Thought experiment on catastrophic climate change

[SuperLuigi]

I’d throw a party. Then start asking how come 99% of scientific experts and staggeringly monstrous amounts of evidence showing that climate change is real was actually wrong.

Because the 99% number has been debunked over and over and over and a lot of that “evidence” was gathered with improper, linear methodology?

Also, why haven’t those who are so worried about man-made “climate change” given up their internet access?

 

[SuperLuigi]

This kind of attitude always baffles me. If some liberal politician would also, say, increase awareness of the theory of gravity for whatever political purpose, would you also attempt to find flaws in gravitation, despite the irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary?

No, because evidence isn’t faked to prove the theory of gravity for political gain.

The validity of scientific theories isn’t determined by what kind of politicians make policies to combat the consequences of said theories, but something independent – namely, the peer review process within the scientific community which itself is based on evidence.

Climate change (as well as other progressive activists) LOVE to hide behind the “peer review” claim.

However, because I work in academia, I am privy to and aware of the politics peer review and it is quite alarming at how this process, especially when progressive political interests are at stake like easy grant money, has been corrupted and compromised.

And that is how it is, regardless of how heinous other policies may be of said liberal politicians (abortion, SSM, etc.)

Actually, liberals and progressives have been desperately hiding or attacking the Truth on these issues as well. They have to because they are fighting logic and natural law, and the only way to do that is to use ethos.

When’s the last time you’ve heard a liberal abortion activist shown concern over a woman injured from an abortion?

As far as so-called gay “marriage” goes, all of those peer-reviewed studies use improper sampling methodology. If people in my field used that kind of methodology, our drinking water supply would be jeopardy.

 

[Micosil]

Actually, liberals and progressives have been desperately hiding or attacking the Truth on these issues as well. They have to because they are fighting logic and natural law, and the only way to do that is to use ethos.

When’s the last time you’ve heard a liberal abortion activist shown concern over a woman injured from an abortion?

As far as so-called gay “marriage” goes, all of those peer-reviewed studies use improper sampling methodology. If people in my field used that kind of methodology, our drinking water supply would be jeopardy.

Erm, I think you misunderstood me. What I am saying is, just because the policies of liberal politicians, including pro-SSM and pro-choice stances, are morally reprehensible (you will notice I am in a precatechumenate and fully accept the Church’s teachings on these issues, I am not a “progressive” ), does not mean that whatever they back has to be false.

Yes, I am aware science can become politicized, such as the research on homosexuality, starting with the political and non-scientific decision to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM in the 1970s; but there’s proof of that. Now, where’s the proof that the research on AGW has become a political reality?

 

[Ignatius]

Or, as an alternative thought experiment, what would happen if, tomorrow morning, we had definitive proof that catastrophic climate change was certain and immediate?

Would the Heartland Institute and WattsUpWithThat and all those who are so vigorously contesting global warming say “Wow, I guess we were wrong! We will have to seriously cut back on burning fossil fuels.”

That’s all the those skeptical of the climate alarmists shenanigans are asking for. Just show data that are not from doctored “reports” that predict the results that don’t conform to what actual measurements show to be true. Just something and that be verified using good science and actual climatic results.

For example, if you go back to the alarmist articles in the NYT or Time Magazine from the 1970’s, they predicted that by now the polar ice caps would have melted and our major coastal cities would all be under water.

The way good science would do this is use the models to give the global warming trend and polar ice shrinkage for the next 5 years, then use actual measurements to see if the predictions are accurate.

 

[triumphguy]

Man-made climate change is a hoax. It’s also a lame excuse for some Catholics to support liberal politicians for their owns selfish reasons like feeling and looking good in front of secular liberals whose approval they so desperately seek.

wrong
wrong
wrong
and wrong

So… wrong on all points.

 

[triumphguy]

Don’t be a wise guy…you know what I meant!

You might not like it, but it’s EXACTLY the same point.

 

[Micosil]

wrong
wrong
wrong
and wrong

So… wrong on all points.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This kind of attitude always baffles me. If some liberal politician would also, say, increase awareness of the theory of gravity for whatever political purpose, would you also attempt to find flaws in gravitation, despite the irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary?

I certainly wouldn’t doubt gravity. But if, as is the case with “global warming” there had been no gravity for 18 years, I think people would reasonably begin to doubt its existence. But gravity is obvious and omnipresent and experienced daily by everyone, without ever a break. Nobody actually experiences “climate change”.

