Coral Reef Status

[torpnr]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Experience informs us that once a person drinks the AGW/CC coolade it's terribly difficult to coax them back to rationality.

Which begs the question, what evidence would be compelling to coax in either direction?

So, for those in this debate, which to date has been fairly well-tempered relative to other conversations on the same topic, I am curious:

For those on both sides of the debate, what would it take to change your minds?

[Idaho]

Originally Posted by lestersails

You are advocating for a delusional mindset. An alternative existence where the pull of what you desire determines the reality that you perceive. Must be bleak in there.

It is really interesting to observe how presumably bright, presumably educated, presumably mentally healthy human beings can descend down these rabbit holes of conspiracy, delusion, illogicality, and just plain wackiness. Like posting a bogus poster of Al Gore. Seriously? That is a contribution to a debate? Is this a forum of adults who love boats or an elementary school playground?

There are two mindsets in this thread.

Trust authority, trust scientists, trust media, trust their agenda.

Question authority, question scientists, question media, question their agenda.


Delusion is simply a word being used to smear those who are opposite to your mindset. Those who insult their opposite, loose the debate.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by OutOfControl

It's alright Boatman61, we got it covered.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR
Experience informs us that once a person drinks the AGW/CC coolade it's terribly difficult to coax them back to rationality.

... said the retired oilfield guy/Murdoch acolyte. No bias there at all, nope.

Originally Posted by torpnr

Which begs the question, what evidence would be compelling to coax in either direction?

So, for those in this debate, which to date has been fairly well-tempered relative to other conversations on the same topic, I am curious:

For those on both sides of the debate, what would it take to change your minds?

I'll play.

I see the AGW/climate debate as science vs lobbying/politics.

There has not been any credible science that materially alters the basic findings that:

1. Atmospheric CO2 has a greenhouse effect. Heating.
2. Atmospheric CO2 has increased significantly in the last couple of centuries
3. The amount by which CO2 has increased very closely tracks the amounts emitted by human activity (use of fossil fuels, animal husbandry, destruction of forests and other carbon sinks)
4. There are no other identified causes that alternately explain the measured increase in CO2

The VAST majority of climate scientists (and of other scientists who have examined their findings) agree with the above findings, and were sufficiently alarmed that they brought their concerns to national and international governing bodies, who conducted their own reviews... and here we are.

Fossil-fuel lobbies (and anyone who hates being reminded that you can't have unlimited growth forever on a planet with finite limits) are doing their best to deny, confound and otherwise suppress the findings of AGW and their implications. They have not successfully countered the scientific facts. They've had to move onto smearing and slandering the scientists - some specific individuals, but also the whole field in general - and the scientific process itself.

SO. Anything that would convince the majority of climate scientists would convince me. More importantly (for everyone, I believe), if I could be persuaded that the problems posed by increased CO2 were going to be less severe and/or slower-moving, and that the worst outcomes could be mitigated by slow and gradual change, then I would be less-concerned about the need for more urgent action. But denial of the facts from others won't get me there.

(btw, there are still 999 other non AGW reasons for reducing our headlong, wasteful consumption of fossil fuels)

Originally Posted by Idaho

There are two mindsets in this thread.

Trust authority, trust scientists, trust media, trust their agenda.

Question authority, question scientists, question media, question their agenda.

Delusion is simply a word being used to smear those who are opposite to your mindset. Those who insult their opposite, loose the debate.

I don't give a sh!t about "winning" the debate. Science isn't up for debate; proofs or GTFO. I care about the truth and dealing with its implications.

Your framing is itself a massive anti-scientific delusion. The buzzwords (media, agenda - WHAT AGENDA? ) are a dead giveaway. But the idea that with enough hard cider, a rocking chair, and sufficient chin-stroking, the Sensible Man™ can counter the findings of an entire scientific field... that's still adorable.

[Bycrick]

Most people can barely spell "science," I-before-e ….. The question is whether they are willing to give up their current lifestyle, forego "improving" that lifestyle, and regress to some mythical better used-to-be, or just wait and see if the world really does end in 12 years. Most of them will vote to have more money to spend on beer and home heating oil today, rather than what a bunch of "scientists" think might happen in 12/20/50 years.

That’s why the "science" folks want to deride the "political" folks. Science doesn’t solve problems. For example, even if you wave a magic wand and instantly find a way to create pollution-free fusion power tomorrow, you need a political and economic system to implement it. That will require rich-folks to invest in it (oh, but that’s unequal) and "poor" people to pay for it.

So nirvana is just as far away today as it was on all those past yesterdays.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

But the idea that with enough hard cider, a rocking chair, and sufficient chin-stroking, the Sensible Man™ can counter the findings of an entire scientific field... that's still adorable.

Hey.. I, as a rich guy find this highly offensive..
I drink 7 YO Havana Club or Tanqueray..

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Science doesn’t solve problems.

Science uncovers facts, and points to solutions. Implementation of solutions is always a broader matter.

The honest debate would be about the merits of different solutions. Denial is simply avoidance of the facts.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Hey.. I, as a rich guy find this highly offensive..
I drink 7 YO Havana Club or Tanqueray..

