6 ms·

Your statement that all, for e.g., global warming skeptics are bad-faith shows you don't have a scientific mindset yourself. I live near glacier national park.

Your statement that all, for e.g., global warming skeptics are bad-faith shows you don't have a scientific mindset yourself. I live near glacier national park. In the 1990s, some climate model predicted the eponymous glacier would be gone by 2020. Signs around the parks' entrances were erected boldly stating this claim. In January of 2020, the signs were removed because the glaciers hadn't even shrunk. If there were real scientific interest in climate change, there'd be some interest and funding in ascertaining why that prediction was proven incorrect. But there is no such study, no funding for it, no interest whatsoever. The climate change alarmists have zero opposition in all major institutions. Anyone who says their models are bullshit, or who says maybe the Sun is having a larger impact on the climate than are GHGs, is ridiculed without their arguments even entertained. You belie this with your statement that any such skepticism is "bad faith". When it comes to climate change in particular, a field that seeks to study an incredibly complex collection of phenomena, whose leading experts have raised blood-chilling alarmist calls for action for decades and many of whose forecasts have proven totally bunk, who study a system far more complex than even the economy (are economics skeptics bad-faith too?)... Well, if you think YOU have a lock on what's true, and everyone with varying opinions is an obvious quack or a shill, then I think it's you who doesn't understand science.

eutropia 5y ago
I searched the internet trying to find a reference to the study regarding the glaciers at GNP and found exclusively news stories and blogspam repeating the "removal of the signs" meme from foxnews, right-wing think tanks, fundamentalist christian organizations, and oil & gas funded "science" web sites. I'd love to have a look at the original publication that the USGS used when it decided to create those signs, but its buried so deep under partisan schadenfreude that I can't find it to even analyze it. With respect to Greenhouse Gases: what's hard to understand about conservation of matter? GHGs cause some warming; you can do lab experiments on flux and gas mixtures in identical glass containers to prove this. The Biosphere (that is, the surface of the earth and all its organisms) has some essentially fixed amount of carbon distributed between critters, plants, soil, air, and dissolved in water. It's a closed system. When something dies and decomposes, it releases its carbon into the soil and atmosphere where it is endlessly recycled. Only in rare (and extremely slow) circumstances does the carbon get removed from the biosphere and put deep into the earth as coal, oil, or natural gas. When you dig up carbon that is currently out of that cycle and put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels you are adding additional carbon to the system. It has to go somewhere. Some of it will temporarily become plants (until they die, rot and release the carbon again), some of it will dissolve into the ocean and raise the acidity, and some of it will stay in the atmosphere and cause some warming. This part of "climate change" is very simple to understand. The earth previously did just fine with a higher fixed amount of carbon in the biosphere, but it was a lot warmer, wetter, and humans weren't around.
- iammisc 5y ago
  > I'd love to have a look at the original publication that the USGS used when it decided to create those signs, but its buried so deep under partisan schadenfreude that I can't find it to even analyze it. Don't you and the guy you responded to want the same thing: answers from the scientific community? You can criticize the right wing news sources all you want... the existence of the signs saying the glaciers were going to disappear is pretty indisputable. Clearly, someone at some point had enough belief in that prophesy that they made a sign.
- burntsushi 5y ago
  I think the comment you're responding to is taking issue with predictions about the specific effects of climate on a particular time table. I think your comment is talking about the general concept of greenhouse gases produced by humans causing warming. There is a large chasm between these two things. This is also why it's important to clarify what we mean by "global warming skeptic." Are we talking about someone that denies that human behavior creates greenhouse gases that warms the climate? Or are we talking about someone who views predictions about the specific effects of that warming on our environment on a particular time scale with great skepticism? These are two very different positions to take.
  - sjwalter 5y ago
    You and GP both have spherical cow ideas about how GHGs impact the climate. Yes, we can create an ideal lab "climate" and demonstrate some GHGs cause warming. The global climate is much, much more complicated. What is the impact of GHG-caused warming on cloud formation? What is the impact of same on jetstreams? Chaos Theory was started as a result of the complexity of weather prediction, which is simply short-term climate forecasting. The two variables I mentioned are just two, and they are dizzingly complex to model. It is not as simple as "GHG++ == HEAT++". Further, taking a step back: If we could agree on exactly how GHGs impact the global climate, then can we get a number on how much humans impact the climate at all? The way climate change alarmists seem to think, the climate would be absolutely static were it not for our industrial revolution. So what is it? If humans got GHGs to zero, how much less would the climate change? Are we responsible for 1% of overall change? 50%? 100%? Pretending these are simple or obvious questions is absurd. I've read hundreds of papers on climate change. These topics never seem to come up. Rarely do climate scientists mention the sun, which seems to be treated like a static heat bulb in the sky that gives off an steady, constant flow of energy, which couldn't be further from the truth! Even the name of the topic, Climate Change, describing it as some kind of problem in itself--if the climate were static it'd be a HUGE alarm! The climate has always changed. Then a step back even further: The climate has changed throughout civilization and it appears that large-scale civilizations grow in population during periods of warming, and shrink (sometimes drastically), during periods of cooling. So how much warming is acceptable? It seems the goal is to get to zero change (lol) or to cooling. Why is that the necessarily best way? The entire field is super-complex, and because of the political environment, even asking questions such as the above make it impossible to actually do science--only one view is acceptable.
verall 5y ago
> You belie this with your statement that any such skepticism is "bad faith". I really didn't, and I feel that you did not attempt to engage with a charitable interpretation of my argument. I used climate change denial as an example, because there clearly are people that make those arguments in bad faith, for monetary compensation. The same was true during cigarette legislation. I made no all statement at any point. > Well, if you think YOU have a lock on what's true, and everyone with varying opinions is an obvious quack or a shill, then I think it's you who doesn't understand science. Dude are you arguing with me or a million other people?
mcguire 5y ago
Like Grinnell Glacier (https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/grinnell-glacier-circa-1888-2016?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/grinnell-glacier...)? "Between 1966 and 2005, Agassiz Glacier lost a third of its surface area. ... Between 1966 and 2005, Ahern Glacier lost 13 percent of its surface area." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_Na....)) Blackfoot and Jackson Glaciers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfoot_Glacier#/media/File:Jackson_and_Blackfoot_Glaciers_1914_to_2001.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfoot_Glacier#/media/File:...)? Chaney Glacier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaney_Glacier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaney_Glacier)? Dixon Glacier (45%)? Whitecrow Glacier (47%)? Anyway, here's the USGS on Glacier National Park: https://web.archive.org/web/20120511154502/http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GlacierRecession_infosheet2010_SRC_040910.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120511154502/http://www.nrmsc.... You may be interested in knowing that work on climate models has progressed significantly since the 1990s. Also that Glacier National Park does not have an eponymous glacier.

