6 ms·

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy Blog has a good piece on Climate Change Denial too: "And I’ll remind you that while denialists are distracting everyone about the “p

• todd8 13y ago
  I'm not a climate scientist, but something bothers me about this debate. Why is it that skeptics are dismissed at best as ignorant or stupid, as paid shills for big oil, or even terrorists. I'm skeptical of at least some climate change claims, but I don't feel like I'm stupid or ignorant or a terrorist. Instead, I constantly hear confused or misleading statements about the environment, often stated with a religious fervor that characterizes those who doubt as sinners. While at happy-hour, a friend's boyfriend started complaining about how much waste there was in some pizza box. So far, I'm at least partially on-board with what he's saying, but then it goes off into alarmist claims about landfills. Now, I'm starting to realize that he hasn't really read anything about the subject (I read a lot). So I say, "Well, it's probably not the world's biggest problem, there's not a shortage of holes in the ground." He end's up getting mad and casting aspersions. (The best being that he accuses me of being a "Capitalist"). At a party I'm talking to a self-identified "geologist". He's talking about global warming and loss of glaciers, etc. I say, "Isn't it weird that that's going on while central Antarctica is actually cooling?". His response was "Oh, well of course, warming can cause that too." He was a nice enough guy, but I notice that it didn't matter what direction the temperature of Antarctica was heading, to him, it confirmed his belief. I really like Phil Plat's Bad Astronomy, but even his recent post makes me wonder: he notes that temperatures haven't headed up as the models predict, but oh this isn't really a problem the heat has decided to go into the oceans. He says "it's observed" and not at all a new idea "we've known" this. Well I follow the link [1] and the way I read the web page is that top 700 meters of the ocean haven't warmed (hmm..), oh but the next 800 meters have and below that, well, we don't know or we don't understand or it doesn't seem to matter. This is so weak and unconvincing that I turn to another link in Phil's blog post, the "it's observed" link [2]. I don't get very far with this one either because this page says: If the oceans are warming up, this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits long-wave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source. That’s simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. This conservation law is why physicists are so interested in looking at the energy balance of anything. Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases – which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century. This is just such horse-poop. The author is trying to impress us with (the scary word) "thermodynamics" and (wow) what "physicists" are interested in while telling us that this "is this only possible heat source". What happened to the heat generated by radioactive decay of the earths isotopes or primordial heat from the earth's core, these certainly affect the earth's heat balance. See what physicsworld.com has to say about this [3]. That web page sites a study claiming that about 50% of the heat given off by the earth is from radioactive decay. The page's author might be right about the oceans absorbing heat, but this doesn't sound like a real scientist speaking. This is how it goes. I see journalists, newscasters, everyday friends and associates making uneducated and unscientific statements, while accusing skeptics of being flat-earthers. Every storm, every tornado, every hot summer afternoon (or cold winter morning) further justifies their belief in dangerous climate change. Even though they know nothing of the science behind climate and the real challenges of moving our planet to a more sustainable future. [1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Heat-Content-And-The-Importance-Of-The-Deep-Ocean.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Heat-Content-And-The-I... [2] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-o... [3] http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioac...
