Climate Change Deniers - Can Anything Change Their Minds


grainfedpraiboy
#1
This is not a debate about whether four is a number or if gophers exist. Climate change is a scientific fact only challenged by the odd wingnut and given that there is more scientific consensus that climate change is occurring now than there is over whether smoking cigarettes can lead to lung cancer youtube evidence to the contray will not sway me.

However, I am always amazed that I'll see some poster blasting scientific claims of anthropogenic climate change. What is even more amazing is the same crowd claiming science is corrupt turn around and attack Liberals for ignoring the science around GMO foods or vaccinations.

What I am seriously interested in from the denier crowd is what is the minimum level of observable change you need to actually witness before you would consider believing in science over your political opinion?
 
gerryh
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by grainfedpraiboy View Post

This is not a debate about whether four is a number or if gophers exist. Climate change is a scientific fact only challenged by the odd wingnut and given that there is more scientific consensus that climate change is occurring now than there is over whether smoking cigarettes can lead to lung cancer youtube evidence to the contray will not sway me.

However, I am always amazed that I'll see some poster blasting scientific claims of anthropogenic climate change. What is even more amazing is the same crowd claiming science is corrupt turn around and attack Liberals for ignoring the science around GMO foods or vaccinations.

What I am seriously interested in from the denier crowd is what is the minimum level of observable change you need to actually witness before you would consider believing in science over your political opinion?




First off, are you of the opinion that "you're either with me or you're against me"? That one either believes completely in AGW or completely denies AGW?
 
petros
+2
#3
Yup. Fact is climate is in constant change. Currently we scored big and pulled out of the coldest point in 11,000 years.

Hooray for us!!!
 
grainfedpraiboy
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

First off, are you of the opinion that "you're either with me or you're against me"? That one either believes completely in AGW or completely denies AGW?

No. I believe there are varying degrees of non belief:



Seriously though, it wasn't that long ago I was arguing from the other side. Maybe two years or so.
 
petros
#5
None belief in what? Propaganda?
 
captain morgan
+1
#6
Climate Change Deniers - Can Anything Change Their Minds?



Yes... Facts will have much force in that.


Til then, it's just another leftard fairy tale
 
grainfedpraiboy
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Yup. Fact is climate is in constant change. Currently we scored big and pulled out of the coldest point in 11,000 years.

Hooray for us!!!

And we're still pulling out of that particular ice age. It actually isn't over.

Question is though, is there anything environmentally negative or unusual that could happen that would make you more inclined to believe the scientific community and not write it off or dismiss it as "natural"?
Last edited by grainfedpraiboy; Jun 23rd, 2015 at 09:49 PM..
 
petros
#8
Like?
 
grainfedpraiboy
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Yes... Facts will have much force in that.

There is no such thing as "fact" in science. Never has been and never will be. That is science 101. In science there can only be the best understanding at the moment.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Til then, it's just another leftard fairy tale

There in lies the crux of your opposition. Politics. 'Why by golly only leftards support global warming and I'm no leftard so clearly climate change is a global scientific community hoax'!

So tell me capt. GMOs are the left equivalent of climate change where the overwhelming consensus of research knowledge and scientists are that these foods which are approved are safe. Do you believe GMO food is a deadly right wing plot?
 
petros
#10
GMO is lefty moonbats trying feed the world on a quarter acre per person rather than the current two acres per person so they can have more national parks.
 
captain morgan
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by grainfedpraiboy View Post

There is no such thing as "fact" in science. Never has been and never will be. That is science 101. In science there can only be the best understanding at the moment.

.. Yet, you truthers point to 'fact' with which to pontificate and sermonize on the evil ways of the West.... Funny how this responsibility never ever seems to burden developing nations.

I'm curious though... Do you feel that there is any kind of connection between population and these eeeeevil emissions?

Lemme guess, it's just eeevil emissions from NorAm.. The rest are all eco-friendly

Quote: Originally Posted by grainfedpraiboy View Post

There in lies the crux of your opposition. Politics. 'Why by golly only leftards support global warming and I'm no leftard so clearly climate change is a global scientific community hoax'!

So tell me capt. GMOs are the left equivalent of climate change where the overwhelming consensus of research knowledge and scientists are that these foods which are approved are safe. Do you believe GMO food is a deadly right wing plot?

Hardly, but it sure does seem like the leftards love to believe that you can solve any problem via burying it in cash... Interestingly enough, they never seem to want to kick in their own cash, just other people's money

Funny how that works, eh?
 
damngrumpy
+2
#12
The climate changes all the time ever heard of the dirty thirties
The prairie suffered drought and all that now its California.
Climate change has been happening for millions of years and it
will continue and then get cold again.
Has nothing to do with us humans its a natural occurrence
 
grainfedpraiboy
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

GMO is lefty moonbats trying feed the world on a quarter acre per person rather than the current two acres per person so they can have more national parks.

