4 ms·

> This is scientific consensus, there's nothing to debate about it. This is where you're wrong. > proven beyond any reasonable doubt. You're not the arbiter

> This is scientific consensus, there's nothing to debate about it. This is where you're wrong. > proven beyond any reasonable doubt. You're not the arbiter of what's reasonable doubt. It's not unreasonable to say that we used to have an ice age, now we don't, world was already warming, humans had little impact. You can stamp your feet all you wish, but nobody's buying it, except for a small vocal minority. Newsflash: you're not smarter than everyone else, we're perfectly capable of reaching our own conclusions. > if you go ahead and actually produce valid criticism on the current climate models and their predictions You should spend some of your own time researching both sides of the argument, like some of us had, and draw your own conclusions. Here's some basic facts: 1) Earth has been hotter in the past. 2) CO2 levels were much higher in the past. 3) There is evidence that CO2 lags temperature increase, thus isn't causative. 4) Solar output is highly correlated with temperature fluctuations. We can get down into debating the temperature data itself, the revisions, for or against. To me, it comes down to some basic scrutiny. How accurate were the instruments used 100 years ago to record temperature? How often were the instruments calibrated? How much of the Earth's surface did we record the temperature for? How much mass of the Earth's temperature was recorded? For example, how much stratification in temperature is there in the ocean, and which depths were measured? > If you want to raise an objection You used non-specific and exaggerating terms to describe recent temperature changes. You have no factual basis for asserting that the temperature change is 'massive' nor that the speed of change is 'unprecedented.' First, a massive change would be more than a couple percent. Second, even without human induced warming, the models predict warming. What's the delta? As for 'unprecendented,' there's simply not enough data here. This all also implies that you trust the data, which many of us don't. At best, the data is a loose approximation, not a concrete set of facts. > There is drinking from a glass and drowning in a pool. Feel free to backup this claim.

