Visit our Popular Forums

john61ct · 03-11-2017, 14:41

Fact is most people won't sacrifice a jot of pleasure, ease or comfort for some cause that only benefits future generations or the species as a whole.

I've got mine jack now sod off, is going to be our downfall, already in the process of creating hell on earth for billions.

**hpeer** · 03-11-2017, 15:31

The Yale 6 Americas program does a fair job at explaining who has what position. It’s been some years now since I’ve looked at it closely. Way back they actually posted the various questions and demographics of the answers. Don’t know if that is still available, I think not.

If you drudged through the data sets you could see that the “deniers” were principally: older, well educated, home owners, white. In short they are the cohort who have been treated best by BAU, and who have to most to loose. They are also our captains of industry and our legislators.

AND, no surprise, well represented here.

Global Warming's Six Americas - Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

Note that by November 2016 only 9% of the population are “dismissive” of climate change. I think the demographics explain why we seem to have a higher percentage here.

john61ct · 03-11-2017, 15:54

But Al Gore is such a powerful propagandist, brainwashed all the sheeple, sheesh

john61ct · 03-11-2017, 16:16

Meanwhile, back on land

https://www.topic.com/hot-zones

**StuM** · 03-11-2017, 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgleason

...we constitute what is probably the single largest single species biomass ever seen. And we are voracious consumers, in someways humanity is more like a wildfire, consuming all before it

The first statement is undeniable ...

Strange, all the data I've see give cattle as the largest single terrestrial species in terms of biomass with arctic krill possibly beating them when you include marine biomass

(But don't let facts get in the way of a good story

)

Edit: The above is just "currently", not "ever seen". I'd love to see any data on estimated biomass of now extinct species to support the "ever seen" contention.

transmitterdan · 03-11-2017, 18:20

I read somewhere that dinosaurs had much larger biomass than people. Don't know which period (Jurassic?).

Present day humans have the greatest impact on the planet compared to any other species. You can easily see human effects from Earth orbit. But not much effect from cows or krill can be seen from space.

I believe virus and/or bacteria will do more damage to future humans than climate change.

john61ct · 03-11-2017, 18:36

Ants far outweigh humans in total biomass on Earth — many billions of tons vs less than 500 million.

I agree that all our domesticated food sources should be included in assessing the damage we cause, agriculture is right at the top of the most environmentally damaging human activities.

john61ct · 03-11-2017, 18:37

> virus and/or bacteria will do more damage to future humans than climate change

Mother Gaia's immune system, antibodies eliminating the human pathogens

Exile · 03-11-2017, 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

'...many of the more notorious predictions have not in fact come to pass'

Hard to de-bunk without some examples. Can you provide them?

Why would I want you to "de-bunk" -- or validate for that matter -- anything related to the science of CC unless you were a climate scientist or related expert? Like you, I can just as easily type a google search along the lines of "climate change predictions that didn't happen" and uncover the same articles that either de-bunk or validate whichever conclusion suits. As I'm sure you know, the conclusion drawn correlates with the political orientation of the publication, and facts are conveniently marshaled accordingly. Haven't we already gone through this ad nauseum in previous threads? OK, so you reply with a cite -- linked or not -- to skepticalscience.com and someone else angrily responds with an article from National Review. Hence a purely political debate ensues with nothing accomplished towards understanding the actual science. Is this the pseudo-scientific merry-go-round you want to repeat?

'...using "human recorded history" is problematic given the brief period of time humans have populated the planet'

Except when the data is manipulated or cherry-picked so that it seems to support a preconceived notion, like Stu's convenient slice of the rapid warming period at the end of the last ice age? (which is comfortably within the range of time 'humans have populated the planet'.)

I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about here.

'...to say nothing of the quality of measuring devices from earlier technologies'

Yet when adjustments are made to allow for discrepancies induced by them, that's presented as more 'evidence' that there is a vast conspiracy of scientists working together toward a nefarious end, or to ensure their grants into perpetuity. (I love that one because it so clearly illustrates how little the claimant knows about science and its' tenets)

I'm not one who believes there's "a vast conspiracy of scientists." I've only pointed out that there's likely systemic bias on both sides. That's entirely different from individual corruption or conspiratorial manipulation of data. So what is it that qualifies you to know so much "about science and its' tenets" that leads to such confidence in the complex adjustments used to compensate for older measuring technology?

