7 ms·

This is how deniers argue - latch onto trivial language in the title, and spew doubt. Instead of trying to understand, which would probably scare the pants off

This is how deniers argue - latch onto trivial language in the title, and spew doubt. Instead of trying to understand, which would probably scare the pants off of them. So they put blinders on instead.

torstenvl 5y ago
This is how extremists argue - spew the most outrageous ideas they can get away with, and when they cross the line into obvious lies, they attack the other side for "latching onto trivial language." The editorialization is patently false. You are wasting political capital by defending it.
- loopz 5y ago
  How difficult is it to accept that humans affect the planet globally with unprecedented emissions of greenhouse gases?
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    Well... extremely difficult, since all known climate evidence directly contradicts your proposition. 420ppm is not super great, but to call it "unprecedented" takes a mind-blowing quantum of scientific illiteracy. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-period https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-period May I suggest adopting a mental model where you care about accuracy more than outrage?
    - loopz 5y ago
      No need to project your hysterical fears unto others. Your unfounded claims have been thoroughly debunked by skepticalscience.com [1] [2], together with all the other arguments [3]. [1] https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse... [2] https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm [3] https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
      - biasedbrain 5y ago
        Unfortunately, [3] mentions the 97% consensus nonsense, making the rest of it less credible as well.
        loopz 5y ago
        Where are the credible peer-reviewed research that present contrary findings? At this point, contrary views seems to boil down to: Putting the lid on a pressure-cooker will not lead to chaotic disturbances and rising energy imbalance inside the pot. While thousands of peer-reviewed papers all point in the same general direction. They credibly even raise concerns that above certain thresholds, hot house earth as shown by data from ancient times, may happen again and may happen faster/more robustly than expected. I doubt facts are going to change minds, but it should be concerning that we're already witnessing all the signs after rising CO2 and warming since 1930's: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ It is of course going to take a few more years for real devastation to occur, but the present condition is in-line with simpler models from 70's and 80's. It is just now that we're breaking out from historical envelope, so it is from this point onwards the effects turn more chaotic. https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm But of course, laymen and hobbyist working unrelated to climate fields know better.. Especially when fueled by money and special interests (billionaires). They somehow always manage to find any incredible argument for explaining away the effects of massive amounts of extra fossile mass having been released over the past hundred year. Of course CO2 doesn't work alone, but triggers more greenhouse effects (H2O, methane, albedo, etc.) due to a new imbalance in the system compared to historical times of stable civilization and climate. If we were hunter-gatherers, we would've not needed to be as concerned. But we're not, and not being hunter-gatherers we might just have a chance to avoid a possible "Great Filter" of our times.
      - torstenvl 5y ago
        Literally nothing you posted supports your argument that 420ppm is unprecedented. Again, perhaps you should focus more on scientific accuracy and less on outrage and flamewar, or perhaps go to a different website.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    Unprecedented? When the dinosaurs evolved, there was 5-6 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as today, thanks to millions of years of volcanic activity.
    - loopz 5y ago
      Hundred million+ years ago the solar forcing was weaker and circumstances quite different: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm "Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over." Civilization is dependent on the observed equalization of planetary energy input-output present for the past 10 000 years, along with stable CO2 levels. Both temperature and CO2 concentrations are breaking out of that envelope since 1930's, thus challenging poweful one-way threshold effects that will further release yet more greenhouse gases. Just this time without human intervention. It's kind of like lighting the fuse of a gigantic environmental bomb.
  - biasedbrain 5y ago
    There is a huge difference between "humans affect the climate" and "we are all going to die within a couple of years because of human's effects on the climate".
    - loopz 5y ago
      Covered here, consensus is more likely to be conservative: https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm
      - biasedbrain 5y ago
        Still, nothing life threatening has happened so far, all the doomsday things are projections of the future.
        loopz 5y ago
        Very much like the frog in the warming pot, not noticing the lid is closing on top.
biasedbrain 5y ago
No, headlines like that is how "believers" argue. Just cut out the hyperbole and present reasonable, verifiable arguments, not appeals to authority.