There is some truth in what you say.

But how can you as a laymen, think that agricultural food scientists are somehow ethical and true to the principles of science but not climatologists and the biologists, astronomers, anthropologists, paleontologists, botanists etc who support the academic research consensus with their work?

How do you not see the difference?
 
petros
#14
I was joking.

My professional organizations APEGBC and APEGS agree with climate change but make zero reference to AGW.

You point has minimal validity. There is no denying the return to the 10,000yr mean temp.
 
grainfedpraiboy
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

I'm curious though... Do you feel that there is any kind of connection between population and these eeeeevil emissions?

Lemme guess, it's just eeevil emissions from NorAm.. The rest are all eco-friendly

I am opposed to immigration from Africa to Canada on the grounds that each immigrant increases their carbon footprint by 600%.

I am opposed to further development in the developing world. I am opposed to increases in the birth rate of all countries except Canada but do not advocate meddling but rather believe they should suffer the consequences without aid. I am opposed to all farming methods that lead to the acidification of the world's oceans.

I am opposed to mass consumerism but do not have an acceptable economic alternative model. I oppose the concept of 5 or 7 billion more Canadian type mass global consumers by 2050 and any idiot with a calculator and rudimentary data should be as scared as this idiot.

I believe that Chinese and foreign goods that are not produced sustainably should have punishing tariffs and that all countries should adopt that policy instead of a carbon tax, carbon cap and trade or any other carbon trading scheme.

My ideology opposing carbon schemes will not stop me from profiting from it.

These are a few beliefs. I never dodge a question and answer them all honestly. How about telling me how YOU define science since Petros so far refuses.


Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Hardly, but it sure does seem like the leftards love to believe that you can solve any problem via burying it in cash... Interestingly enough, they never seem to want to kick in their own cash, just other people's money

Funny how that works, eh?

Agreed.

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

I was joking.

My professional organizations APEGBC and APEGS agree with climate change but make zero reference to AGW.

You point has minimal validity. There is no denying the return to the 10,000yr mean temp.

The 10000 year mean temp (whatever that is) is the data coming from the exact same body of researchers whose conclusions you otherwise deny. You're cherry picking tidbits to support your political conclusion.

Define science for me in your own words. 4th request.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

The climate changes all the time ever heard of the dirty thirties
The prairie suffered drought and all that now its California.
Climate change has been happening for millions of years and it
will continue and then get cold again.
Has nothing to do with us humans its a natural occurrence

Aw.....life in the suburbs. The grass is always green, the food stores are amply stocked, never a water shortage just turn on the tap and of course climate just changes all the time without any input from men. Gum drops and whiskers on kittens and what not.

Curious, in Edmonton it is always 5-7 degrees warmer in the city than the surrounding countryside at night during the winter months. Surely they just built Edmonton on some natural geothermal hotspot and that man's activity clearly have nothing to do with it at all right?
Last edited by grainfedpraiboy; Jun 23rd, 2015 at 11:09 PM..Reason: change belief to believe
 
petros
#16
Quote:

The 10000 year mean temp (whatever that is) is the data coming from the exact same body of researchers whose conclusions you otherwise deny. You're cherry picking tidbits to support your political conclusion.

Whatever that is? It's called geology and climate paleoclimstology compiling an average 10,000 year mean temp.

Same body? Everybody has the same employer?
 
grainfedpraiboy
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Whatever that is? It's called geology and climate paleoclimstology compiling an average 10,000 year mean temp.

Yeah, but I don't put a lot of stock into the accuracy. You shouldn't either given that paradoxically that is a prime input into the very climate models you refute.

Neither of us really believes the climate models. The difference between you and I is I know enough to realise that nothing but bad inputs is likely going to result in bad outcomes. You on the other hand think bad inputs will not change the status quo or might actually improve things.

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Same body? Everybody has the same employer?

Sigh. Academic and evidence body.
 
petros
#18
Sigh...
 
gerryh
+3
#19  Top Rated Post
Answer this Gfp, in the 60s and 70s we were told that by the turn of the century there would be global famines and half the human population would die. All because of global warming. None of their "predictions" came true. Why should we believe what they are predicting now, when they have yet to get it right? In hindsight, it turns out the scientific community was fear mongering back then, why should we believe they are doing anything different now?
 
grainfedpraiboy
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Answer this Gfp, in the 60s and 70s we were told that by the turn of the century there would be global famines and half the human population would die. All because of global warming. None of their "predictions" came true. Why should we believe what they are predicting now, when they have yet to get it right? In hindsight, it turns out the scientific community was fear mongering back then, why should we believe they are doing anything different now?