 

[Bradski]

Actually, as an environmental scientist…

I wonder if we also have any geologists on the forum who think the earth is flat…?

 

[Micosil]

I certainly wouldn’t doubt gravity. But if, as is the case with “global warming” there had been no gravity for 18 years, I think people would reasonably begin to doubt its existence. But gravity is obvious and omnipresent and experienced daily by everyone, without ever a break. Nobody actually experiences “climate change”.

The problem here is that there seems to be some sort of bias related to beliefs on global warming. People who tend to deny it tend to actually claim to not experience it.

environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Can-people-detect-changes-in-their-local-climate

When asked about the summer of 2010, those who believed that global warming is not happening were significantly less likely to report that they had experienced a warmer-than-normal summer, even when controlling for demographics and local climate conditions. These results suggest that the subjective experience of local climate change is dependent not only on external climate conditions, but also on individual beliefs, with perceptions apparently biased by prior beliefs about global warming.

So, no, that logic cannot apparently be applied to global warming as readily as you claim.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The problem here is that there seems to be some sort of bias related to beliefs on global warming. People who tend to deny it tend to actually claim to not experience it.

environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Can-people-detect-changes-in-their-local-climate

So, no, that logic cannot apparently be applied to global warming as readily as you claim.

Possibly the reverse is true; that the people most likely to be skeptical of it are those who know it does not touch experience.

I have said this before, but I’ll say it again. When I was a kid, decades ago, you could not grow a successful Bermuda hay crop very far north of Springfield, Missouri. South of it, you could. The reason is that Bermuda is a “warm season” grass that is exacting in its ground temperature requirement and, therefore, growing season.

Today, you still can’t. The “Bermuda line” hasn’t moved in all those years.

South of Springfield, there are roadrunners. North of it there aren’t. Why? Because they’re cold-sensitive, and are limited in their range by it. That’s the same as it was when I was a kid.

So I’m supposed to deny my own experience in favor of what some guy says his computer model tells him I am experiencing?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle;13037919:

Or, as an alternative thought experiment, what would happen if, tomorrow morning, we had definitive proof that catastrophic climate change was certain and immediate?

/QUOTE]

Depends, I guess, on what one means by “catastrophic”. If that means we’ll all burn to a crisp, certainly and immediately, about all there would be to do would be to kiss our fannies goodbye.

I noticed that no one questioned the exact meaning of “catastrophic” when it was used in the OP. But of course there is lots of latitude between “no serious warming at all” and “warming so serious we will all be dead in a year”. By pretending it is either one or the other, one can avoid the heart of my question, which was to see if opposition to global warming is ideological or evidence-based. This was exactly the point of the OP’s thought experiment as applied to Al Gore. Since the hypothesis of the OP was hypothetical, it is only fair to consider the converse question (mine) as a hypothetical too. That is, the question is not an invitation to debate the facts or the evidence. It is to consider what the response would be to my hypothetical. And just to clarify it a bit more and avoid the “kiss our fannies goodbye” side-step, let’s suppose that the catastrophic and certain and immediate climate change was just serious enough to be a big problem, but not so serious that it could not be lessened, and maybe even stopped entirely, by a concerted effort by all of humanity. Any takers on the question?

On the OP’s question, I cannot speak for Al Gore, but if I were presented with absolute proof that catastrophic climate change was impossible, I would heave a sigh of relief and spread the good news to any remaining “warmists”.

 

[truetofaith]

You might not like it, but it’s EXACTLY the same point.

No, wise guy, it’s not the same point. Man uses the raw material to better the human condition… pot is MIS-used to act like an idiot & not care about improving humanity. :hypno:

 

[Ridgerunner]

[On the OP’s question, I cannot speak for Al Gore, but if I were presented with absolute proof that catastrophic climate change was impossible, I would heave a sigh of relief and spread the good news to any remaining “warmists”.

You demand proof of an absolute, universal negative as the only acceptable response to your belief based on something that is not an absolute positive?

It is not impossible that a large asteroid will hit the earth someday and wipe out all life or perhaps virtually all of it. It is, in fact, quite possible. It would be a far worse thing than most any climate change believer predicts. But that does not mean one can take it as a certitude that it will happen, and demand that someone prove it can’t possibly happen as the only refutation of one’s certitude that it will happen.

