time to be verified or disproved. Clean up the messes and then it will be easier to come to some agreements.
Best of luck!

originally posted by: StanFL
You should know that models are not for predictions, that is misuse except in a few instances.

A star for your post but, the truth is that the only ones doing predictions are squarely in the scientific community. Apart from that, we already have measures in place that are presumptive, based on prediction.

originally posted by: Phage
Don't you think that more time to deal with major changes in a large civilization would be helpful in doing so successfully? Don't you think that more time to produce solutions might be able to reduce the misery caused by the changes?

I think greater access to energy makes the odds of innovating those answers quickly much more likely.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I suppose that would depend on the consequences of utilizing a particular source of energy.
Some would exacerbate the problem, reducing the ability to mitigate.

originally posted by: Phage

You mean the "side" that has a great deal of evidence to support its position? You mean the "side" which consists of a great majority of climatologists instead of a handful?

The evidence? You mean the computer climate models that don't work?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I suppose that would depend on the consequences of utilizing a particular source of energy.
Some would exacerbate the problem, reducing the ability to mitigate.

Assuming that source actually has any consequences in the first place.

a reply to: Teikiatsu
Actually, they do work, within their limitations.
But you're right, models are not evidence. Increasing CO2 levels along with increasing temperatures are. Are you claiming that neither are occurring?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MamaJ

While ignoring the science because, well, it's just science after all and what has science ever gotten right?

If you are referring to climate models and past predictions of catastrophic rising sea levels... not much.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

If you are referring to climate models and past predictions of catastrophic rising sea levels

Not so much.
Though worst case scenarios are hardly a basis on which to judge the accuracy of modelling.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Forget models.

Do you accept the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: butcherguy

Some of us care about something other than themselves.
Some of us have children.

Yep. I'd like my son to have access to thriving energy sectors and cutting edge innovations fed by abundant power.

I'd rather not see him dealing with rolling brownouts, lower quality of life, and unemployment because our energy is waiting for the wind to pick up.