5 ms·

Thanks for the benefit of doubt. If you have 7 minutes this explains it better than I can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFwie-kC8uc https://www.youtube.com/w

Thanks for the benefit of doubt. If you have 7 minutes this explains it better than I can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFwie-kC8uc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFwie-kC8uc Not sure how those volume records are measured when you look at a view of satellite data you can clearly see the ice is thicker overall especially near the North Pole and Russian coast.

Gustomaximus 9y ago
I had a look at his. The problem with this (and similar seen) is they pick very specific things, and attempt to make this as an argument against the whole. In this video for example, they mention a few times the 'missing satellite data' conspiracy from the 70's. You know we only put a man on the moon in '69 right? And they were using slider rulers still then. While I acknowledge this be wrong it seems entirely realistic to decide systems before then were inaccurate and focus on reliable data from '79. And if you look at longer sea ice data below, you can see this increase during the 70's is still part of a long term decline. So this video is selecting a small upward increase and making it out NASA avoided this period when the video creators could seem they are doing the exact same thing, avoiding previous period data to make theirs agree with a point. See below longer data. Arctic sea ice data: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850 https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arct... I find the more interesting skeptics look at holistic weather patterns at geological time frames. Something like this article which seems to have some merit to my limited knowledge. Thought the weakness (flaw?) seems they merge geological time frame to the current short term as though changes were this rapid. So sure a 4C temp swing doesn't seem much against millions of years of fluctuation, but our change in happening in 100 years and we dont have a clue where it will go in 10,000 years type thing. Very different. Example article here: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/ http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-... Overall I've considered this a bit. So many people write climate change deniers off as a bit stupid or religions fanatics. I've found many climate change deniers to be intelligent people but they have a tenancy to focus on the specific, not the broad. If you are going to push climate change denial first ask yourself why have sea levels gone up 8mm in 35 years. Why are we getting record warm years again and again. Why are glaciers that have always been know to exist disappearing across the globe. Why is ocean acidy up 30% and what happens when this reaches saturation. And if there is a scam, whats the motive of the people saying protect our climate? To me it seems there is much more motive and resource behind people who dont want the world to change behaviours. And truly, I acknowledge I'm not an expert and there is a limited probability it could be larger weather natural patterns creating this rapid shift. Here is the key question; can we take the chance?
- sintaxi 9y ago
  > And if there is a scam, whats the motive of the people saying protect our climate? The motive appears to be money and power. Al Gore's net worth went from 1.7M to 300M in 15 years. Looking back at Inconvenient Truth it make one unproven claim that CO2 was accelerating warming and the rest was entirely appeal to emotion. > can we take the chance? The alternative is we an lift the 3rd world out of poverty which would be awesome and it would stabilize the global birth-rate. Seems worth the risk given how terrible the climate predictions have been.
  - e40 9y ago
    The motive appears to be money and power. Al Gore's net worth went from 1.7M to 300M in 15 years. Looking back at Inconvenient Truth it make one unproven claim that CO2 was accelerating warming and the rest was entirely appeal to emotion. He made $30M from selling Apple shares, he got in 2003. I call that "the power of having been VPOTUS" and nothing more. He also sold Current TV for $500M. I think you want to see what you want to see, and no comment here will turn you away from that.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      He sold Current TV to the Saudis mind you which he got a lot of criticism for and haven't really been able to respond to without it feeling a little weird given his stance on fossil fuel. Everyone sees what they want to see but once you dig into it you realize that there is more to the story than just being VPOTUS here.
- __s 9y ago
  Glad to see someone putting in the effort to patiently explain this 'anecdotes are not evidence' logic. Another anecdote based client denial one is the 'Greenland was green' anecdote, generally told with exaggeration: https://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm https://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm
- ThomPete 9y ago
  "And if there is a scam, whats the motive of the people saying protect our climate?" Well, one thing could be funding. This subject is highly politicised Its a much more complex discussion which I learned when I decided to dig into it and understand what the skeptics actually was saying (instead of what the media and many climate scientists say they are saying. I always get suspicious when someone claims there is no discussion that always means there is one. Especially something based on computer models. One thing I learned which helped me understand the discussion a little better was that very few if any so called "climate deniers" say that there isn't climate change. In fact, they all say that of course there is climate change and as long as there is a climate there is climate change. Furthermore, most of them completely acknowledge humans affect the climate however and this is where it gets really fuzzy, the debate is how much and if it's enough to be concerned about. Once you dig into the data you realize there are so many uncertainties involved in this and so much guess work. The ICSC have had to change their forecasts several times to much less problematic temperature rises in the future. Even more, confusing to the layman, the arguments for on the "catastrophic climate change is coming" is changing and actually have been changing. That reminds me a little bit of the creationism which evolved into intelligent design discussion. There is something that needs more transparency if the argument changes. Now it's the ocean we have to worry about. I am just a lay man and all of this might have a perfectly rational explanation but I have to say that I have changed my perspective on this quite a lot once i digged into it. Then there is a whole other discussion which people like Alex Epstein is proposing about the morality of ex. oil and the fact that removing fossil fuels right now would do more harm than good. It's a difficult discussion because people are so tribal about it which leaves very little room for freethinking and trying to explore different perspectives without being labeled either a climated denier or a treehugger.
codecamper 9y ago
Even if you think there is a 20% chance climate change exists, wouldn't it be a good strategy to try & fix it? It's a 20% chance of massive, horrible problems. Especially given that you are a technologist & the solution here is better technology.
- tomohawk 9y ago
  I've heard this argument (something bad might be happening! we don't know the solution, but we must try Something!) about so many things over so many years, and it has not ever once resulted in a positive change. It's an argument from fear instead of knowledge.
  - lostapathy 9y ago
    I always look at it from a pollution angle. Even if global warming is a farce (I don’t think it is), cleaner air is a win. Cleaner water is a win. Etc. If you don’t want a greener world for climate reasons, why not a cleaner world for your lungs?
    - tomohawk 9y ago
      Remembering the days of very polluting cars and leaded gas, etc, its great to not have to deal with that. Definitely a win. But, you have to consider the cost and possible implications of any change, or you're actually more likely to make the situation worse, or end up wasting a lot of time/money/lives.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      Then you should be happy because the water and the air have never been cleaner. The places where pollution is the worst is poor places, not rich places which indicate that making societies more prosperous is better, not worse for the environment. This includes access to cheap energy which currently also means coal and fossil fuels. The problem is that when you present this to those who are worried about the climate they don't actually rejoice and say, phew great. Instead, they get upset which I find weird.
- 9y ago

