What do you think of climate change?

[goout]

ZMystiCat:

Neither I nor, to my knowledge, the article I quoted ever claimed that humans are the primary cause, just a cause.

You should have read the article more carefully because that is exactly what it claimed, that man is responsible for global climate change, not that he has contributed some vague and undefined amount to the warming that has occurred. That is the entire purpose of those studies: to foster the belief that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that man is responsible for most of the the warming we have experienced.

This is what is claimed that 97% of climate scientists believe: “…humans are responsible for climate change.”

This is true. And this is the problem with this “issue”.
The combination of politics with government funding, using academia as a tool, to create an issue of dubious nature. It’s a vague proposition.

Does man pollute the environment? Yes or course.
Does climate change? Yes.
But the assertion is that mankind is primarily responsible for altering the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere, and that government management of human activity is the answer to managing the weather.

This is NONSENSE, or worse, a deception. You see this nonsense on the mainstream news literally all the time now, where normal weather patterns are blamed on “global warming”. It’s an assertion with a rabid religious content, oddly enough. And human activity is the primary sin.

 

[goout]

AGW is the creationism of the left.

 

[ralfyman]

That won’t be enough.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

ZMystiCat:

No, they can’t. If you don’t research the literature, you can’t reject it reasonably. A reasonable rejection is one that’s informed, understands what they’re reading, addresses what is said rather than resorting to conspiracy theories, and is scientifically accurate in its criticism. If someone isn’t even informed, much less understanding, they aren’t rejecting it out of reason but ignorance.

You don’t have to research the literature that much to reasonably reject the notion that increasing the atmospheric CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm is going to cause the planet to be uninhabitable.

Except that is not the notion that global warming claims. And so that makes your post a strawman argument.

The real claim made by global warming is not that the planet will be uninhabitable, but that human displacement and suffering will result.

 

[Theo520]

Most published climate change research is about the impacts rather than the underlying science.

They take warming as a given (name removed by moderator)ut then run their forecasts on what it will do whatever floral or fauna is their expertise. They aren’t evaluating the science, just projecting impacts.

This would be more useful if they didn’t normally assume the worst case scenario of RCP8.5 as their (name removed by moderator)ut.

We’ve known for some time that the RCP 8.5 pathway was never gonna happen, but it provides the most dramatic headlines.

 

[Guinness]

Except that is not the notion that global warming claims. And so that makes your post a strawman argument.

The real claim made by global warming is not that the planet will be uninhabitable, but that human displacement and suffering will result.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...sts-say/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.80994def28ce

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN | Climate crisis | The Guardian

UN climate change report: only 12 years left to cut fossil fuels and avert wide-ranging damage - Vox

The Uninhabitable Earth: A Story of the Future by David Wallace-Wells – review | Science and nature books | The Guardian

Tell me again what “global warming” claims…It sounds a bit more dramatic than having to move a couple miles inland.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Tell me again what “global warming” claims…It sounds a bit more dramatic than having to move a couple miles inland.

Yes, it is. But it is not literally “uninhabitable”, (David Wallace-Wells’ hyperbolic title not withstanding). Sure, humanity as a species will survive, just like they survived the bubonic plague in Europe.

And “moving a few miles inland” is fine if only a few familes need to do it. But when large masses of climate refugees start “moving inland” they will find no room for them. We think having a hundred thousand Central American refugees at our southern border is a crisis - an emergency according to Trump. Imagine if instead it was a hundred million.

But back to your original claim, that one does not need to research the literature to know that CO2 concentrations will not cause the disruptions predicted, I just wonder how one can so easily dismiss the need to research a scientific question?

 

[AlbMagno]

The fact that people exaggerate in the effects of global warming doesn’t mean that it isn’t anthropogenic and it isn’t causing harm.

 

[goout]

Guinness:

ZMystiCat:

No, they can’t. If you don’t research the literature, you can’t reject it reasonably. A reasonable rejection is one that’s informed, understands what they’re reading, addresses what is said rather than resorting to conspiracy theories, and is scientifically accurate in its criticism. If someone isn’t even informed, much less understanding, they aren’t rejecting it out of reason but ignorance.