torstenvl 5y ago

This is how extremists argue - spew the most outrageous ideas they can get away with, and when they cross the line into obvious lies, they attack the other side for "latching onto trivial language." The editorialization is patently false. You are wasting political capital by defending it.

loopz 5y ago
How difficult is it to accept that humans affect the planet globally with unprecedented emissions of greenhouse gases?
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Well... extremely difficult, since all known climate evidence directly contradicts your proposition. 420ppm is not super great, but to call it "unprecedented" takes a mind-blowing quantum of scientific illiteracy. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-period https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-period May I suggest adopting a mental model where you care about accuracy more than outrage?
  - loopz 5y ago
    No need to project your hysterical fears unto others. Your unfounded claims have been thoroughly debunked by skepticalscience.com [1] [2], together with all the other arguments [3]. [1] https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse... [2] https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm [3] https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
    - biasedbrain 5y ago
      Unfortunately, [3] mentions the 97% consensus nonsense, making the rest of it less credible as well.
      - loopz 5y ago
        Where are the credible peer-reviewed research that present contrary findings? At this point, contrary views seems to boil down to: Putting the lid on a pressure-cooker will not lead to chaotic disturbances and rising energy imbalance inside the pot. While thousands of peer-reviewed papers all point in the same general direction. They credibly even raise concerns that above certain thresholds, hot house earth as shown by data from ancient times, may happen again and may happen faster/more robustly than expected. I doubt facts are going to change minds, but it should be concerning that we're already witnessing all the signs after rising CO2 and warming since 1930's: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ It is of course going to take a few more years for real devastation to occur, but the present condition is in-line with simpler models from 70's and 80's. It is just now that we're breaking out from historical envelope, so it is from this point onwards the effects turn more chaotic. https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm But of course, laymen and hobbyist working unrelated to climate fields know better.. Especially when fueled by money and special interests (billionaires). They somehow always manage to find any incredible argument for explaining away the effects of massive amounts of extra fossile mass having been released over the past hundred year. Of course CO2 doesn't work alone, but triggers more greenhouse effects (H2O, methane, albedo, etc.) due to a new imbalance in the system compared to historical times of stable civilization and climate. If we were hunter-gatherers, we would've not needed to be as concerned. But we're not, and not being hunter-gatherers we might just have a chance to avoid a possible "Great Filter" of our times.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      Literally nothing you posted supports your argument that 420ppm is unprecedented. Again, perhaps you should focus more on scientific accuracy and less on outrage and flamewar, or perhaps go to a different website.
- goatlover 5y ago
  Unprecedented? When the dinosaurs evolved, there was 5-6 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as today, thanks to millions of years of volcanic activity.
  - loopz 5y ago
    Hundred million+ years ago the solar forcing was weaker and circumstances quite different: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm "Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over." Civilization is dependent on the observed equalization of planetary energy input-output present for the past 10 000 years, along with stable CO2 levels. Both temperature and CO2 concentrations are breaking out of that envelope since 1930's, thus challenging poweful one-way threshold effects that will further release yet more greenhouse gases. Just this time without human intervention. It's kind of like lighting the fuse of a gigantic environmental bomb.
- biasedbrain 5y ago
  There is a huge difference between "humans affect the climate" and "we are all going to die within a couple of years because of human's effects on the climate".
  - loopz 5y ago
    Covered here, consensus is more likely to be conservative: https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm
    - biasedbrain 5y ago
      Still, nothing life threatening has happened so far, all the doomsday things are projections of the future.
      - loopz 5y ago
        Very much like the frog in the warming pot, not noticing the lid is closing on top.

biasedbrain 5y ago

No, headlines like that is how "believers" argue. Just cut out the hyperbole and present reasonable, verifiable arguments, not appeals to authority.