5 ms·

The real fight isn't proving that the data is there, it's proving that people should even look at the data. Climate Change Denial doesn't come from a scientific

by m3rc 10y ago

The real fight isn't proving that the data is there, it's proving that people should even look at the data. Climate Change Denial doesn't come from a scientific place and it doesn't have a scientific answer really.

sverige 10y ago
Well, first there are the adjustments to make the warming trend look bigger. Second, the theory that the warming trend is due solely or mainly to manmade CO2 emissions has not been proven. The sunspot theory is viable as well. The nice part of this is we're approaching a solar minimum in the next ten years, so if that camp is right, we should be able to measure considerable cooling. If cooling occurs rather than the predicted warming, will that be enough to satisfy scientists? Or will we face new theories based on manmade climate change that explain it away?
- xenadu02 10y ago
  This is pure climate-change denialism. The sun's heating and cooling cycles happen much more slowly than the current climate change. We can see the average increasing even over the past two decades when the data is quite reliable. We can see that the average ice at the poles is decreasing. There are certainly ups and downs but the long-term trend is clear. You could at least do the bare-minimum and read the evidence at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. Seriously, that's the absolutely least you could bother doing before running around posting nonsense.
  - cool_look 10y ago
    oh come on. tell me how many samples of a multi century phenomenon like the arctic ice do we have ?? less than 40 samples ( years ) i have read all the literature and it is not convincing. we've been warned variously about ice extent, ice age, ice thickness, time of refreeze. Most have shown 'recovery' from any perceived low points, so the alarmists have to switch to a different measure continually. but again we only have 40 samples and then ice core measurements. ice core measurements are prone to both the sins of commission and ommission. commission in cherry picking "just so" locations like ice shelves for thickness measurements. and ommission for conveniently ignoring samples that dont fit your agreed outcome
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Ice is melting that has been around for millions of years. What other data do we need? We only have one planet; all data collection can be labeled "cherry picking". That just isn't a productive line of reasoning.
- Daishiman 10y ago
  Which adjustments? If you want to trot that line out you should show where they are, why they matter, and how they are even relevant given the absolute, monstrous, and profound piles of evidence all over the world that the warming trend is massive all by itself without anyone needing to do any adjustments.
whybroke 10y ago
Yes this is the challenge. And worsening that challenge is the fact that knowledgeable people tend to be utterly un-interested in endlessly discussing discredited, unsubstantiated or nonsensical theories, only to find the listener is simply not listening anyway. An understandable preference. But the result is surprise at the number and influence of climate change deniers when they suddenly emerge in force.
- m3rc 10y ago
  The problem of convincing un believers is more of a cultural and language issue than a rhetorical one. When we analytically look at these sort of people it turns out being shown data that conflicts with their views will at best leave them just as resolute, and at worst INCREASE their disbelief. I don't have a clue what the answer is, but it's something totally different from how academics and scientists talk to each other.
droopybuns 10y ago
What experiment proves the hypothesis that climate change is man made? Unfortunately, science is extremely hard when it comes to climatology. If you are too close to datasets and hypotheses without experiments, you end up with situations like last week's election.
cool_look 10y ago
and what about skeptics who think the current explanations are deeply flawed and being propped up for continued funding ? this happens outside climate science, why should it be different because Climate ? See the physics lady critical of the Higgs boson project: http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-lhc-nightmare-scenario-has-come-true.html?m=1 http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-lhc-nightmare... "I hope that this latest null result will send a clear message that you can’t trust the judgement of scientists whose future funding depends on their continued optimism." in this case translate optimisim for Climate Pessimism
- EdwardDiego 10y ago
  > and what about skeptics who think the current explanations are deeply flawed and being propped up for continued funding ? They will have a ready source of funding from the fossil fuel industries, presumably.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Factor in the cost of being wrong. That's the chilling part. "We're all going to die!" "Ha ha, I doubt it, lets just continue on down the same path because maybe we won't die."

by m3rc 10y ago

sverige 10y ago

Well, first there are the adjustments to make the warming trend look bigger. Second, the theory that the warming trend is due solely or mainly to manmade CO2 emissions has not been proven. The sunspot theory is viable as well. The nice part of this is we're approaching a solar minimum in the next ten years, so if that camp is right, we should be able to measure considerable cooling. If cooling occurs rather than the predicted warming, will that be enough to satisfy scientists? Or will we face new theories based on manmade climate change that explain it away?

xenadu02 10y ago
This is pure climate-change denialism. The sun's heating and cooling cycles happen much more slowly than the current climate change. We can see the average increasing even over the past two decades when the data is quite reliable. We can see that the average ice at the poles is decreasing. There are certainly ups and downs but the long-term trend is clear. You could at least do the bare-minimum and read the evidence at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. Seriously, that's the absolutely least you could bother doing before running around posting nonsense.
- cool_look 10y ago
  oh come on. tell me how many samples of a multi century phenomenon like the arctic ice do we have ?? less than 40 samples ( years ) i have read all the literature and it is not convincing. we've been warned variously about ice extent, ice age, ice thickness, time of refreeze. Most have shown 'recovery' from any perceived low points, so the alarmists have to switch to a different measure continually. but again we only have 40 samples and then ice core measurements. ice core measurements are prone to both the sins of commission and ommission. commission in cherry picking "just so" locations like ice shelves for thickness measurements. and ommission for conveniently ignoring samples that dont fit your agreed outcome
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Ice is melting that has been around for millions of years. What other data do we need? We only have one planet; all data collection can be labeled "cherry picking". That just isn't a productive line of reasoning.
Daishiman 10y ago
Which adjustments? If you want to trot that line out you should show where they are, why they matter, and how they are even relevant given the absolute, monstrous, and profound piles of evidence all over the world that the warming trend is massive all by itself without anyone needing to do any adjustments.

whybroke 10y ago

Yes this is the challenge. And worsening that challenge is the fact that knowledgeable people tend to be utterly un-interested in endlessly discussing discredited, unsubstantiated or nonsensical theories, only to find the listener is simply not listening anyway. An understandable preference. But the result is surprise at the number and influence of climate change deniers when they suddenly emerge in force.

m3rc 10y ago
The problem of convincing un believers is more of a cultural and language issue than a rhetorical one. When we analytically look at these sort of people it turns out being shown data that conflicts with their views will at best leave them just as resolute, and at worst INCREASE their disbelief. I don't have a clue what the answer is, but it's something totally different from how academics and scientists talk to each other.

droopybuns 10y ago

What experiment proves the hypothesis that climate change is man made? Unfortunately, science is extremely hard when it comes to climatology. If you are too close to datasets and hypotheses without experiments, you end up with situations like last week's election.

cool_look 10y ago

and what about skeptics who think the current explanations are deeply flawed and being propped up for continued funding ? this happens outside climate science, why should it be different because Climate ? See the physics lady critical of the Higgs boson project: http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-lhc-nightmare-scenario-has-come-true.html?m=1 http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-lhc-nightmare... "I hope that this latest null result will send a clear message that you can’t trust the judgement of scientists whose future funding depends on their continued optimism." in this case translate optimisim for Climate Pessimism

EdwardDiego 10y ago
> and what about skeptics who think the current explanations are deeply flawed and being propped up for continued funding ? They will have a ready source of funding from the fossil fuel industries, presumably.
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Factor in the cost of being wrong. That's the chilling part. "We're all going to die!" "Ha ha, I doubt it, lets just continue on down the same path because maybe we won't die."