You don’t have to research the literature that much to reasonably reject the notion that increasing the atmospheric CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm is going to cause the planet to be uninhabitable.

Except that is not the notion that global warming claims. And so that makes your post a strawman argument.

The real claim made by global warming is not that the planet will be uninhabitable, but that human displacement and suffering will result.

The agenda is claiming that weather is a problem caused by humans. Look at the nonsense the mainstream media propagates. (or better yet, don’t)
Every storm is given a name and talked about in hysterical tones that would make you think an actual demon is at work terrorizing the world. Weatherdudes and weatherbabes stand in driving rainstorms doing hysterical reporting about how “absolutely incredible” it all is.

Let me ask you a question: if the AGW religion gets it’s wish and closes down every carbon emission possible, do you think human displacement and suffering due to weather will decrease any?
No, it will not. We will still not outrun tornadoes, and building a house on the beach will still be a fools errand.

 

[AlbMagno]

That doesn’t mean climate change isn’t anthropogenic, it’s just an ad-hominem argument.

 

[goout]

That doesn’t mean climate change isn’t anthropogenic, it’s just an ad-hominem argument.

It’s not an ad hominem to note that weather changes without any assistance from human beings.
Wild swings in weather occur without any assistance from human beings.
People suffer from floods since the times of Noah.

None of that is ad hominem, it’s common sense.
Scientists can twist data to different conclusions, and they (we) do when our financial welfare is on the line.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Guinness:

ZMystiCat:

No, they can’t. If you don’t research the literature, you can’t reject it reasonably. A reasonable rejection is one that’s informed, understands what they’re reading, addresses what is said rather than resorting to conspiracy theories, and is scientifically accurate in its criticism. If someone isn’t even informed, much less understanding, they aren’t rejecting it out of reason but ignorance.

You don’t have to research the literature that much to reasonably reject the notion that increasing the atmospheric CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm is going to cause the planet to be uninhabitable.

Except that is not the notion that global warming claims. And so that makes your post a strawman argument.

The real claim made by global warming is not that the planet will be uninhabitable, but that human displacement and suffering will result.

The agenda is claiming that weather is a problem caused by humans.

1. It is not an “agenda”. It is a scientific theory.
2. It is not about weather. It is about climate.
3. It is only partly affected by human activity.

Look at the nonsense the mainstream media propagates. (or better yet, don’t)

I don’t. I look at what scientists say and I ignore the mainstream media.

Let me ask you a question: if the AGW religion…

It isn’t a religion. It is a scientific theory.

gets it’s wish and closes down every carbon emission possible…

The theory of AGW does not propose mitigation measures. It just states how the physical world behaves. Mitigation measures are the province of politicians. If you search back through everything I have every written on Catholic Answers you will see that I have never voiced any support of any specific mitigation measure.

 

[Guinness]

Yes, it is. But it is not literally “uninhabitable”, (David Wallace-Wells’ hyperbolic title not withstanding). Sure, humanity as a species will survive, just like they survived the bubonic plague in Europe.

Most estimates have the bubonic plague as killing one third of the population. Do you mean to imply that “global warming” will kill one third of the world population, because while that doesn’t literally mean “uninhabitable”, it’s close enough to not be considered literal hyperbole.

And “moving a few miles inland” is fine if only a few familes need to do it. But when large masses of climate refugees start “moving inland” they will find no room for them.

In the US, the entire population lives on about 5% of the total land mass. There’s no shortage of room.

We think having a hundred thousand Central American refugees at our southern border is a crisis - an emergency according to Trump. Imagine if instead it was a hundred million.

The total Central American population is only 40 million. Do you really think “global warming” is going to drive the entire Central American population to the US? None of them will go South?

It is only partly affected by human activity.

What percentage?

 

[PatK63]

I believe the earth atmosphere is getting warmer. I am not sure because I have not seen the data whether we are out of statistical control.

The question is whether we can do anything about it. I am all in favor of conservation! But trying to control other people’s use of energy is not going to work IMO!