'...the examples you and many others cite don't take into account previous natural warming periods in the Earth's history and how they influenced temps, currents, glaciers, etc. (For e.g., the medieval warming period in Europe'

If you're saying that layman or 'believers' if you like, don't take these 'natural warming periods into account, so what? If you have a specific question about a specific occurrence, cause or effect, you can be sure it has or is being studied. What do you think those grants pay for?

Please advise any specific examples supporting this statement.

Again, this was all discussed & argued in the last threads, and I don't recall anything dispositive to explain the (pre-industrial) medieval warming period. All I recall was that some scientists believe it was a "localized event," whereas others disputed that hypothesis. Do you have the definitive answer to this one as well?

'...there is at least a minority of well-respected and equally-credentialed climate scientists who agree that humans have had negative impacts, but dispute whether those impacts override natural forces, or at least do so to the extent that such impacts would be serious'

You've said this several times but so far I've seen you list only one, Judith Curry, who quit her post at Georgia Tech earlier this year claiming, basically, the conspiracy of other climate scientists as her reason. At one time she had an at least reasonable amount of credibility, but as time progressed her false claims and failed predictions pretty much put paid to her credibility, at least outside of pseudo-skeptic and industry funded bloggers sites.

Can you provide any other 'well-respected and equally-credentialed climate scientists' who fail to march to the 'MMGW religion'?

I'm surprised you appear to have forgotten two of the more famous ones, namely John Christy & Roy Spencer, both former NASA scientists, who have been using NASA satellites to record temps from the lower atmosphere the past 27 years. But it doesn't seem as though people as entrenched as you like to address the sat temp data, presumably because it doesn't show nearly as much warming as the land & sea based thermometers.

Btw, Christy & Spencer are "skeptics" not "deniers." Like Judith Curry, they do not dispute that humans have contributed to warming, so how could they be labeled anything other than "skeptical?" Right, I know -- because they don't support the prevailing consensus 100%, that's why.

If you missed it last time, this interview is worthwhile, and explains many topics, incl. why they believe measuring temps from the lower atmosphere is more reliable than from the surface, as well as the oft-cited "97% consensus." You'll likely disagree with their comments and their research, but maybe you can respond on the merits of the actual science as opposed to weak, unpersuasive, and unbecoming attacks on their credibility as you have done with Judith Curry. And btw, do you remember their rather famous graph comparing the two temp data sets? If not, then here it is again:

7 questions with John Christy and Roy Spencer: Climate change skeptics for 25 years | AL.com

'...that involves a cost-benefit analysis by objective scientists and policymakers, something we seem to sorely lack these days.'

There is no lack of objective scientists (though you, or they for that matter, may not like what they find); the good ones are selected naturally by their objectivity. Policy makers, not so much, the multiple-edged sword of money, re-electability, special interest groups, public perception etc., ad nauseam, all conspire against it...

I'm afraid you may be living in a bubble. It would be far too easy for someone on the other side of the debate to assert the exact same argument, and in fact do so using your exact same words. Simply repeating the mainstream mantra that one segment of the science community is "objective" and the other is not does nothing to advance the scientific debate.

Exile · 03-11-2017, 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

I don't believe my views or the testimony of climate science is alarmist at all. Truthful probably but certainly not alarmist. Human like ancestors have been around for several million years and humans have been around for at least 200,000 years. That is a pretty good length of time to judge what kind of earth climate we need in order to thrive.

I don't see much contrary "SCIENCE" that hasn't been paid for by the Koch brothers or there ilk. It's interesting that much of the world population (not all by any means) other than US folks believe the science and feel that most scientists are hard working truthful folks. Many US Americans however have come to believe the propaganda that folks like the Koch brothers have paid to have spread. Much the same tactics as the tobacco industry used back in the day. It is interesting though that many US Americans have come over to the side of science after witnessing the events of the past few years.

Unfortunately now it is difficult to believe what is posted on the NOAA website. The fox is in the hen house, so to speak.

Anyway, I've had enough. See y'all.

Can there be any question that these are political debates and not scientific ones?

john61ct · 03-11-2017, 18:56

Yes there certainly details in dispute about just how screwed we are how quickly, but what is being disputed in this thread is very much settled among scientists that haven't been corrupted by the fossil fuel industry.

Exile · 03-11-2017, 19:08

Quote: