Climate change broke houston weather again. (The official everyone gets a h[w]oosh thread)
-
So what, you're gonna come in with some half-formed opinions fed by pundits and backed by highly massaged google results, and argue facts against them?
You're not qualified. Neither are the pundits who are feeding you this bullshit. And neither am I.
accept it as the best understanding of reality we have at the moment
So, what you're saying is that I have no real way to prove or disprove what they are saying?
That's right, I agree.
But that also means that I have no way to determine whether or not
- It's all a big con. From my position this is not falsifiable.
- It's all accurate to a point, but could be completely wrong.
And if those things are undecipherable to me, then why in the world are we making huge political shifts in the economy because of them.
The actual consensus on this stuff isn't very interesting interesting and in now way predicts catastrophe
QFT.
I've made that argument countless times. If you go around and say that the consensus doesn't include the catastrophe FUD. You're suddenly a denier of the most obvious science to date.
And how is anyone qualified to make that decision, because apparently....
You're not qualified. Neither are the pundits who are feeding you this bullshit. And neither am I.
You have just as much ability to determine whether or not climate science is accurate as you do to determine whether or not God exists.
What I'm frustrated with isn't the science. It is the runaway policy shifts that are definitely causing real and falsifiable (from my point) damage to the economy.
-
if that's what you believe, there's little point to having a scientific argument.
You haven't been doing that so far, why start now, right?
More FOX news FUD.
Yes, it seems to live rent free in your head. But that's about all that relates to Fox News here.
I'm sure that most of the climate scientists in the world are on the take and adjusting the numbers for cash.
I think that's a bit extreme. I've talked a lot about incentives in many contexts and I don't think scientists are any more immune to them than anyone else.
I've read the articles (more MEDIA half-science) about "adjusting temperatures" and how the raw data shows one thing but the scientists translate it to another.
Good for you?
They're just playing on people that want to believe what they want to believe.
Yes! This is what I keep saying!
-
Unless you actually spent years learning climate science and statistics and reading through hundreds of studies and talking with other people in the field, the best you can do is look at the scientific consensus and accept it as the best understanding of reality we have at the moment
Clearly the best anyone can do is believe what they wanted to believe, because it fits their personal agenda.
@darkmatter said:
They're just playing on people that want to believe what they want to believe.
Yes! This is what I keep saying!
Hilarious that you think you're somehow above it all.*
*of course, so does everyone.
-
@darkmatter said:
Much like it would be a problem if the earth froze over and glaciers came back down into Minnesota again.
Except an ice age would be unquestionably bad.
If the glaciers came back down to Minnesota, they'd probably also hit Wisconsin, so Milwaukee PC wouldn't be a thing any more. That would be a good thing, right?
-
I don't think scientists are any more immune to them than anyone else.
Science is a religion to people that are not scientists, and they've turned scientists into the pope. Infallible.
Because in their mind, scientists are hippies doing it for the good of mankind, and not because it's a job.
They'll make conspiracy theories about the government being in on the take and that steel doesn't melt because the trade center was a big tinfoil hat government hand. But the moment you say, the scientific consensus doesn't include your conspiracy theory, scientists are gods and how can we say otherwise.
-
-
I've read the articles (more MEDIA half-science) about "adjusting temperatures" and how the raw data shows one thing but the scientists translate it to another.
I wanted to circle back on this, because there's a pattern in this stuff. I've seen it a couple of times, at least.
You may be familiar with the hotspot theory, that says that as the atmosphere heats up, a certain altitude (over the tropics?) will heat faster than others. So people tried to measure that with weather balloons. The data said that part of the atmosphere wasn't heating faster. So someone did a reanalysis of a proxy for temperature (something about wind, IIRC) that showed that the temperature increases measured that way weren't inconsistent with the whole hotspot thing. So, Aha! Climate Science vindicated!
Recently, there was a reanalysis that has gotten a lot of flack where someone took NOAA data and reanalyzed stuff to show that the "pause" never really happened. So...all of our thermometers and satellites were showing temperatures not rising, but some fancy (and apparently flawed) analysis shows that temperatures are "really" still rising! Aha! Climate Science vindicated!
Who you going to trust, me or your lying eyes?
-
Hilarious that you think you're somehow above it all.**of course, so does everyone.
Not sure why you'd say this. I suspect you're the only one who thinks that.
-
how the raw data shows one thing but the scientists translate it to another
Maybe those are stupid.
But I do know that the raw data is meaningless and doesn't show one damn thing over another.
Scientists have done the best they can to take raw data with varying degrees of accuracy and interpret them into one graph of temperature. And it's a crapshoot, really. It's really really bad.
Now, we are more accurate now than ever, but only in the span of the last two decades, which means that's the data that really matters.
I mean, the tree rings thing.
Well,shit. These trees are saying it's actually cooling and that doesn't fit the rest of our models.
But wait, the trees are growing differently in different climates
Now that I've adjusted it, it matches the rest of our data.Ok?
There's that correlation -> causation thing again.
Throw that into every other method of measurement they've taken, and you have a spaghetti of mismatched data where they made every data fit into every other data.
-
Bullshit. I can read stuff and come to an informed opinion about it. At minimum I can recognize that there is no actual consensus for catastrophe. You're free to outsource your critical thinking on this topic to someone else, but if they disagree with me, they're wrong.
You can come up with an informed opinion. Doesn't mean it's a correct opinion.