But I think I can assure you that even if you came to believe MMGW is a crock, you would not likely convince any significant number of those who do believe in it. And I think the converse is true. How many people on CAF does anyone think has become persuaded against his former belief about MMGW? My guess would be “none”. It’s really like a high school debate about whether more money will improve public education. One can pull out this bit of “evidence” or that which purports to absolutely prove his position. And the opposing team does the same thing to prove the exact opposite. In the next round, they switch sides and argue just as vehemently against what they spent the last hour supporting.

It’s just that when it comes to MMGW, people almost never switch sides. It’s one of those things only time will serve to resolve; time or changing fashions in political objectives.
[/quote]

 

[triumphguy]

No, wise guy, it’s not the same point. Man uses the raw material to better the human condition… pot is MIS-used to act like an idiot & not care about improving humanity. :hypno:

Stop with the “wiseguy” schtick.

It doesn’t enhance your argument.

It’s exactly the same argument. Some claim that there are medical benefits to marijuana and want it legalized on those grounds.

You can use gasoline to act like an idiot too - ever see the youtube videos of crazy drivers?

Just because there is oil IN the ground doesn’t mean we have to dig it OUT.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;13038469:

I noticed that no one questioned the exact meaning of “catastrophic” when it was used in the OP. But of course there is lots of latitude between “no serious warming at all” and “warming so serious we will all be dead in a year”.

And just to clarify it a bit more and avoid the “kiss our fannies goodbye” side-step, let’s suppose that the catastrophic and certain and immediate climate change was just serious enough to be a big problem, but not so serious that it could not be lessened, and maybe even stopped entirely, by a concerted effort by all of humanity. Any takers on the question?

But you can’t ask for a “concerted effort by all humanity” without defining the problem you are positing. And “…a big problem” is indefinite and positing it doesn’t suffice to require a “concerted effort by all humanity”. And what is a “concerted effort by all humanity”? What is required of “all humanity” to solve the “big problem”?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle;13039539:

But you can’t ask for a “concerted effort by all humanity” without defining the problem you are positing. And “…a big problem” is indefinite and positing it doesn’t suffice to require a “concerted effort by all humanity”. And what is a “concerted effort by all humanity”? What is required of “all humanity” to solve the “big problem”?

Is there no hypothetical scenario I could propose that would require the confrontation of a person’s willingness to change his mind on this issue (in either direction) based on evidence? FWIW, I agree that most people on both sides of this issue base their view on ideology rather than evidence (except for you and me, of course).

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;13039624:

Is there no hypothetical scenario I could propose that would require the confrontation of a person’s willingness to change his mind on this issue (in either direction) based on evidence? FWIW, I agree that most people on both sides of this issue base their view on ideology rather than evidence (except for you and me, of course).

Probably there is, and I would try to come up with one if I didn’t have to leave now.

 

[Ignatius]

The problem here is that there seems to be some sort of bias related to beliefs on global warming. People who tend to deny it tend to actually claim to not experience it.
.

The problem with that approach is that it’s based on what people ‘experience’ or feel. That is not the scientific way to measure climate change.

What those skeptical of the climate alarmists shenanigans are asking for is a proper analysis using actual temperature, ice cap size measurements and other objective data. Just show data that are not from doctored “reports” that predict the results that don’t conform to what actual measurements show to be true. Just something and that be verified using good science and actual climatic results.

For example, if you go back to the alarmist articles in the NYT or Time Magazine from the 1970’s, they predicted that by now the polar ice caps would have melted and our major coastal cities would all be under water.

The way good science would do this is use the models to give the global warming trend and polar ice shrinkage for the next 5 years, then use actual measurements to see if the predictions are accurate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What those skeptical of the climate alarmists shenanigans are asking for is a proper analysis using actual temperature, ice cap size measurements and other objective data. Just show data that are not from doctored “reports” that predict the results that don’t conform to what actual measurements show to be true. Just something and that be verified using good science and actual climatic results.

And if those skeptics got what they were asking for - that is, if they got a proper analysis using actual temperatures, ice cap size measurements, etc., and if those actual measurements showed that climate change was definite and serious, are there any conceivable circumstances under which you think those skeptics would accept climate change as a fact? After all that’s what this thread is about - not so much about the actual evidence, but about the mindset of those who do and do not accept MMGW. The claim implied by the OP was that the mindset of Al Gore (and by extension, other “alarmists”) is ideological and would never be swayed by facts contrary to their view. So my question is, what about skeptics? Is their mindset also ideological, not to be converted to the MMGW view no matter what the evidence said?