Lots of reasons. We know way more now and have much better techniques from lab equipment to satellites. Look at the difference between your smart phone and your old rotary dial party line just to see the difference in simple tech. The hundred or so climatologists back then still actually developing the discipline and stumbling their way through working independently have now been replaced by 100s of thousands of professionally trained ones with their academic work accessible through the internet.

Back then we had no cross over input from anthropologists, paleontologists, botanists, chemists, astronomers, geologists, oceanographers, etc etc to help broaden the understanding of the overall picture. Even the first ice core samples weren't drilled until the 1950s and even then only as an experiment onto themselves (nothing to do with climate) and no drilling for climate purposes really happened until the 1980s.

In the 14th century conventional science thought the earth was flat. In the 16th century many still thought the sun revolved around the earth. I have an encyclopedia of my father's from the 1950s which states that men will never travel to the moon and such talk is fantasy. In the 1900s the prevailing scientific thought was man could never travel more than 100 km per hour because he would be rendered insane by the experience.

We have built our advances on the experiments, accomplishments and theories or our predecessors. Science is never absolute but rather a process. Future scientists (if humanity survives) will look back at what we knew of quantum physics, neutrinos, dark matter, cancer etc and marvel at how simple and quaint we once were.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by grainfedpraiboy View Post

This is not a debate about whether four is a number or if gophers exist. Climate change is a scientific fact

Only by a highly strained definition of "fact." For example, that I held up a hammer and let it go, and it accelerated toward the center of the earth at 9.8m/sec/sec is a fact. That matter has a property that causes it to move toward other matter is a theory.

Similarly, in this case, that some parts of the world are warmer on average than they were at some point in the past is a fact. That such warming is the result of EEE-vil corporate conservatives trying to destroy the planet because they're racist, sexist, homophobic, gun-loving scumbags is a theory.

Quote:

only challenged by the odd wingnut and given that there is more scientific consensus that climate change is occurring now than there is over whether smoking cigarettes can lead to lung cancer

Well, there's your problem right there. You appear to think that science works by consensus. It don't. If every scientist in the world solemnly declared their consensus that a dropped hammer will NOT accelerate toward the center of the earth at 9.8m/sec/sec, that consensus would change the behavior of the hammer not at all.

Quote:

youtube evidence to the contray will not sway me.

By which you just proved the point I've been getting around to. The fact that "evidence to the contrary will not sway" you demonstrates that your view of global warming (climate change, whatever the label is this week) is political, not scientific. Refusal to accept contradictory data is a prime violation of scientific principles.

Quote:

However, I am always amazed that I'll see some poster blasting scientific claims of anthropogenic climate change. What is even more amazing is the same crowd claiming science is corrupt turn around and attack Liberals for ignoring the science around GMO foods or vaccinations.

That'd be some more of that politics stuff. They, like you, have chosen a belief, and like you, reject contrary evidence.

Actually, it's the subset of politics known as "religion," defined as accepting a given set of statements as absolute truth and refusing all evidence or reasoning that might shake the utter confidence in The Truth.

Quote:

What I am seriously interested in from the denier crowd is what is the minimum level of observable change you need to actually witness before you would consider believing in science over your political opinion?

The maximum? Oh, how about Venus-like conditions on Earth?

I think you meant what is the minimum level of observable change I need to actually believe a theory that fails to account for a large number of variables.

Returning to my analogy, if you drop a feather, it will not accelerate toward the center of the earth at 9.8m/sec/sec. Does that mean the theory of gravity is wrong? Of course not. It means there are variables that must be eliminated for the theory of gravity to be accurate. The same is true of global whatever. We have a mountain of evidence that atmospheric gases are not the sole determinant of temperature of the planet, and the other factors have not been accounted for in global climate change warming theory.

By the way, I have to add that I agree that the planet is warmer on average than it was 100 years ago, and that human activity is at least a partial cause. I just don't care.

Quote: Originally Posted by grainfedpraiboy View Post

No. I believe there are varying degrees of non belief:



Seriously though, it wasn't that long ago I was arguing from the other side. Maybe two years or so.

Then I take it you're fully aware that the same collection of zealots exists on the warmist side?
 
Locutus
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by grainfedpraiboy View Post

Climate change is a scientific fact only challenged by the odd wingnut

Is this the ol' man-made climate change or the natural course of events change? There's quite a big difference.
 
taxslave
+2
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by grainfedpraiboy View Post

And we're still pulling out of that particular ice age. It actually isn't over.