  • waps 13y ago
    It isn't just climate theory. I have the distinct impression that the whole world has been getting every more "certain" and intolerant about the local viewpoints, and it has become ever less acceptable to diverge from the norm. Alternative viewpoints used to be more than acceptable, and attacking people over alternative viewpoints was what was bad. Today there's a million thing you can't disagree with in polite company. Climate theory (even the lunatic claims, like that temperature will keep rising until the seas boil or other such drivel), and the associated evil of humans, and the goodness of nature (pointing out exactly what natural selection means is liable to make you persona non grata). Species that can't quickly adapt don't deserve to live. That's what evolution says. But guess what, that's not what anybody means when they say nature. That seems to come from Disney films. You aren't allowed to deny that alternative "natural" things are good for you, when in fact that's usually flat out wrong. Natural bread is not, in fact, better for you. And yes, fibre is good for you, but fibre in scientific papers is something entirely different from what makes bread brown. Telling someone who believes in homoeopathy that they're, well, morons, is no longer acceptable. In climate "intolerance", at least the scientific side can be said to have the upper hand, but ... The same goes for cultures. Anyone with a basic knowledge of different cultures knows that every culture has extremely offensive and immoral components. Equality of cultures ... great soundbite ! Except ... we do put our own culture first, and in practice all religions and ideologies except western Christianity promote completely unacceptable. Equality, between men and women, and legal equality between people in society is something uniquely western. Tolerate muslims ... sounds good, until you actually read how the culture works. Look up dhimma, look up devshirme, look up zakat, look up the racist conditions of halal meat, those things are morally reprehensible. Likewise, the structure of Hindu society is morally abhorrent in it's inequality. God forbid anyone mentions that. And God forbid anyone asks a muslim whether they think the prophet is a moral abomination, no matter how obviously true it is. Facts no longer matter. Another problem is that I've visited Egypt a few years back. Complete intolerance for any differences in opinion is also happening there, and it's doing the exact same thing. Believe it or not, the divergence of society around religion (you can't put it like this in Egypt or you'll get shot, but it's essentially true : ex-muslims versus extremists) is nothing new. It existed 50 years back just the same as today. What IS new, however, is that it's perfectly normal for both sides to violently suppress any sign of the other side where they see it. It's not just muslim extremists being intolerant, the regular kind is just as bad these days, and so are the "non-religous", it's just as much the ex-muslim side. Asking a woman to cover up for a special event, no matter how atheist she felt, was perfectly acceptable. Now it's likely to get you shot. The same happens on the other side. 30 years ago, girls from religious families dated (that they still -sort of- do, in fact they're much more easy to get in bed, both the religious and the non-religious), and they dressed according to the occasion, what they expected their date to prefer. For going dancing religious girls certainly didn't don "traditional" clothing. Today, asking a woman on a date to take off her veil will immediately provoke violence from bystanders, even if the girl herself wants to do it (probably even if she were to take the initiative). This was an extremely normal thing to do 15 years ago. What the fuck. But I'm seeing signs of the same thing happening right here in America. And yes, the ex-muslims seem to be losing the fight, in Egypt, but it's not over. The extremists have no good alternative, so they're fighting for nothing. Which means either side can't win. Both sides have more than proven they can do a lot of damage before they lose. But why is there a fight at all ? Clearly it is possible to live together, they've fucking done it for 50 years. We seem to generally feel that anyone is entitled to their own belief, and is allowed to act like a total moron on the matter. And yes, I will call climate "advocacy" just a belief, because the vast majority of people pushing it wouldn't know how to average a temperature series. And you can call in "facts", sure. But the only kind of valid facts are facts that are properly sourced. If you don't know why you believe something and can point to serious publications defending that, it's not a fucking fact. Where a belief has the majority of the population on it's side, whether it's islam, climate adherents or denialists, socialists, bible-thumpers, communists, ... that majority finds now finds it perfectly acceptable to use psychological and real violence against the other side. Maybe I didn't look around enough when I was younger, but I certainly get the impression things have gotten worse. A lot worse. Because the majority of people are morons, no matter the specific belief they're pushing, you find basic logic errors and inconsistencies a 4 year old could find in pretty much every popular text on any subject, as you illustrate with climate science. WTF. Also, that majority is allowed to invent or deny facts to support their view, and obvious logical errors go unchallenged. Of course we've also managed to adopt contradictory views in the meantime, and over "large" distances, the adopted ideologies differ quite a bit. And everybody is digging in. This will not end well.
• glenra 13y ago
  It's actually kind of a terrible piece. The heart of the problem is that he regards skepticalscience as a valid source of science information. But just looking at the part you quoted: if the warming trend ever stopped, that would look exactly like what we've actually seen. Mathematically speaking, whenever a warming trend stops, the decade after which that happens will be one in which you can correctly say "We just experienced the hottest decade on record.". So in that paragraph he is not actually disagreeing that there has been a pause. Nor is he providing any evidence at all against it. The fact that he apparently thinks he's making an argument against the skeptical position really just says that he doesn't know any skeptics.