esarbe 7y ago
> You're not the arbiter of what's reasonable doubt. You are attacking a strawman, and boy, you are attacking it hard. I never said that I'm the arbiter of what's reasonable doubt is. I said that this is scientific concensus. > You should spend some of your own time researching both sides of the argument [..] At one point in time, there actually was a debate and I did research both 'sides'. But there are no two sides to the argument anymore. There is the scientific fact of climate change, that's it. There's nothing to debate about it. Let me put it that way; do you think you have to seriously argue with someone who says that the earth is flat? Because that's where you're currently standing, from a scientific view; denial of antropogenic climate change has about as much standing as a flat-earther. It might work as a hobby or a party-gag, but certainly not as an informed basis for policy decisions. > To me, it comes down to some basic scrutiny. It doesn't really look like that, to me. Because all of your points are either irrelevant or disproven. They instead sound like the typical sound-bites of deniers of antropogenic climate change. > 1) Earth has been hotter in the past. Yeah, so what? At some point in time, Earth did not exists. How are any of those two things relevant to antrophogenic climate change? > 2) CO2 levels were much higher in the past. See above. > 3) There is evidence that CO2 lags temperature increase, thus isn't causative. This is an old one, often explained. https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/does-co2-lead-or-lag-temperature/ https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/does-co2-lead-or-lag-.... 4) Solar output is highly correlated with temperature fluctuations. Yeah, this is an old one too; https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-... To quote myself; > Now, if you go ahead and actually produce valid criticism on the current climate models and their predictions, have some valid credentials with regards to climate modelling and have some credible research to show for, I'll take everything aforementioned back and put on the dirty diapers myself. What you bring up is not valid criticism of the models or the approaches of climate science but often and long discarded interjections that border on "But if the earth is round, what's keeping them on the ground on the other side of earth"? > You have no factual basis for asserting that the temperature change is 'massive' nor that the speed of change is 'unprecedented.' Yep, I do. There are many studies about it, i.e. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053019616688022 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20530196166880... just to pick one. The change in atmospheric composition and temperature is unprecedented. Usually, these things take place over hundreds and thousands of years (yeah, there are super volcanoes and asteroid impacts that wreck havoc. But do you really want to compare humanity with a cataclysmic event?). > Feel free to backup this claim. This is pretty much self-evident, there's nothing to prove. Res ipsa loquitur.
- esarbe 7y ago
  I think you're pretty much the kind of person I mentioned in my initial post to this article. To quote myself, again: > I simply fail to understand how, despite the rising mountain of evidence, some people still are able to deny the reality of the climate crisis we're facing. > Even if you have ideological or economical reasons for wanting to believe the climate crisis to be a hoax - at one point or another the drive for self-preservation simply has to kick in, doesn't it? I'll be there with you, on that day when you realize that this all isn't a hoax, that the climate scientists are not just in for the money and that humanity really is badly fucked. I'll be there with you, in that moment and I'll say to you; Good that you see it. Now let's get to work and let's try to fix it, for all our children's sake.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  > I said that this is scientific concensus. Your consensus has been disputed elsewhere. > denial of antropogenic climate change has about as much standing as a flat-earther I strong, but ill-fated tactic. It's plainly obvious that the bulk of climate change has nothing to do with humans. > It doesn't really look like that, to me. Because all of your points are either irrelevant or disproven Right, because you disagree with them, they must be untrue. > How are any of those two things relevant to antrophogenic climate change? Based on your own statements that the temperature increase is 'massive' and 'unprecedented' it should be plainly obvious to you that there are mechanisms other than human which increase the global temperature. I realize you're not willing to consider all data available, climate change proponents never are. > Yeah, this is an old one too; https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-.. https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-.... So convenient where the graph ends there.... so convenient. It's almost like there was a cool period right before hand, which would show rising temperatures over a longer period.
  - esarbe 7y ago
    > Your consensus has been disputed elsewhere. That's fine. Not every one and last climate scientist has to agree to this consensus. It's enough that the vast, overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree. > It's plainly obvious that the bulk of climate change has nothing to do with humans. If we're talking about the climate change that's been happening in the last 150 years, that's not what the scientific consensus is. Going back even further it becomes more obvious that humans have a massive impact on climate and weather. Did you know that the whole southern Mediterianian coast used to be woodland? > Right, because you disagree with them, they must be untrue. No, they are untrue because they are not supported by facts. They are irrelevant because they don't provide information to explore the topic. I don't have problem changing my conclusions when new relevant data are provided that would necessitate that. But your points are all either disproven or irrelevant. > So convenient where the graph ends there. [...] What data would you convince you otherwise? See, that's what I mean. You give me some hand-wavy arguments why climate change is not related to CO2 or why the sun is the culprit or whatever else. Even if I refute your points, you just give more vague excuses without actually entering into a discussion about the points provided. To me this feels intellectually dishonest.

