Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 20-05-2016, 15:33   #4966
Registered User
 
iyamwhatiyam's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Atlantic Beach, FL
Boat: Catalina 30
Posts: 103
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

AL Gore's Electrical Usage

Al Gore's Energy Use : snopes.com

Look, SNOPES, OK?

For my own residence I have a solar heated pool, but you would be plain dumb to use that for the spa (propane). We keep the electric under $200 a month. AND we work from home too, (big excuse, 2 laptops and LED lighting, sheesh)
__________________

__________________
iyamwhatiyam is offline  
Old 20-05-2016, 17:21   #4967
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,943
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by iyamwhatiyam View Post
AL Gore's Electrical Usage

Al Gore's Energy Use : snopes.com

Look, SNOPES, OK?
from the link: the Gore home's energy usage [is] comparable to that of other homes in the same area

Rich guy has rich guy house. Film at 11.

More than his ecology message, it seems Gore also has a great investment strategy. Who says you can't be green AND a successful capitalist?
__________________

__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 20-05-2016, 17:42   #4968
Registered User
 
Reefmagnet's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 2,737
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
from the link: the Gore home's energy usage [is] comparable to that of other homes in the same area

Rich guy has rich guy house. Film at 11.

More than his ecology message, it seems Gore also has a great investment strategy. Who says you can't be green AND a successful capitalist?
"do as I say, not as I do".

You're confusing profiteering with adaptation at personal expense.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app
__________________
Reefmagnet is offline  
Old 20-05-2016, 17:58   #4969
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,964
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by adoxograph View Post
In the meantime I've read the whole paper. I can't find any fault in his method, in his results or his conclusions. His work is not about climate change, Prof. Lewandowsky is a psychologist and his work in general is looking into the psychological component of a range of subjects like conspiracy theories and denying or diluting scientific research results.

I wanted to discuss this with my wife and all she said was something like that: "Procrastinating again, are we? Shouldn't you work on your thesis? Lewandowski you say? Yeah I know of his work in Perth and that he had to pull one of his studies because of legal reasons - he became victim of his own study. The irony is that they did exactly what he described that science deniers and conspiracy nuts would do, only this time it was directed against him."

I can't look into that right now as I have to "work on my thesis".

Maybe someone else is up to to "discredit" the good professor?

Disclaimer:
1. I'm married to a psychologist.
2. I plan to call my boat "Don't ask"
Ha! Funny. Sounds like your wife knows you all too well. I can relate well to the procrastination problem during thesis time, although in my case it was definitely not in the field of astrophysics!

It's not a question of discrediting a prof, adoxo, but rather the many earlier pages in this thread devoted to discussing these psychology-based and other non-CC science specific surveys and polling. In the view of many, they are biased from the inception and used to discredit CC contrarian views as attributable to factors other than the actual science. So to cite one example, while a higher proportion of "conservatives" (whatever that is these days), may be more inclined towards skepticism or denial it doesn't necessarily follow that their conservatism is the direct reason they question the science. If anything, such conformity in support of the mainstream AGW position is much more uniform and dominant on the "liberal/progressive" side. When we went through this lengthy debate previously, it was also revealed that a high proportion of skeptics/deniers in the U.S. are actually registered or vote as independents, so making these sorts of generalities based on surveys have limited value.

We also previously explored how critical and result-dependent the survey questions can be based on how they are worded. This seems particularly true in the world of CC since there are many noted scientist/skeptics -- Curry, Christy & Spencer among the more well known ones -- who concur that humans are likely influencing GW. But this John Cook-inspired "consensus" immediately breaks down when surveys attempt to figure out where scientists stand when it comes to the degree of anthropogenic vs. natural causes for the warming, and falls further apart when it comes to their positions on potential impacts. So you can probably see the potential for inaccuracies and confusion when it comes to surveying laymen.

So many believe that all the pushback & controversy your wife mentioned and is documented in the Wiki article has less to do with contrarians trying to discredit this sort of survey/polling research, and more to do with their view that the work is overly influenced by the personal and perhaps political bias of the authors.

