buddhist
Well-Known Member
I disagree.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Climate Skeptics: I Have Questions!
- Thread starter Quetzal
- Start date
Well, it seems to me you basically asked if scientists are a charity organization that receives zero compensation (including personal fulfillment, which is a type of benefit) for anything that they do. And it seems to me you then asked if scientists actually do science.
I can't... I just.... really?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
So, I have approached this topic before. I realize now that I have not done so in a very productive way. I want to be better. With that said, I have questions to ask so that I can better understand your position.
Thanks for taking the time.
- What is something that annoys you with the topic? (Are there common fallacies that you see? Common phrases that turn you off from the topic? etc)
- There is quite a bit of materials out about this topic, most of it is in support of climate change. Where do you feel these materials come up short? Why do you feel this way? Are there alternatives that you feel might be more accurate?
- Is there something that those of us who believe this is a urgent problem can do to be better when attempting to share our position?
- Is there something we could do to be better in regards to presenting the information we find?
- Is there a piece of information that you feel is missing, under-explained, or simply doesn't make sense?
1. I think one of the most annoying things is listening to folks who have a very limited grasp of weather patterns, climate and meteorology, who simply regurgitate what their favorite websites/reports say.
2. Beats me. Any idea that does not support the current trends in thought on the matter simply does not get funding.
3. Use less words.... try thoughtful, penetrating glances... They will serve you better than the endless bleating.
4. Use a bit more honesty perhaps? Rely less on the models. It's not like software has any bugs or anything like that. Just ask Micro$oft.
5. Nope. Folks have made their positions very clear over the years.
For example, in question 2 you state that "most of it is in support of climate change"... The dog whistle here is that allegedly some people do not believe that climate change is real and has always existed. What you are REALLY talking about is Anthropogenic global warming or AGW. It is my view that only a total dimwit would pretend that climate change is not real. The real question is how much man's industrialized rape of the planet and ecosphere has contributed to the greenhouse effect AND if it is reversible or even possible to change. We simply do not know the answers to either of the latter, though it is likely we have had some effect on the ecosphere we piddle in.
Likewise some of the major ideas for alleviating AGW, like Carbon Offset Credits is a daffy idea, at best.
That is fair. So, if I am presenting information, it would be more attractive if I gave sources to go with it, right? Obviously, if I am on a soapbox with nothing, you won't take me or my presentation seriously.
What about on forums? Would this seductive glance be good enough?
That's a tough one because many of the arguments in favor do rely on the models. How about addressing that they are not fool proof? Present as a theory and idea, but not as concrete facts yet?
Thanks for the input and advice. Hopefully we can have more discussions about specifics later on.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
No I did not. I asked if they receive compensation from the Public and/or government. If they do, then they have a conflict of interest.
No I did not. I asked about their sources of data. The source would reveal a potential conflict of interest.
Well, I don't want to hijack Quetzal's thread with this line of questioning, so I think I'll hang back from here. All I'll say is good luck finding any science research that isn't funded by the public/governments/nonprofits. There is no profit in science research, which is why nearly all of it is supported by this means. Private industries won't touch it, because it does not make them money. They are interested in marketable products (technology), not in science (knowledge).
I do break ranks with most conservative or libertarians concerning this subject. I do think it's a problem. Even if a person doesn't believe climate change is man caused. Surely we can all agree that pollution is bad and hopefully find some common ground to start
talking about this outside the realm of politics.
talking about this outside the realm of politics.
I always hear skepticism about global warming. I don't think global warming is some sort of myth. The temperature is the most easy thing to measure with a thermometer so people don't have to take the medias word for it. If you feel like measuring the data over years have at it.
We have the third warmest year in a row, in history since we have been recording data.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...d-for-the-third-time-in-a-row-in-2016-2016-10
We have the third warmest year in a row, in history since we have been recording data.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...d-for-the-third-time-in-a-row-in-2016-2016-10
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
It was also my understanding that the term "global warming" was pushed back from the public spotlight because so many "news" agencies, politicians, and other skeptics kept saying that "since it is colder this week in (Minnesota, DC, Greenland in winter, etc....) then the globe is not actually warming, So there!!"
So, since global warming was predicted (all along) to cause climate instability (a.k.a. "change"), and many people figured that the masses will only be able to grasp the threat if they can look out their windows and see it happening in their own neighborhood, then the catch-phrase "climate change" was adopted.
The masses can see change. They can see increased tornado damage. They can see that 'once in a century dry summer' coming through twice in a decade in the midwest, or that 'once in 200 year bitter winter' hit eastern Europe every 4 years, etc...(exactly as the models predicted), and the masses can start to assimilate that. Rather than showing them graphs and charts of global temperature monitoring every few years to convince them of the truth.