Gustomaximus 9y ago

I had a look at his. The problem with this (and similar seen) is they pick very specific things, and attempt to make this as an argument against the whole. In this video for example, they mention a few times the 'missing satellite data' conspiracy from the 70's. You know we only put a man on the moon in '69 right? And they were using slider rulers still then. While I acknowledge this be wrong it seems entirely realistic to decide systems before then were inaccurate and focus on reliable data from '79. And if you look at longer sea ice data below, you can see this increase during the 70's is still part of a long term decline. So this video is selecting a small upward increase and making it out NASA avoided this period when the video creators could seem they are doing the exact same thing, avoiding previous period data to make theirs agree with a point. See below longer data. Arctic sea ice data: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850 https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arct... I find the more interesting skeptics look at holistic weather patterns at geological time frames. Something like this article which seems to have some merit to my limited knowledge. Thought the weakness (flaw?) seems they merge geological time frame to the current short term as though changes were this rapid. So sure a 4C temp swing doesn't seem much against millions of years of fluctuation, but our change in happening in 100 years and we dont have a clue where it will go in 10,000 years type thing. Very different. Example article here: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/ http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-... Overall I've considered this a bit. So many people write climate change deniers off as a bit stupid or religions fanatics. I've found many climate change deniers to be intelligent people but they have a tenancy to focus on the specific, not the broad. If you are going to push climate change denial first ask yourself why have sea levels gone up 8mm in 35 years. Why are we getting record warm years again and again. Why are glaciers that have always been know to exist disappearing across the globe. Why is ocean acidy up 30% and what happens when this reaches saturation. And if there is a scam, whats the motive of the people saying protect our climate? To me it seems there is much more motive and resource behind people who dont want the world to change behaviours. And truly, I acknowledge I'm not an expert and there is a limited probability it could be larger weather natural patterns creating this rapid shift. Here is the key question; can we take the chance?

