Climate change deniers: how can you debate them?

[sdifox]

http://voices.nationalgeographic.co...ells-us-about-climate-change-and-variability/

 

[John Connor]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/n...a-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/12-most-hypocritical-environmentalists-hollywood?page=0,0

 

[John Connor]

OP, global warming or climate change is not science, it's a religion and you are not going to convince anyone who doesn't believe in that culture/religion.

 

[Paratus]

It boils down to this. Real science uses the scientific method. The steps of the scientific method are simple. Come up with a hypothesis, then check your hypothesis with experiments.

Climate "science" on the other hand has much more in common with finance and economics. It relies heavily on models. There's nothing wrong with that. However it makes heavy use of backtesting to validate the models. That works well as a filter, but to truly validate any climate model, we need to test their predictions against the future.

Climate science is based on thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, and conservation of mass and energy. All settled science. If you don't believe so feel free to prove another theory that fits the observed data and get yourself a Nobel prize.

Does climate science use heat and mass transfer and thermodynamics? It should, but that is not to be celebrated. It is a basic requirement. That's the first step, not the last. The question is how good is climate science in modeling the system that is earth? The answer is that we're not there yet.

The above picture illustrates why large uncertainty ranges are a scam. Pink lines are my "uncertainty" range of +- .4 degrees. Red like is my high tech prediction.

As Sandorski said, "ah No".

Climate change follows the scientific method. All mainstream climate theories are peer reviewed. They are also testable and falsifiable. The IPCC has been making predictions since 1990. All predictions for the last 25 years have been within the margin of error when compared against the observed surface temperatures.

The "skeptical" predictions not so much:

Sea level rise:

It's obvious you don't have much experience using scientific analysis to perform real world operations. There are always error bars. High performing organizations use risk analysis to make decisions when there are uncertainties.

The science shows the likelihood is probably in the 4-5 region and the impact in cost and safety is in the 4-5 region as well. Mitigation is required.

Pretend your the city manager for Miami beach. A couple of times a year during high tide your downtown looks like this:

Most climate scientists from every major university and governmental science agency around the planet agree that you'll be seeing more and worse flooding over the coming decades.

Your own data shows increasing number of tidal flood days:

You could recommend:

• Spending 400 million in new flood prevention measures - what they actually did
• Wait 10-20 years for better models to see if flooding might happen or be a problem - What you've recommended

Which one of those recommendations is responsible and which is negligent? :hmm:

 

[Paratus]

OP, global warming or climate change is not science, it's a religion and you are not going to convince anyone who doesn't believe in that culture/religion.

Keep the faith brother let no facts or science change your mind.

 

[Hacp]

As Sandorski said, "ah No".

Climate change follows the scientific method. All mainstream climate theories are peer reviewed. They are also testable and falsifiable. The IPCC has been making predictions since 1990. All predictions for the last 25 years have been within the margin of error when compared against the observed surface temperatures.

The "skeptical" predictions not so much:

Sea level rise:

It's obvious you don't have much experience using scientific analysis to perform real world operations. There are always error bars. High performing organizations use risk analysis to make decisions when there are uncertainties.

The science shows the likelihood is probably in the 4-5 region and the impact in cost and safety is in the 4-5 region as well. Mitigation is required.

Pretend your the city manager for Miami beach. A couple of times a year during high tide your downtown looks like this:

Most climate scientists from every major university and governmental science agency around the planet agree that you'll be seeing more and worse flooding over the coming decades.

Your own data shows increasing number of tidal flood days:

You could recommend:

• Spending 400 million in new flood prevention measures - what they actually did
• Wait 10-20 years for better models to see if flooding might happen or be a problem - What you've recommended

Which one of those recommendations is responsible and which is negligent? :hmm:

Climate change follows the scientific method. All mainstream climate theories are peer reviewed. They are also testable and falsifiable. The IPCC has been making predictions since 1990. All predictions for the last 25 years have been within the margin of error when compared against the observed surface temperatures.

Climate "Science" follows the scientific method as much as psychology follows the scientific method. The fundamental natural sciences such as physics and chemistry have set a much higher bar.