We'll allow it. (Havana Club fans here too. Bombay Sapphire for gin)

[Bycrick]

So, LE, the discussion shouldn’t be about the "science" but about the solutions. I actually agree with that. So, no more discussions on 2.x degrees by 20xx. No more "sky is falling rhetoric." And I can object to giving trillions of dollars to "poor folks" as "reparations" and "effects of climate change" without being called a skeptic or denier. I can say that before we get rid of fossil fuels, that we have a viable replacement in hand, without being called a paid shill of the oil industry.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

So, LE, the discussion shouldn’t be about the "science" but about the solutions. I actually agree with that. So, no more discussions on 2.x degrees by 20xx. No more "sky is falling rhetoric." And I can object to giving trillions of dollars to "poor folks" as "reparations" and "effects of climate change" without being called a skeptic or denier. I can say that before we get rid of fossil fuels, that we have a viable replacement in hand, without being called a paid shill of the oil industry.

So, no more discussions on 2.x degrees by 20xx

If that's where it's headed, and there are serious implications that go with that... there's no "denying" it.

And I can object to giving trillions of dollars to "poor folks" as "reparations" and "effects of climate change" without being called a skeptic or denier.

Depends on your objections, I suppose. If you claim that reparations or proactive steps aren't necessary because the situation isn't urgent... you'd be denying or skeptical of the science, no? If you acknowledge the science but you're against proposed strategies for philosophical or practical reasons, then say so, and that's what we can debate.

I can say that before we get rid of fossil fuels, that we have a viable replacement in hand.

It would be nice, wouldn't it? What if there's such urgency that we have to start transitioning as best we can, now? And there's also the consideration that for many reasons we shouldn't just assume that we can continue at the same pace of growth and consumption, just by switching energy sources. That rate of consumption, destruction of environments, lack of conservation, no regard for sustainability... those are problems too. Can't indefinitely sustain unlimited growth when resources and capacities are finite. That's the core problem.

Does this make sense?

[Bycrick]

Broadly, seven billion people are very likely to have an effect on the planet. The exact percentage isn’t germane.

Consuming things is good in the short term, but not so good in the long term (whether that’s oil in Texas or the trees that used to be on Easter Island)

Some people live in the wrong place. People live in flood zones, or fire zones, or Tornado Alley, or earthquakes or hurricanes. Sometimes you eat the bear and ….. They’ve got a problem, but they can’t make me share in by whining about reparations.

Urgent? The climate nuts have been predicting the end of the world for 50 years. "The end is nigh!" Why should I believe it this time. Just because we can probably do things better isn’t a justification for massive "progressive" projects tomorrow (or for the next election cycle).

But I like your last paragraph and can’t really disagree. We ought to…..

My argument is that to do it, you have to convince people to vote for change. Anything else is totalitarianism. No top-down, the-experts-and-the-scientists-know-best hogwash. And the realization that it took us 100 years to get here and we’re not going to solve the problem tomorrow no matter how loudly you cry "crisis" or "emergency."

[boatman61]

It's 8 billion...
As for the rest.. can't see Joe going from 20 minute showers to a 3 minute one.. and that's just the average CF member who relies on science and tech for everything and mocks those who use the basics.
Its an constantly demanding consumer in a fast turn over world and its loaded with its addicts who'll trample over anyone in the way.
Good luck with changing that..
And that before Pro Lifers..

[RaymondR]

"Atmospheric CO2 has a greenhouse effect. Heating.
Atmospheric CO2 has increased significantly in the last couple of centuries
The amount by which CO2 has increased very closely tracks the amounts emitted by human activity (use of fossil fuels, animal husbandry, destruction of forests and other carbon sinks)
There are no other identified causes that alternately explain the measured increase in CO2"

There is one major flaw in the "greenhouse" effect theory which I have never seen adequately explained.

The earths atmosphere once contained many orders of magnitude more CO2 than it does now (much of which is now bound up in fossil carbon and hydrocarbons and carbonate rocks)

These high levels of CO2 did not prevent recurring ice ages which have dominated the earths climate for much longer periods of time than the benign climate the earth has experienced for the last twenty thousand years of so.

Based on the earths temperature record during the recurring ice age period we are overdue for another ice age.

[Bycrick]

LE — Predictions, projections, models, magic. 2.x degrees is a wild-ass guess. I’m not watching my thermometer at noon everyday.

If you want to argue that the "steady state" view of the world isn’t correct, I’d agree with you. It’s when one tries to blithely extrapolate that to the temperature increasing by 2.367 degrees if I don’t stop using my charcoal grill, I’m going to laugh. Even if I agree that the world is warming, I have to decide if that’s good or bad for me. Why should I worry about the people on an island where their biggest industry is selling internet domain names and ship registration? If you’re telling me I should worry about "the collective," I’ll give my money to the people on the outer islands of North Carolina.

I could quit using plastics because it keeps my backyard clean without marching up and down trying to get everybody else to give up plastic.

I have no problem if you want to save the world. I do have a problem when somebody tells me that they’re sure what I need to do to save the world, and they’re going to make me do it for my own good. Besides all their problems are really my fault.

[OutOfControl]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

There is one major flaw in the "greenhouse" effect theory which I have never seen adequately explained.

The earths atmosphere once contained many orders of magnitude more CO2 than it does now (much of which is now bound up in fossil carbon and hydrocarbons and carbonate rocks)

These high levels of CO2 did not prevent recurring ice ages which have dominated the earths climate for much longer periods of time than the benign climate the earth has experienced for the last twenty thousand years of so.

Based on the earths temperature record during the recurring ice age period we are overdue for another ice age.

"An Inconvenient Truth"