I feel there is a bias on the part of some advocates against energy companies.

Here is a test. The earth atmosphere is getting warmer do you favor mandatory reduction of pollution? If the earth atmosphere was getting colder, do you favor mandatory increasing pollution?

Finally, aren’t We trying to play God when we think we can control the earth’s atmosphere?

 

[Patagonia1]

And…I am extremely uneasy at the tactics of the scientist who promote the anthropogenic model, that they just dismiss anyone who isn’t in lock-step with their opinion as “stupid” and “crazy”

Or the “politicians” and their cohorts who do the same

 

[Theo520]

The fact that people exaggerate in the effects of global warming doesn’t mean that it isn’t anthropogenic and it isn’t causing harm.

Very true, but it shows a lack of truth in advertising.
If a detergent claims 50% brighter whites, but only delivers 5%, it’s still a detergent but it may not be worth the much higher price tag it carries.

The Deception matters, and one is right to question the reason for it.

 

[goout]

goout:

LeafByNiggle:

Guinness:

ZMystiCat:

No, they can’t. If you don’t research the literature, you can’t reject it reasonably. A reasonable rejection is one that’s informed, understands what they’re reading, addresses what is said rather than resorting to conspiracy theories, and is scientifically accurate in its criticism. If someone isn’t even informed, much less understanding, they aren’t rejecting it out of reason but ignorance.

You don’t have to research the literature that much to reasonably reject the notion that increasing the atmospheric CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm is going to cause the planet to be uninhabitable.

Except that is not the notion that global warming claims. And so that makes your post a strawman argument.

The real claim made by global warming is not that the planet will be uninhabitable, but that human displacement and suffering will result.

The agenda is claiming that weather is a problem caused by humans.

1. It is not an “agenda”. It is a scientific theory.

I agree that a scientific theory exists.
There is also an agenda.
What’s that? A coordinated effort between far left anti industrial, anti capitalism activists, politicians, and academia, and mainstream progressive media. All work together to redistribute wealth using AGW as their religion.

And it’s indisuputable, cause like, weather happens…and someone has to be blamed.
Cause, you know, it’s absolutely unbelievable that a house that was built on the beach like, 20 years ago, gets washed away by angry waves.
(the whole thing depends on the stupidity of the public, which doesn’t realize what geologic time scales are like, and think 20 years is a really long time and variations in the weather must signal end times for Mother Earth…)

 

[goout]

Who knows how old the earth is?

 

[goout]

Who knows what the ice ages are, when they occurred, what their effects were on global climate and topography?

Who knows how far the last ice sheet descended down the North American continent, and why it receded.
How long ago was that?
Was industrial activity occurring at that time?

Anyone?

 

[MPat]

No, they can’t. If you don’t research the literature, you can’t reject it reasonably.

True. But then, it is not the scientific literature that is being rejected in that case. It is the account given by the activists that is being rejected - for it is the only one that is known by someone like that.

If they can’t, they should at least have the humility to recognize their own limitations and defer to the almost universal consensus among experts.

Um, how is someone who is not sufficiently competent to read papers on his own supposed to know that there is this “almost universal consensus among experts”?

For that matter, how do you personally know that? Did you actually read some scientific review paper? Or did you read a report by an activist or science populariser?

For that indicates another problem: since we assume that the hypothetical reader is not able to read scientific publications, he has to read things written by science popularisers and activists, and most of them did not read scientific publications either. Even if we assume that scientific publications are perfectly trustworthy, the accounts by the activists are far less trustworthy.

I’d say that, given all that, the hypothetical reader can reasonably choose either option. Neither of them is necessarily “prideful”, neither of them is necessarily “humble”.

For that matter, scientists are not perfectly trustworthy. They are humans, some of them are also activists, they can be pressured by someone, and, as I said, modelling is hard.

As you can see, inability to understand scientific publications is not so easy to overcome.

And thus (especially if we want to avoid pride), maybe we should avoid thinking too badly about the ones who tried to overcome this inability in a wrong way…?