Overall "global warming" of course is still going on (as the models predicted it would), and that in turn is causing more unstable "changing" weather patterns, with some portions of the globe heating up, some cooling down, some turning to desert, some increasing in rain or even snow......but all taken together....it is warming.
Good luck @Quetzal .
Augustus
…
Strangely enough the Republican Party, based on advice from Frank Luntz, actively promoted the change from 'global warming' to 'climate change' because it had less emotional impact. Calling it global warming made more people consider it an important problem than when the neutral term climate change was used.
Can see Luntz talking about that briefly here (about 5 seconds after start of video)
Augustus
…
If we accept that:
a) significant climate change is happening
b) it might or might not be caused by humans
c) it might or might not be reversible/mitigable
Is it not wise to act as if it is caused by humans and can be reversed/mitigated? The cost of being wrong is far, far worse if we wrongly fail to act against it than if we wrongly act against it.
Climate is far too complex for us to be able to accurately predict in the future (which is why I dislike precise 'scientific' predictions on global warming as they will always be seized upon to 'prove' it is a sham.) But as you note, it is reasonable to believe that we might be causing of such problems.
You don't buy insurance because you think you are sure you will need it, but because you can't afford to be wrong.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Personally, I think that only complete blockheads would argue this point. Of course we should try to treat our ecosystem with more respect and we should try to ween ourselves off of our addiction to fossil fuels. So far, the move in this direction has been fairly insignificant. It's like everyone is in a panic about it but no one is really serious about doing anything substantial about it.
I've gone a bit beyond this thought. I'm currently rather stuck on what the hell do we do about it that will actually mitigate catastrophic change. I'm not interested in babbling with other people, who are no more enlightened on the topic than I am, hashing out details neither of us fully comprehend or are even in much of a position to comment on. The science, such that it is, IS what it is. The point is what do we do about it.
I've never been big on insurance. I guess what bugs me is that I have a small, almost infinitesimal, lifetime carbon footprint as I have only started driving a car the last few years, after I moved to a rural setting. For 55 years I walked, ran or took public transportation. Likewise, I've always been a "low impact" person and it is somewhat annoying listening to political leader fresh off their fossil fuel guzzling mode of conveyance drone on about how dire things are then hypocritical getting back into those modes of conveyance to be whisked off to their next terribly important event.
I have no doubt that there is climate change. The climate is an animal that has never ceased changing.
I have no doubt that human animals through their wanton disregard for the ecosphere have cause damage to said ecosphere.
I have doubts on how it may be best to mitigate what we have done, though cleaning up our own back yards is a pretty good place to start.
I am a big fan of the Hundred mile diet challenge and not just because it was an idea developed by fellow Canadians right where I live.
It's just a reasonable idea though I still make allowances for bananas and oranges.What I would love to see would be watching President-elect Trump start talking about the need for a "Manhattan Project" class race to secure viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Make it a National effort between government and the private sector but controlled by government. If this doesn't count as a National Security Issue, I don't know what does.
So........ what are your ideas?
@Augustus @Quetzal
Last edited:
It is likely we have more than some effect and it ain't cow's gas isn't the major issue. Perhaps if we stop raping the world we might find out. What is killing the oceans more, pollution or warming waters or incessant hunting, and does that matter which is more? We could certainly afford be off of fossil fuels as much as possible whether for pollution issues or global warming.
Just seeing your above post. I wouldn't stop driving my car but I would love a solar powered car. If it was provided to consumers it would be purchased, I do believe the demand is there.
There is a reason climate change falls into the category of political debate. And I think we all know what that is.So, I have approached this topic before. I realize now that I have not done so in a very productive way. I want to be better. With that said, I have questions to ask so that I can better understand your position.
Thanks for taking the time.
- What is something that annoys you with the topic? (Are there common fallacies that you see? Common phrases that turn you off from the topic? etc)
- There is quite a bit of materials out about this topic, most of it is in support of climate change. Where do you feel these materials come up short? Why do you feel this way? Are there alternatives that you feel might be more accurate?
- Is there something that those of us who believe this is a urgent problem can do to be better when attempting to share our position?
- Is there something we could do to be better in regards to presenting the information we find?
- Is there a piece of information that you feel is missing, under-explained, or simply doesn't make sense?
What do you think?
I think you are right in a lot of ways. I want to start framing my future discussions about this topic differently in the future. Instead of focusing on climate change/global warming, I want to focus on renewable energy. To start framing it in a way that is beneficial, dare I say, profitable to folks.Personally, I think that only complete blockheads would argue this point. Of course we should try to treat our ecosystem with more respect and we should try to ween ourselves off of our addiction to fossil fuels. So far, the move in this direction has been fairly insignificant. It's like everyone is in a panic about it but no one is really serious about doing anything substantial about it.