Social "Sciences" such as economics or psychology or sociology are less rigorous. Climate "Science" falls closer to the Social "Sciences" spectrum in that regard compared to the natural sciences.

It's obvious you don't have much experience using scientific analysis to perform real world operations. There are always error bars. High performing organizations use risk analysis to make decisions when there are uncertainties.
I understand the need for organizations to use risk analysis when making decision to allocate resources. That is what PMO (or project management) does. Last time I checked, project management was not considered a science.

Your own data shows increasing number of tidal flood days:
These are extremely short timescales. Earth has been supporting life for hundreds of millions of years. In that period there have been warm periods and cool periods. There have been high sea level periods and low sea level periods. Everything moves in ebbs and flows. The best way to understand what is happening is to sit back and collect more data. It's not be be an alarmist.

Notice the starting point of the IPCC models. Now shift that up to where the first data point is. This is another problem with the emphasis on temperature differences rather than absolute temperatures. You can manipulate your starting point to wherever you want to make your models look good. With absolute temperatures it is much harder to fake.

This sort of manipulation is quite common in the social sciences. Heck it is found often in medical/biological papers as well.

http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

They important factor is the ease of repeating, reproducing, and validating papers. In the hard natural sciences there is a higher emphasis and a higher bar when validating results. In Climate "Science" the only way to validate results is to see how current predictions match future data. This is something Climate "Scientists" will not admit.

 

[JMapleton]

Only a moronic fool would say climate change doesn't exist.

The debate is whether or not human activity is the cause of it or not.

The ignorant common man has just misunderstood the argument and assumed that means climate change doesn't exist at all.

 

[sandorski]

Climate change follows the scientific method. All mainstream climate theories are peer reviewed. They are also testable and falsifiable. The IPCC has been making predictions since 1990. All predictions for the last 25 years have been within the margin of error when compared against the observed surface temperatures.

Climate "Science" follows the scientific method as much as psychology follows the scientific method. The fundamental natural sciences such as physics and chemistry have set a much higher bar.

Social "Sciences" such as economics or psychology or sociology are less rigorous. Climate "Science" falls closer to the Social "Sciences" spectrum in that regard compared to the natural sciences.

It's obvious you don't have much experience using scientific analysis to perform real world operations. There are always error bars. High performing organizations use risk analysis to make decisions when there are uncertainties.
I understand the need for organizations to use risk analysis when making decision to allocate resources. That is what PMO (or project management) does. Last time I checked, project management was not considered a science.

Your own data shows increasing number of tidal flood days:
These are extremely short timescales. Earth has been supporting life for hundreds of millions of years. In that period there have been warm periods and cool periods. There have been high sea level periods and low sea level periods. Everything moves in ebbs and flows. The best way to understand what is happening is to sit back and collect more data. It's not be be an alarmist.

Notice the starting point of the IPCC models. Now shift that up to where the first data point is. This is another problem with the emphasis on temperature differences rather than absolute temperatures. You can manipulate your starting point to wherever you want to make your models look good. With absolute temperatures it is much harder to fake.

This sort of manipulation is quite common in the social sciences. Heck it is found often in medical/biological papers as well.

http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

They important factor is the ease of repeating, reproducing, and validating papers. In the hard natural sciences there is a higher emphasis and a higher bar when validating results. In Climate "Science" the only way to validate results is to see how current predictions match future data. This is something Climate "Scientists" will not admit.

Oy vey.

 

[Jaskalas]

What do you think I did?

The whole premise of point #3, is to use the El Nino spike.
We are both well versed enough to see right through that.
Let's leave Satellite alone until we see how it balances out after La Nina.

 

[Jeff7]

Only a moronic fool would say climate change doesn't exist.

The debate is whether or not human activity is the cause of it or not.

The ignorant common man has just misunderstood the argument and assumed that means climate change doesn't exist at all.

"Stem cells are horrible! They kill babies to get them!"
No, you're thinking of embryonic stem cells obtained during abortions.
Adult stem cells are still extremely useful and are worth a lot of research effort.