I frankly think these sorts of controversies undermine the pro-AGW message more than they discredit the contrarians, but that's just the opinion of one liberal arts major.
__________________
Exile is online now  
Old 20-05-2016, 18:06   #4970
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,943
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet View Post
"do as I say, not as I do".

You're confusing profiteering with adaptation at personal expense.
You're just confused.

What would you have Al Gore do to gain credibility in your eyes?
__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 20-05-2016, 18:28   #4971
Registered User
 
transmitterdan's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Boat: Valiant 42
Posts: 4,030
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
You're just confused.

What would you have Al Gore do to gain credibility in your eyes?
Admit publicly that the people who gave him all those predictions he promoted years ago were wrong and that he was wrong for believing them. That would be a good start.

Let me see if I understand your point of view:

In effect you are saying that we have an unbelievable 50/50 split in the opinions of a couple hundred million people in the US regarding MMGW. And the reason is because 50% are too poorly educated to comprehend the problem themselves so they trust the "experts". But the other half have been duped by "big oil" and are too stupid to listen to the experts. Think about that for a bit and it gets kinda hard to swallow.
__________________
transmitterdan is offline  
Old 20-05-2016, 18:31   #4972
Registered User
 
iyamwhatiyam's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Atlantic Beach, FL
Boat: Catalina 30
Posts: 103
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Global Warming & Transgenders: Liberals Deny Science When It Suits Them | National Review

When denying science is a progressive moral imperative
__________________
iyamwhatiyam is offline  
Old 20-05-2016, 18:44   #4973
Registered User
 
iyamwhatiyam's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Atlantic Beach, FL
Boat: Catalina 30
Posts: 103
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Philip Dru: Administrator by Edward Mandell House — Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

So seduced by the concept of "science" being the solution to all societal ills, the progressive movement embarked on a journey of self importance and hubris, Woodrow Wilson the main cheerleader. These are your "Living Constitution" adherents. "Dru" was an inspiration to Wilson and a role model. And "progressives" throw the word science around with abandon to this day.
__________________
iyamwhatiyam is offline  
Old 20-05-2016, 19:31   #4974
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 570
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by transmitterdan View Post
In effect you saying we have an unbelievable 50/50 split in the opinions of a couple hundred million people in the US regarding MMGW. And the reason is because 50% are too poorly educated to comprehend the problem themselves so they trust the "experts". But the other half have been duped by "big oil" and are too stupid to listen to the experts. Think about that for a bit and it gets kinda hard to swallow.
Nice, concise summary of L-E's hollow arguments.
__________________
fryewe is offline  
Old 20-05-2016, 19:42   #4975
Registered User
 
Reefmagnet's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 2,737
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
You're just confused.

What would you have Al Gore do to gain credibility in your eyes?
Lemme see.

Ummm.....


Lead by example?

Oh yeah, and not make it so obvious he's profiting off of the coat tails of his own fear mongering Frankenstein.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app
__________________
Reefmagnet is offline  
Old 20-05-2016, 19:57   #4976
Registered User
 
Delfin's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Anacortes, WA
Boat: 55' Romsdal
Posts: 1,390
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by adoxograph View Post
That would not help as, and that may come as a surprise to you, there is no such thing as a pure "climate scientist". At my university climate research is part of the BSc. Environmental Science program. Climate research is always a subset of something else. I might be wrong here, but I think it will be hard to find a BSc in pure climate science offered anywhere.

Don't forget it is a relatively young field, a very complex one, which is highly politicised and funding might be not so freely available. So a bunch of Geologist, Meteorologists, Astrophysicist, Environmental Scientsists, etc. are contributing to a very complex field.

We have the observational evidence that the atmosphere is getting warmer. We have evidence that CO2 levels are raising. We know that humans have produced a lot of CO2 in the last 150 years or so. We also know that there is a statistically significant correlation between temperature and CO2 level.

If I would work in this field I would look closer when I see in the data that the correlation of CO2 and temperature are deviating from the usual significant correlation, even only for a short time and try to figure out why. But that is just me. The fact that we do not have model that provides even "close enough" predictions, shows that this field needs more resources for further research. As it is very politicised, this in not gonna to happen.

