huh,… there is no moral aspect to climate change?!Ender:
Again, Laudato Si would seem to contradict that opinion.
I will stick with the Church on this on.
given the pew research poll and a parable of a skeptic,…
I expect them to look the same because they purport to show the same thing. You can read the section for yourself; the graph is on p. 202. The fact that the hockey stick was the poster boy for the 3rd AR and disappeared completely from the 4th is indicative of the fact that even the IPCC abandoned it, and the point relative to this particular disussion is that one does not have to be a scientist to notice things like this.
So you accept that neither the MWP nor the LIA ever really occurred? because you could surely never pick that out from Mann’s graph.
We may not agree on much but I applaud your effort to stop comments like these. Given that I am on the other side there is nothing at all I could say that would affect any change. Coming from your side, perhaps you and PetraG will have a useful impact.
Providing a long list of article citations is pretty useless. If you’ve found something in the articles you think makes your point you ought to extract and post it. Since you didn’t do that, I took one of the articles and did it for you because it is useful in demonstrating how there is in fact no moral aspect to climate change. These quotes are from the Martin article “Why is climate change a moral issue?”
The first point here is the bait-and-switch. We’re not talking about the “environment” generally, but about climate change in particular.
Again, care for the planet generally is associated with climate change specifically, but the really relevant complaint is that it assumes two things neither of which is demonstrated. First it simply accepts that AGW is real, which is the actual scientific point under debate, and second it assumes that the “deniers” know it is true and act in bad faith. In that he would be better advised to heed PetraG’s advice: ".…as we hope to escape judgment ourselves, to refrain from judging one another."
It’s hard to even parody this stuff. It is the poor who are disproportionately affected by the absence of cheap electricity, which will be even more scarce if the greens get their way.
Again, this assumes the problem is acknowledged but ignored when in fact the existence of the “problem” is disbelieved. So…nothing here. If you want to go through those articles you cited, please do, but I’m not bothering with any of them unless you do the citing. Show something that makes sense and I’ll respond. It would be hard to find anything less reasonable than the Fr Martin article.
I can’t do anything about your unreasonable expectations. Various approximations to reconstructed historical global temperatures are bound to have differences. What is not clear is that the differences you purport to see are significant enough to discredit everything else published by the IPCC or by Mann. Since there are many difference sources of temperature reconstructions for the period that concerns you, your repeated posting of one single graph seems more to be cherry-picking a graph that appears visually to be least like Mann’s graph. Again, where it the relevance to discrediting projections of the future, or even reporting of the more recent past?LeafByNiggle:
I expect them to look the same because they purport to show the same thing.
The detection of the MWP or the LIA was not from people looking at graphs. It was from people of the time, mostly in northern Europe, experiencing severe regional changes that, for example, wiped out half the population of Iceland. But these severe changes were not globally synchronous so that their effect would combine constructively to be visually obvious on every graph of temperature. Besides, if you look at the numbers from the Mann graph, you can pick out the high temperature of the MWP and the low temperature of the LIA. It just doesn’t hit you in the face as you apparently think it should.LeafByNiggle:
So you accept that neither the MWP nor the LIA ever really occurred? because you could surely never pick that out from Mann’s graph.
Don’t know where you live, but in my corner of the world, there has been none that can be observed. And it has some objective manifestations inasmuch we’re in a really narrow climatic sub-zone in which some things that grow well here won’t grow well or at all just a little bit north or south of there. There are even indicators in climate-sensitive fauna as well as vegetation.
I admit the two graphs are different. I do not admit that difference amounts to a “flaw.” Find a different word to describe it and I might agree with you. But I will not let you get away with labeling it a “flaw.” Differences in measurement techniques and graphical presentations are not “flaws.”LeafByNiggle:
I think this comment clarifies your reluctance to admit any flaw at all.
And here you tacitly assume your comments were reasonable.
What I am unwilling to do is to be led down a rabbit hole defending something that is a made-up problem and not necessary to defend.
I try to have just the right amount of confidence. Not too much. Not too little. After all, global warming is a scientific theory, and like all scientific theories, is subject to falsification. Anyone who says (as that person you reported on last week) “nothing at all could ever convince me to question global warming” is behaving unscientifically.
The two graphs give very different representations of historical temperatures. If two things differ significantly, as these two graphs do, then while either or both can be wrong they cannot both be right, and acknowledging that at least one of them must be wrong really shouldn’t be that controversial. Why are you unwilling even to acknowledge that?
Is it unreasonable to believe that one can make intelligent, informed comments on global warming without being a scientist? Is that the position you are trying to refute?
Then why have you come forward to defend the position that the two graphs I posted (IPCC FAR & IPCC TAR) don’t differ in any significant way despite the fact that anyone looking at them can see the differences?
I used to tell my children that if you use someone else’s bad behavior as an excuse for your own, you can guarantee you’ll always be one of the worst-behaved people in any room.
Well, if you live in the West, you only have to look at pictures taken in the early part of the 20th century to know the glaciers have shrunk drastically. It isn’t something it takes a calipers to see. The retreat seems headed towards the disappearance of most glaciers in the Cascade mountains by 2100. That’s going to spell a huge change in our water situation, because of how much flora and fauna depends on cold river water that is supplied by glaciers throughout the summer months.
That’s especially true if petrochemical fertilizers are needed to grow such “biofuels”. This is like opening the refrigerator door to keep cool! Ultimately it heats things up.
I question the assumption that the ideology you describe really does go with climate change all that much. Also your characterization of AOC’s is an exaggeration. She never said man should stop reproducing.
Again, you are exaggerating the prominence of those opposed to nuclear power. Sure, people want it done safely, but many people who take climate change very seriously also see nuclear power as an important part of the solution.
I think our political conversations would be a lot more sane if we started ignoring what comes out of the President or AOC. They say too many things that make people remotely close to their end of the spectrum utterly cringe. So be fair and say, “hey, if you don’t take ours seriously, we won’t take yours seriously…” :crazy_face:
She seems to have been talking about what she believes is the thinking prevalent among young college-educated people: