Climate Change Deniers - Can Anything Change Their Minds

[grainfedpraiboy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

None belief in what? Propaganda?

 

[captain morgan]

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]

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"?

 

[petros]

Like?

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[petros]

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]

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.

Same body? Everybody has the same employer?

Sigh. Academic and evidence body.

 

[petros]

Sigh...

 

[gerryh]

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]

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.