"Immigrants are destroying this country! They come here illegally and don't pay taxes!"
No, you're thinking of illegal immigrants. Plenty of people immigrate here and integrate just fine, taxes and all.


"Thinking" has a surprisingly poor reputation in this country.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty are IMO the two biggest vices of humanity.

 

[Naer]

you debate them with force

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

lol at all the people saying climate change is always happening and then clocking out - as if that statement by itself settles the matter - but not understanding that there's a *reason* for these changes.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

OP, global warming or climate change is not science, it's a religion and you are not going to convince anyone who doesn't believe in that culture/religion.

shocking that you feel this way conner, just shocking.

 

[Paratus]

The whole premise of point #3, is to use the El Nino spike.
We are both well versed enough to see right through that.
Let's leave Satellite alone until we see how it balances out after La Nina.

Sorry Jasklas, you and I are going to disagree on this.

The "skeptic" community set the pause based off the last major El Niño spike, I'm not going to pretend that the current spike doesn't makes that impossible now.

I fully expected this El Niño to be higher than the 97-98 one. I also expect the following trough to be higher than the previous.

 

[Chiropteran]

Climate changes all the time, it's called weather.

Man can cause climate change: it's called heating & air conditioning.

And TBH, I think a little global warming could be a good thing. Currently, a huge area of the earth is completely unable to support life because it's just too freaking cold- the north pole, Antarctica, Canada, even Boston in the winter time. Yet no part of the world is too hot to support life. (Deserts problem is lack of water, not just pure heat).

So what if we increase the global temperature by a few degrees? Maybe Canada will become viable for life, maybe a few tiny islands sink into the rising ocean - net gain in livable area IMO, not exactly a global disaster.

edit:

Totally serious response: the real problem is TOO MANY PEOPLE. The impact of my SUV, or my usage of plastic bags, or when I run the A/C with the window open is insignificant next to the real problem. Carbon impact of a car? 2 carbon units. Carbon impact of having a kid? 23424234 carbon units. Humans having children is the problem. The real solution is global procreation controls, which nobody at all wants to touch because it's a huge political minefield. But really, taking a bike to work instead of driving is a tint tiny drop in the bucket that is vastly overshadowed by the impact of choosing to have one or more children.

Somewhat ironic, actually, since the climate change alarmists are always concerned about the world our children will be inheriting. The problem isn't the world, it's the children.

 

[Ichinisan]

And TBH, I think a little global warming could be a good thing.

Maybe.

 

[ultimatebob]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Maybe you should fix your shithole first.

Damn Canadians and Australians! I thought that those socialists were already well on their way to cleaning up their act? Look at those per capita numbers

 

[blankslate]

It's a heavy lift when they see snow, make a snowball to throw on the floor, and say something along the lines of "I has a snowball, me no see Global Warming you Morans"

I doubt there's much RoI in that effort


___________

 

[Denly]

Climate change as a settled science is BS. There is a real problem, and it is over-population. In developed countries the growth rate of population has slowed. Except for migration. The populations in undeveloped countries are out of control, and the resulting spillover is what we are seeing.

Over-population is affecting pollution, natural resources, the oceans and the amount of food required to feed everyone. This is a problem that will eventually fix itself, just like those cute deer that overrun an area, that refuses to allow hunting. I don't know the optimum number of people that the Earth can support. Seven billion plus seems high for the long term. So this climate change BS is just a diversion that the political class is profiting from. It's made Al Gore a billionaire.

This x1000

It is not about the climate change anymore, it is about how much we f'd up mother Earth. Meaning we f'd up our home, things we depending on, the whole eco system. Why? Because we can.

I am not a doomsday preppers type but all the signs are pointing to the wrong direction. When world govs come together and made a push you know shit hit the fan.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I worry too. We have the scientific knowledge to solve it all. But we don't. I hope when we do, that it is not too late. I would be glad if the Chinese would develop functioning Rubbiatrons and later on fusion.

 

[Jeff7]

It's a heavy lift when they see snow, make a snowball to throw on the floor, and say something along the lines of "I has a snowball, me no see Global Warming you Morans"

I doubt there's much RoI in that effort


___________

If evolution's real, why are there still things that aren't humans?