eutropia 5y ago

I searched the internet trying to find a reference to the study regarding the glaciers at GNP and found exclusively news stories and blogspam repeating the "removal of the signs" meme from foxnews, right-wing think tanks, fundamentalist christian organizations, and oil & gas funded "science" web sites. I'd love to have a look at the original publication that the USGS used when it decided to create those signs, but its buried so deep under partisan schadenfreude that I can't find it to even analyze it. With respect to Greenhouse Gases: what's hard to understand about conservation of matter? GHGs cause some warming; you can do lab experiments on flux and gas mixtures in identical glass containers to prove this. The Biosphere (that is, the surface of the earth and all its organisms) has some essentially fixed amount of carbon distributed between critters, plants, soil, air, and dissolved in water. It's a closed system. When something dies and decomposes, it releases its carbon into the soil and atmosphere where it is endlessly recycled. Only in rare (and extremely slow) circumstances does the carbon get removed from the biosphere and put deep into the earth as coal, oil, or natural gas. When you dig up carbon that is currently out of that cycle and put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels you are adding additional carbon to the system. It has to go somewhere. Some of it will temporarily become plants (until they die, rot and release the carbon again), some of it will dissolve into the ocean and raise the acidity, and some of it will stay in the atmosphere and cause some warming. This part of "climate change" is very simple to understand. The earth previously did just fine with a higher fixed amount of carbon in the biosphere, but it was a lot warmer, wetter, and humans weren't around.