I see it that way: My car is driving really funny, I can't barley keep a straight line. Now the expert is telling me to buy 4 expensive new tires and new alloy rims. Changing the suspension may be a good idea too. That solves it, but later it turns out, that a drive to the garage and putting more air in the tires would have done the trick.

But still the expert advise was not so bad after all. The point is, if I did not have changed the tires early enough I might have caused even more damage to the car or even worse would have lost control, ending up hitting a tree.

The last two paragraphs really sum up the debate here. There is one group who says "the expert advice is premature and too expensive, let's wait until we know more before we do anything" and the second group is saying, "let's follow the expert advice now, just to be save". Both points of view have their merits. The funny thing is they say it not directly but rather by quoting the car manufacturers manual and the tire companies spec sheets, not to mention the suspension designers technical data, all complete out of context in the voice of their political standing, and all of it just to prove their value and believe systems right.

While it is fun to watch and to participate, the truth is, everyone knows that this thread leads nowhere.

Enough procrastination for one day. I'm
There's actually a third camp. The one I belong in. My camp says, "ok, let's presume for a moment that the people who appear to be, and talk like, and employ logical fallacies just like politically motivated pseudo scientists are correct. What can we do about it?"

The answer to that question is that we can do f*** all, and what little we can do is so monumentally expensive that the waste of resources that could be used to cure cancer becomes a moral question. How do I know this? Because the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from natural causes is so enormous, and the amount of human emitted carbon that can be reduced without resorting to killing off 3/4 of the humans on the planet is so small that even the warmist models (which have all grossly overestimated climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2) tell us that the effect would be nearly zero.

Personally, I think the negative feedbacks are far greater than warmists will acknowledge, but even if they are 100% correct and I am 100% wrong, their solutions are completely lunatic and worthy of derision. Which they deservedly get.
__________________
http://delfin.talkspot.com
When stupidity is a sufficient explanation, there is no need to appeal to another cause.
- Ulmann's Razor
Delfin is offline  
Old 20-05-2016, 20:07   #4977
Registered User
 
adoxograph's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsnɐ 'ʇsɐoɔ ǝuıɥsuns
Boat: Landlocked right now.
Posts: 355
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Ha! Funny. Sounds like your wife knows you all too well. I can relate well to the procrastination problem during thesis time, although in my case it was definitely not in the field of astrophysics!

It's not a question of discrediting a prof, adoxo, but rather the many earlier pages in this thread devoted to discussing these psychology-based and other non-CC science specific surveys and polling...
Yes of course.

I always tell my wife that psychology is not a real science.

As I wrote some pages ago, this here is a highly politicised, believe, and value based discussion, and only a pseudo-scientific based one. Yet it reflects the attitude of the general population to the subject.

No-one here can claim to have read even a small part of the 20,000 or so peer reviewed papers published in the field. (Impressive for a relative young field that needs more research.) The overall results and the conclusions so far are sound, non-biased and based on observational evidence. But as always in science, scientific process will improve even more the outcome of the field. Therefore more research is needed.

Now it is up to politicians to take the science into advice and weigh up the impact of the decisions they will make based on the data and conclusions of the scientists. You see Oil (politics) and water (science) do not mix well. But there is one thing politicians are good in: manipulating public opinion to bring the population in line with their ideology. And people who have already chosen a side, no matter if it is left or right, are easier to manipulate (there are enough examples in this thread)

What I do not understand is the need of many to align and identify themselves with a political ideology and fight for it like their life is depending on it; believers and deniers who are fighting each other by resorting to name calling and the futile attempt - by cherrypicking out of the 20,000 papers whatever suits them - to prove that the other side is full of morons, not realising that in realty everyone is fighting the mirror image of themselves on the other side, using exact the same strategy.

There is only one casualty in all of that: Science - And no winners at all.