If global warming's real, why are there still cold things?

Fat: I think if it wasn't called "fat," then "fat free" foods would have had a much tougher time catching on.

Obamacare: Much lower support than Affordable Care Act.


I'm paraphrasing something I saw recently....
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Fine.

"Here, smell this flower. It's called a rancid spunk blaster."
"....uh, no thanks, I'll pass."


Names matter, hence the attempted renaming to "climate change."

 

[Paratus]

Climate change follows the scientific method. All mainstream climate theories are peer reviewed. They are also testable and falsifiable. The IPCC has been making predictions since 1990. All predictions for the last 25 years have been within the margin of error when compared against the observed surface temperatures.

Climate "Science" follows the scientific method as much as psychology follows the scientific method. The fundamental natural sciences such as physics and chemistry have set a much higher bar.

Social "Sciences" such as economics or psychology or sociology are less rigorous. Climate "Science" falls closer to the Social "Sciences" spectrum in that regard compared to the natural sciences.

It's obvious you don't have much experience using scientific analysis to perform real world operations. There are always error bars. High performing organizations use risk analysis to make decisions when there are uncertainties.
I understand the need for organizations to use risk analysis when making decision to allocate resources. That is what PMO (or project management) does. Last time I checked, project management was not considered a science.

Your own data shows increasing number of tidal flood days:
These are extremely short timescales. Earth has been supporting life for hundreds of millions of years. In that period there have been warm periods and cool periods. There have been high sea level periods and low sea level periods. Everything moves in ebbs and flows. The best way to understand what is happening is to sit back and collect more data. It's not be be an alarmist.

Notice the starting point of the IPCC models. Now shift that up to where the first data point is. This is another problem with the emphasis on temperature differences rather than absolute temperatures. You can manipulate your starting point to wherever you want to make your models look good. With absolute temperatures it is much harder to fake.

This sort of manipulation is quite common in the social sciences. Heck it is found often in medical/biological papers as well.

http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

They important factor is the ease of repeating, reproducing, and validating papers. In the hard natural sciences there is a higher emphasis and a higher bar when validating results. In Climate "Science" the only way to validate results is to see how current predictions match future data. This is something Climate "Scientists" will not admit.

Your opinion changes nothing I've noted. You've shown no evidence that the IPCC predictions are unscientific. The fact that their predictions have been shown over and over again to match observed reality supports the fact they are scientific with appropriately documented margins of error.

My point about risk analysis is that it informs actions taken in response to scientific analyses. For example, in human space flight we routinely use thermal anayses from models that are similar in development and use as the ones used in climate change, (solar input, radiated heat from earth, standard heat transfer equations, etc). These analyses all have detailed margins of error.

Risk analysis is used in conjunction with these analyses to determine what mitigation steps are required to safely perform an activity without over or under temping critical equipment.

Climate change predictions and risk analysis are used the same way to determine what mitigation steps are required and available.


We don't need millions of years of data to determine what is happening now. A simple energy balance measurement of the incoming and outgoing radiation on earth shows an imbalance of roughly .5W/m^2. Physics dictates the earth must warm until it reaches equilibrium, (the black body radiation equations Stefan Boltzmann law, provide a fairly accurate estimate).

Through an energy balance analysis the only scientifically supported theory to describe the warming is from man-made increases in greenhouse gasses. All natural forcsings have been roughly neutral for several decades.

However if you insist on comparing current temperature trends to the distant past, NASA has stated that the current rate of temperature increase is about an order of magnitude faster than anything in the historical record. This also supports the consensus of man-made warming.

The importance of that plot is the direction and rate of increase not the absolute value. Absolute value has more value for localized estimates rather than global average. It is not some sort of manipulation designed to hide something.

What is happening in psychology has nothing to do with climate change.

As for repeating experiments, all components of the models have been and can be repeated. Hell the absorption spectra of atmospheric gases has been done for over a hinder years. They've known since the 1830's I think that the greenhouse effect was a real thing.

Your comment about climate scientists not admiting how they validate is likewise simply wrong. It's even stated in one of the Ars links above.