iammisc 5y ago
> I'd love to have a look at the original publication that the USGS used when it decided to create those signs, but its buried so deep under partisan schadenfreude that I can't find it to even analyze it. Don't you and the guy you responded to want the same thing: answers from the scientific community? You can criticize the right wing news sources all you want... the existence of the signs saying the glaciers were going to disappear is pretty indisputable. Clearly, someone at some point had enough belief in that prophesy that they made a sign.
burntsushi 5y ago
I think the comment you're responding to is taking issue with predictions about the specific effects of climate on a particular time table. I think your comment is talking about the general concept of greenhouse gases produced by humans causing warming. There is a large chasm between these two things. This is also why it's important to clarify what we mean by "global warming skeptic." Are we talking about someone that denies that human behavior creates greenhouse gases that warms the climate? Or are we talking about someone who views predictions about the specific effects of that warming on our environment on a particular time scale with great skepticism? These are two very different positions to take.
- sjwalter 5y ago
  You and GP both have spherical cow ideas about how GHGs impact the climate. Yes, we can create an ideal lab "climate" and demonstrate some GHGs cause warming. The global climate is much, much more complicated. What is the impact of GHG-caused warming on cloud formation? What is the impact of same on jetstreams? Chaos Theory was started as a result of the complexity of weather prediction, which is simply short-term climate forecasting. The two variables I mentioned are just two, and they are dizzingly complex to model. It is not as simple as "GHG++ == HEAT++". Further, taking a step back: If we could agree on exactly how GHGs impact the global climate, then can we get a number on how much humans impact the climate at all? The way climate change alarmists seem to think, the climate would be absolutely static were it not for our industrial revolution. So what is it? If humans got GHGs to zero, how much less would the climate change? Are we responsible for 1% of overall change? 50%? 100%? Pretending these are simple or obvious questions is absurd. I've read hundreds of papers on climate change. These topics never seem to come up. Rarely do climate scientists mention the sun, which seems to be treated like a static heat bulb in the sky that gives off an steady, constant flow of energy, which couldn't be further from the truth! Even the name of the topic, Climate Change, describing it as some kind of problem in itself--if the climate were static it'd be a HUGE alarm! The climate has always changed. Then a step back even further: The climate has changed throughout civilization and it appears that large-scale civilizations grow in population during periods of warming, and shrink (sometimes drastically), during periods of cooling. So how much warming is acceptable? It seems the goal is to get to zero change (lol) or to cooling. Why is that the necessarily best way? The entire field is super-complex, and because of the political environment, even asking questions such as the above make it impossible to actually do science--only one view is acceptable.

verall 5y ago

> You belie this with your statement that any such skepticism is "bad faith". I really didn't, and I feel that you did not attempt to engage with a charitable interpretation of my argument. I used climate change denial as an example, because there clearly are people that make those arguments in bad faith, for monetary compensation. The same was true during cigarette legislation. I made no all statement at any point. > Well, if you think YOU have a lock on what's true, and everyone with varying opinions is an obvious quack or a shill, then I think it's you who doesn't understand science. Dude are you arguing with me or a million other people?

mcguire 5y ago

Like Grinnell Glacier (https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/grinnell-glacier-circa-1888-2016?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/grinnell-glacier...)? "Between 1966 and 2005, Agassiz Glacier lost a third of its surface area. ... Between 1966 and 2005, Ahern Glacier lost 13 percent of its surface area." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_Na....)) Blackfoot and Jackson Glaciers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfoot_Glacier#/media/File:Jackson_and_Blackfoot_Glaciers_1914_to_2001.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfoot_Glacier#/media/File:...)? Chaney Glacier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaney_Glacier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaney_Glacier)? Dixon Glacier (45%)? Whitecrow Glacier (47%)? Anyway, here's the USGS on Glacier National Park: https://web.archive.org/web/20120511154502/http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GlacierRecession_infosheet2010_SRC_040910.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120511154502/http://www.nrmsc.... You may be interested in knowing that work on climate models has progressed significantly since the 1990s. Also that Glacier National Park does not have an eponymous glacier.