Question is though, is there anything environmentally negative or unusual that could happen that would make you more inclined to believe the scientific community and not write it off or dismiss it as "natural"?

To start with a viable plan to combat it without destroying the economy. If combating climate change is in fact desirable. Second and most important a stop to the demands for massive transfers of wealth from have nations to have not nations. Third the people that claim the earth is overpopulated put their feet where their mouths are and eliminate themselves and their families from this globe.

And how is the ice free Arctic we were promised back in about 2006 working out this winter?

See the problem is that the truthers tell really big lies. Much the same as the anti logging crowd did back in the 90s. And the Luddites did 300 or so years ago.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

To start with a viable plan to combat it without destroying the economy. If combating climate change is in fact desirable. Second and most important a stop to the demands for massive transfers of wealth from have nations to have not nations. Third the people that claim the earth is overpopulated put their feet where their mouths are and eliminate themselves and their families from this globe.

And how is the ice free Arctic we were promised back in about 2006 working out this winter?

See the problem is that the truthers tell really big lies. Much the same as the anti logging crowd did back in the 90s. And the Luddites did 300 or so years ago.

That's not a problem, that's the standard operating procedure for religion and politics. That and diverting the "debate" with logical fallacies.

People do it everywhere. Check out the "Gun Control is Completely Useless" thread. You got folk over there claiming that drowning deaths are relevant to the gun control debate.
 
Blackleaf
+1
#25
Quote:

Climate Change Deniers

It is estimated that more people are now jailed or arrested in Britain for what they think, believe or say than at any time since the 18th century

One of the more fashionable labels is now 'transphobia', which is used to close down any debate about issues raised by gender identity changes. Transgender activists have even succeeded in getting some feminists, such as the lesbian and gay rights campaigner Julie Bindel, banned from speaking at events because of their alleged 'transphobic' attitudes.

Closely related to this nonsense is the accusation of being a 'denier'. It is a charge used to show that the speaker's opinions are so outlandish and offensive that they must be sidelined or suppressed.

The term originated with the drive to prevent Right-wing extremists from denying the existence of the Holocaust against the Jews, but is now used indiscriminately to hound those with controversial opinions.

In 2014, a group of UK-based environmental campaigners argued that 'climate change deniers' are 'responsible for crimes against humanity' and should face 'Nuremberg-style trials' for 'actively spreading doubt' about the orthodoxy on global warming.

Perhaps the most famous words on free speech were ascribed to the 18th-century French writer Voltaire, who, according to his biographer, said: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.'

Yet we now live in an age of what I call 'Reverse Voltaires', whose attitude is: 'I know I will detest what you say, and I will defend to the end of free speech my right to stop you saying it.'

These people make their influence felt right across our society, from science labs to football stadiums, from the Twittersphere to comedy clubs.


How free speech became a crime as feminists hound Nobel winner Tim Hunt from his job | Daily Mail Online
 
Tecumsehsbones
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

It is estimated that more people are now jailed or arrested in Britain for what they think, believe or say than at any time since the 18th century

Good news for you. You positively adore the Britain of the 18th century.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Second and most important a stop to the demands for massive transfers of wealth from have nations to have not nations.

Without the promise and hope of massive transfers of wealth from the haves to the have nots the movement dies. Wealth Transfer sustains the movement.
 
petros
#28
Quote:

The hundred or so climatologists back then still actually developing the discipline and stumbling their way through working independently have now been replaced by 100s of thousands of professionally trained ones with their academic work accessible through the internet

That is hilarious and frightening at the same time. Frightening that someone could make and stand by such an absurd statement
 
Ludlow
#29
There's way too many cows and hogs these days. chickens too. Mass produced to feed billions of gluttons who think they need to slam the groceries down their necks four or five times a day. Consequently all this livestock must be produced in enormous numbers to feed all these gluttons. Oh I'm sure they'll justify their voracious appetites with a nice salad now and then to create some warped sense of balance in their own minds. . All this extra livestock to feed the gluttons produces billions upon billions of farts that are released into our atmosphere daily. If there were any extra terrestrial life that wanted to visit I'm sure the pleasant odors that permeate our fair planet would direct them elsewhere. Not only that, add to it the human expulsions that escape into our atmosphere eva damn day. I don't know much about global warming but I do understand the concept of global stinkers, of which all of us are. You don't believe me walk down a few isles at the Walmart on a busy shopping day and bask in the ambience fer a spell. It's a wonderful world.
 
petros
#30
That's the smell of money.