I give you an example: When did the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change (IPCC) which does not even hide in its name that it is a highly politised organisation, when did it become an authority on science and why? "Currently 195 countries are Members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved.". This is a very efficient way to generate consesus.
__________________
adoxograph is offline  
Old 20-05-2016, 20:13   #4978
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,964
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
Exile would have you believe that the majority of the right-wing skeptics and deniers have each pondered the matter seriously and at length, and after careful review and comparison of the IPCC-sponsored case with the opinions of the few dissenting scientists, have all independently concluded that AGW is not proven. Or worse.

I have no idea how the majority of the right-wing skeptics and deniers reach their conclusions, so I can hardly try and get others to believe something which I have little knowledge of. As I've said before, I could care less what others believe, and none of my fault with you is that you happen to believe the mainstream science. Given all the publicity, propaganda, liberal party platforms, and your obviously narrow and ill-informed understanding of many social, economic and political issues generally, it is quite understandable.

Most of science is "not proven," L-E. But as usual, that's off the point. My opinion is that climate science has simply not developed a sufficient degree of certainty that would justify the extent and costs of mitigation recommended by the powers that be. And I could care less what label you or anyone else attaches to my position, since I know it's just for purposes of spin not substance.


Simultaneously, these thoughtful lay skeptics like Exile have also determined with equal rigour that the actual scientists, in their lust for grants, peer acceptance and a lauded career, have chosen to suppress individual doubts to back the consensus (which doesn't exist, amirite?), the IPCC is merely a tool of a great green soshulist conspiracy which has bent the crisis of AGW to their nefarious ends, and the governments of the US and other western democracies are willing co-conspirators in their never-ending quest for more power and taxes.

Your words, and your words alone as far as I can recall from this entire thread. Have you always been such a stand-out?

It's simply preposterous, says Exile, to suggest that the lobbies of the fossil-fuel industries and their like-minded friends in business have banded together to create institutions and other outlets to generate and disseminate opposition to the finding of AGW. The near-unanimous opposition to the IPCC message in the rightwing press and blogosphere is merely the coming-together of all thoughtful conservatives, who, each having independently reached their conclusions, are finding to their delight that every other conservative has decided the EXACT SAME THING! Oh the power of sober, pragmatic conservatism to achieve great things. Or at least to block dumb things. Amirite?
In case you haven't noticed, conservatives and others who identify themselves as more closely aligned with the Republican party are hardly presenting a picture of unity on anything these days. In fact, they are about to nominate a liberal from NYC who has a history of supporting self-described "progressive" candidates like the likely nominee of the opposing party. I know, hard to find time for such news when you're so busy finding links to dispute whether the school board in Portland, Oregon really has just voted for book banning.

Personally, I find it comforting that there are like-minded people on this thread who have similar questions as I do, wonder why the self-anointed gurus of AGW won't respond honestly to even the more basic ones, and why know-nothing, kindergarten-level spin artists like you continue to drag the discussion down.
__________________
Exile is online now  
Old 20-05-2016, 20:28   #4979
Registered User
 
markpierce's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Central California
Boat: M/V Carquinez Coot
Posts: 3,416
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Climate change is inevitable since the sun's output increases ten percent every billion years. Just think, the earth was once completely ice-covered. Humankind will not be able to live on earth sometime in the future.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline  
Old 20-05-2016, 20:29   #4980
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,943
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet View Post
Lemme see.

Ummm.....


Lead by example?

Oh yeah, and not make it so obvious he's profiting off of the coat tails of his own fear mongering Frankenstein.
Lead by example how? Would some solar panels redeem him maybe? It seems to be the path to salvation here...

And seriously, go find out how Al Gore made his money. I've given you links even. Then come back and show us how he's profiting from fearmongering.
__________________

__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cruising and the Coming Storm ~ Recession, Depression, Climate Change, Peak Oil jtbsail Off Topic Forum 162 13-10-2015 13:17
Weather Patterns / Climate Change anjou Off Topic Forum 185 19-01-2010 15:08
Climate Change GordMay Off Topic Forum 445 02-09-2008 08:48
Healthiest coral reefs hardest hit by climate change GordMay Off Topic Forum 33 11-05-2007 03:07



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:28.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.