I've gone a bit beyond this thought. I'm currently rather stuck on what the hell do we do about it that will actually mitigate catastrophic change. I'm not interested in babbling with other people, who are no more enlightened on the topic than I am, hashing out details neither of us fully comprehend or are even in much of a position to comment on. The science, such that it is, IS what it is. The point is what do we do about it.
I've never been big on insurance. I guess what bugs me is that I have a small, almost infinitesimal, lifetime carbon footprint as I have only started driving a car the last few years, after I moved to a rural setting. For 55 years I walked, ran or took public transportation. Likewise, I've always been a "low impact" person and it is somewhat annoying listening to political leader fresh off their fossil fuel guzzling mode of conveyance drone on about how dire things are then hypocritical getting back into those modes of conveyance to be whisked off to their next terribly important event.
I have no doubt that there is climate change. There climate is an animal that has never ceased changing.
I have no doubt that human animals through their wanton disregard for the ecosphere have cause damage to said ecosphere.
I have doubts on how it may be best to mitigate what we have done, though cleaning up our own back yards is a pretty good place to start.
I am a big fan of the Hundred mile diet challenge and not just because it was an idea developed by fellow Canadians right where I live.
What I would love to see would be watching President-elect Trump start talking about the need for a "Manhattan Project" class race to secure viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Make it a National effort between government and the private sector but controlled by government. If this doesn't count as a National Security Issue, I don't know what does.
So........ what are your ideas?
@Augustus @Quetzal
Instead of:
If you don't believe in climate change or don't think its a problem, you are gummy bear chewin, water bottle crushin, puppy puntin dummy dumb!
I would like to try:
Did you know, that buy investing $X in a solar panel for your house you will get a tax credit AND that it will pay for itself in 5-7 years? Or the new Teslas! Imagine cutting your investment at the gas pump by over 90%! AND they have a new model for under 30,000!
OR!
So I hear you are looking to change careers, ever consider working to install wind turbines? Work is risky but the industry has grown X% over the last 10 years and the starting salary is...
Once you have someone who might be interested in investigating these kind of ideas, then you can maybe start to talk about it on a larger scale.
"Hey, @YmirGF how much did you save last year by taking public transport? Would you be willing to vote in favor of the 'Gettin Around Initiative'? They are looking to expand public transport by 15% over the next two years! If that sounds good to you be sure to vote next week or you can do it online here."
What do you folks think? Sounds a bit more productive, right?
I'm an AGW (anthropomorphic caused GW) skeptic, but not about GW.So, I have approached this topic before. I realize now that I have not done so in a very productive way. I want to be better. With that said, I have questions to ask so that I can better understand your position.
Thanks for taking the time.
- What is something that annoys you with the topic? (Are there common fallacies that you see? Common phrases that turn you off from the topic? etc)
- There is quite a bit of materials out about this topic, most of it is in support of climate change. Where do you feel these materials come up short? Why do you feel this way? Are there alternatives that you feel might be more accurate?
- Is there something that those of us who believe this is a urgent problem can do to be better when attempting to share our position?
- Is there something we could do to be better in regards to presenting the information we find?
- Is there a piece of information that you feel is missing, under-explained, or simply doesn't make sense?
(Note that skepticism is not the same as denial.)
The temperature measurements are possibly useful, but are dubious. But there is more concrete & accessible evidence of GW, eg, glacier retreat, floating ice sheet changes, flora changes, fauna migration. My skepticism is about the extent to which GW is man made, & the best way to mitigate it.
Many claims by AGW advocates have been wrong (eg, more hurricanes), & the climate models are immature. Yet many of them are quick to leap to very expensive mitigation measures which are poorly thought out. I prefer conservation measures which have economic benefit, & also would address AGW.
Good OP.
Well they say all human activity adds to global warming, so lets all stop doing what we want to do, because it adds to global warming, and stick to the necessary things such as serving our masters, building bombs and going to war. So it's a ploy somewhere along those lines on an individual, national and global level. As UN power increases nations must comply more and more with the UN council on global warmings agenda, secretly written in back rooms by bankers and approved by the "moral authority" the pope. Then brought to the people by puppet leaders such as Obama and Hillary, etc.
Pope...? UN, war? Whacha talkin bout Willis?!
Well I'll just say, when it comes to global warming you'd better keep an eye on the UN. The guys with the tanks as white as the popes robes...Pope...? UN, war? Whacha talkin bout Willis?!