sintaxi 9y ago
> And if there is a scam, whats the motive of the people saying protect our climate? The motive appears to be money and power. Al Gore's net worth went from 1.7M to 300M in 15 years. Looking back at Inconvenient Truth it make one unproven claim that CO2 was accelerating warming and the rest was entirely appeal to emotion. > can we take the chance? The alternative is we an lift the 3rd world out of poverty which would be awesome and it would stabilize the global birth-rate. Seems worth the risk given how terrible the climate predictions have been.
- e40 9y ago
  The motive appears to be money and power. Al Gore's net worth went from 1.7M to 300M in 15 years. Looking back at Inconvenient Truth it make one unproven claim that CO2 was accelerating warming and the rest was entirely appeal to emotion. He made $30M from selling Apple shares, he got in 2003. I call that "the power of having been VPOTUS" and nothing more. He also sold Current TV for $500M. I think you want to see what you want to see, and no comment here will turn you away from that.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    He sold Current TV to the Saudis mind you which he got a lot of criticism for and haven't really been able to respond to without it feeling a little weird given his stance on fossil fuel. Everyone sees what they want to see but once you dig into it you realize that there is more to the story than just being VPOTUS here.
__s 9y ago
Glad to see someone putting in the effort to patiently explain this 'anecdotes are not evidence' logic. Another anecdote based client denial one is the 'Greenland was green' anecdote, generally told with exaggeration: https://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm https://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm
ThomPete 9y ago
"And if there is a scam, whats the motive of the people saying protect our climate?" Well, one thing could be funding. This subject is highly politicised Its a much more complex discussion which I learned when I decided to dig into it and understand what the skeptics actually was saying (instead of what the media and many climate scientists say they are saying. I always get suspicious when someone claims there is no discussion that always means there is one. Especially something based on computer models. One thing I learned which helped me understand the discussion a little better was that very few if any so called "climate deniers" say that there isn't climate change. In fact, they all say that of course there is climate change and as long as there is a climate there is climate change. Furthermore, most of them completely acknowledge humans affect the climate however and this is where it gets really fuzzy, the debate is how much and if it's enough to be concerned about. Once you dig into the data you realize there are so many uncertainties involved in this and so much guess work. The ICSC have had to change their forecasts several times to much less problematic temperature rises in the future. Even more, confusing to the layman, the arguments for on the "catastrophic climate change is coming" is changing and actually have been changing. That reminds me a little bit of the creationism which evolved into intelligent design discussion. There is something that needs more transparency if the argument changes. Now it's the ocean we have to worry about. I am just a lay man and all of this might have a perfectly rational explanation but I have to say that I have changed my perspective on this quite a lot once i digged into it. Then there is a whole other discussion which people like Alex Epstein is proposing about the morality of ex. oil and the fact that removing fossil fuels right now would do more harm than good. It's a difficult discussion because people are so tribal about it which leaves very little room for freethinking and trying to explore different perspectives without being labeled either a climated denier or a treehugger.

codecamper 9y ago

Even if you think there is a 20% chance climate change exists, wouldn't it be a good strategy to try & fix it? It's a 20% chance of massive, horrible problems. Especially given that you are a technologist & the solution here is better technology.

tomohawk 9y ago
I've heard this argument (something bad might be happening! we don't know the solution, but we must try Something!) about so many things over so many years, and it has not ever once resulted in a positive change. It's an argument from fear instead of knowledge.
- lostapathy 9y ago
  I always look at it from a pollution angle. Even if global warming is a farce (I don’t think it is), cleaner air is a win. Cleaner water is a win. Etc. If you don’t want a greener world for climate reasons, why not a cleaner world for your lungs?
  - tomohawk 9y ago
    Remembering the days of very polluting cars and leaded gas, etc, its great to not have to deal with that. Definitely a win. But, you have to consider the cost and possible implications of any change, or you're actually more likely to make the situation worse, or end up wasting a lot of time/money/lives.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    Then you should be happy because the water and the air have never been cleaner. The places where pollution is the worst is poor places, not rich places which indicate that making societies more prosperous is better, not worse for the environment. This includes access to cheap energy which currently also means coal and fossil fuels. The problem is that when you present this to those who are worried about the climate they don't actually rejoice and say, phew great. Instead, they get upset which I find weird.
9y ago