esarbe 7y ago

> You're not the arbiter of what's reasonable doubt. You are attacking a strawman, and boy, you are attacking it hard. I never said that I'm the arbiter of what's reasonable doubt is. I said that this is scientific concensus. > You should spend some of your own time researching both sides of the argument [..] At one point in time, there actually was a debate and I did research both 'sides'. But there are no two sides to the argument anymore. There is the scientific fact of climate change, that's it. There's nothing to debate about it. Let me put it that way; do you think you have to seriously argue with someone who says that the earth is flat? Because that's where you're currently standing, from a scientific view; denial of antropogenic climate change has about as much standing as a flat-earther. It might work as a hobby or a party-gag, but certainly not as an informed basis for policy decisions. > To me, it comes down to some basic scrutiny. It doesn't really look like that, to me. Because all of your points are either irrelevant or disproven. They instead sound like the typical sound-bites of deniers of antropogenic climate change. > 1) Earth has been hotter in the past. Yeah, so what? At some point in time, Earth did not exists. How are any of those two things relevant to antrophogenic climate change? > 2) CO2 levels were much higher in the past. See above. > 3) There is evidence that CO2 lags temperature increase, thus isn't causative. This is an old one, often explained. https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/does-co2-lead-or-lag-temperature/ https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/does-co2-lead-or-lag-.... 4) Solar output is highly correlated with temperature fluctuations. Yeah, this is an old one too; https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-... To quote myself; > Now, if you go ahead and actually produce valid criticism on the current climate models and their predictions, have some valid credentials with regards to climate modelling and have some credible research to show for, I'll take everything aforementioned back and put on the dirty diapers myself. What you bring up is not valid criticism of the models or the approaches of climate science but often and long discarded interjections that border on "But if the earth is round, what's keeping them on the ground on the other side of earth"? > You have no factual basis for asserting that the temperature change is 'massive' nor that the speed of change is 'unprecedented.' Yep, I do. There are many studies about it, i.e. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053019616688022 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20530196166880... just to pick one. The change in atmospheric composition and temperature is unprecedented. Usually, these things take place over hundreds and thousands of years (yeah, there are super volcanoes and asteroid impacts that wreck havoc. But do you really want to compare humanity with a cataclysmic event?). > Feel free to backup this claim. This is pretty much self-evident, there's nothing to prove. Res ipsa loquitur.

esarbe 7y ago
I think you're pretty much the kind of person I mentioned in my initial post to this article. To quote myself, again: > I simply fail to understand how, despite the rising mountain of evidence, some people still are able to deny the reality of the climate crisis we're facing. > Even if you have ideological or economical reasons for wanting to believe the climate crisis to be a hoax - at one point or another the drive for self-preservation simply has to kick in, doesn't it? I'll be there with you, on that day when you realize that this all isn't a hoax, that the climate scientists are not just in for the money and that humanity really is badly fucked. I'll be there with you, in that moment and I'll say to you; Good that you see it. Now let's get to work and let's try to fix it, for all our children's sake.
linuxftw 7y ago
> I said that this is scientific concensus. Your consensus has been disputed elsewhere. > denial of antropogenic climate change has about as much standing as a flat-earther I strong, but ill-fated tactic. It's plainly obvious that the bulk of climate change has nothing to do with humans. > It doesn't really look like that, to me. Because all of your points are either irrelevant or disproven Right, because you disagree with them, they must be untrue. > How are any of those two things relevant to antrophogenic climate change? Based on your own statements that the temperature increase is 'massive' and 'unprecedented' it should be plainly obvious to you that there are mechanisms other than human which increase the global temperature. I realize you're not willing to consider all data available, climate change proponents never are. > Yeah, this is an old one too; https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-.. https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-.... So convenient where the graph ends there.... so convenient. It's almost like there was a cool period right before hand, which would show rising temperatures over a longer period.
- esarbe 7y ago
  > Your consensus has been disputed elsewhere. That's fine. Not every one and last climate scientist has to agree to this consensus. It's enough that the vast, overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree. > It's plainly obvious that the bulk of climate change has nothing to do with humans. If we're talking about the climate change that's been happening in the last 150 years, that's not what the scientific consensus is. Going back even further it becomes more obvious that humans have a massive impact on climate and weather. Did you know that the whole southern Mediterianian coast used to be woodland? > Right, because you disagree with them, they must be untrue. No, they are untrue because they are not supported by facts. They are irrelevant because they don't provide information to explore the topic. I don't have problem changing my conclusions when new relevant data are provided that would necessitate that. But your points are all either disproven or irrelevant. > So convenient where the graph ends there. [...] What data would you convince you otherwise? See, that's what I mean. You give me some hand-wavy arguments why climate change is not related to CO2 or why the sun is the culprit or whatever else. Even if I refute your points, you just give more vague excuses without actually entering into a discussion about the points provided. To me this feels intellectually dishonest.