But that also means that I have no way to determine whether or not
- It's all a big con. From my position this is not falsifiable.
- It's all accurate to a point, but could be completely wrong.
And if those things are undecipherable to me, then why in the world are we making huge political shifts in the economy because of them.
You have no way to determine if anything is a con. I mean, your whole life could be just a bunch of actors pretending to be your friends and family, while secretly filming you for an alien TV show. But it's not very likely.
You have just as much ability to determine whether or not climate science is accurate as you do to determine whether or not God exists.
The difference is, there are people who actually are qualified to have a scientific opinion about climate change. And they all say it's happening.
-
there are people who actually are qualified to have a scientific opinion
There are also people who are qualified to have an opinion about religion, and the two aren't mutually exclusive. But society has shifted to value one over the other because, predictions.
And you know what's funny, religion has made predictions too.
Religion: The two towers will fall.
Science: More hurricanes is AGW, less hurricanes is AGW. Warmer is AGW. Cooler is AGW. No change is AGW.
climate change. And they all say it's happening.
That's useless.
That's like saying someone observed that there are seasons.
We've known this for years.
The real debate is whether AGW is the sole cause for recent change, and whether or not we should make drastic changes to reverse it, and whether that will even matter. And there isn't a consensus on that.
-
Science: More hurricanes is AGW, less hurricanes is AGW. Warmer is AGW. Cooler is AGW. No change is AGW.
to be honest, just because YOU can't understand what the actual predictions are and how they work, doesn't mean it's all hocus pocus.
-
You can come up with an informed opinion. Doesn't mean it's a correct opinion.
This is true. But look, it shouldn't be that hard. Let's suppose some group of economists showed up with a computer model that they said could predict the economy, in particular some stock market index. Now, we don't study economics for a living, what's the deal with all the Greek letters and bullshit in their academic papers?
Still, we could have them try to predict the future. And then judge their predictions with what actually happened. And then what if their predictions are obviously wrong? No matter how many PhDs or Nobel Laureates get up and tell you this is our best science, you're not going to trust that model to make serious decisions with.
And they all say it's happening.
They say the climate is changing (duh...it always has and always will). They say that man certainly has an effect on it.
They don't all say that our increase of CO2 (not necessarily even our biggest influence on the climate, BTW) is leading to catastrophe.
-
YOU can't understand what the actual predictions are and how they work
I don't have to understand how they work.
If every possible outcome is due to AGW, then AGW isn't really a threat.
If every possible outcome is due to climate change. That's a tautology and not really useful information.
-
@xaade said:
Science: More hurricanes is AGW, less hurricanes is AGW. Warmer is AGW. Cooler is AGW. No change is AGW.
to be honest, just because YOU can't understand what the actual predictions are and how they work, doesn't mean it's all hocus pocus.
Just because YOU aren't familiar with the actual predictions doesn't mean much either.
-
Not sure why you'd say this. I suspect you're the only one who thinks that.
i don't think i'm above it all. and i altered my original statement because at the time I wrote it, something you had said struck me funny. But after re-reading your posts, it no longer resonated the same way. I didn't want to flat out remove the comment, so I altered it to be more of a sarcastic satire than a direct attack.
-
If every possible outcome is due to AGW, then AGW isn't really a threat.If every possible outcome is due to climate change. That's a tautology and not really useful information.
I will be glad to see you provide me a link that shows that the prediction is that every possible outcome is due to AGW.I'll be waiting.
Note: FOX news' borderline satire articles don't count as a scientific proof of predictions. I want real scientific articles or papers that say all outcomes are due to global warming.
-
They say the climate is changing (duh...it always has and always will).
I disagree. Once the sun has turned into a red giant, it is predicted that the Earth will no longer exist. Thus, it will no longer have a climate to change.
-
I will be glad to see you provide me a link that shows that the prediction is that every possible outcome is due to AGW.
There have been papers predicting all of those. Kind of like how red wine will save us all or kill us all depending on which week it is.
FOX
I'm sure you bring this up more than anyone else, and I still can't figure out why. Current theory is lazy trolling.
-
Is The Record Cold Arctic Outbreak Tied To Global Warming? | Weather.com
Could this weekend's historic Arctic cold outbreak be linked with the warming of the Arctic? We look at the science of how the jet stream operates and how it influences weather in the U.S. - Articles from The Weather Channel | weather.com
Why are there cooling patterns, because the jet stream from the Arctic changed due to global warming.
Is there a consensus on this? No.
But that just goes back to my earlier point. The arguments that everything proves global warming is AGW, doesn't have a consensus.
-
-
In other news, notifications are still broken. I got a notification for your like, but not for your reply.
-
Kind of like how red wine will save us all or kill us all depending on which week it is.
This may be true, different scientists may have different theories. It's kind of how science works. Then we figure out which is right and why/how to know what was valuable information and what was just crap. Science.Why are there cooling patterns, because the jet stream from the Arctic changed due to global warming.
So you showed 1 specific thing that they are saying happened to due global warming, now where is the opposite thing to the jet stream that they said would have been predicted by global warming?Again, just because YOU don't understand what the predictions are and mean, doesn't mean they are meaningless.
-
And you know what's funny, religion has made predictions too.
Religion: The two towers will fall.Science: More hurricanes is AGW, less hurricanes is AGW. Warmer is AGW. Cooler is AGW. No change is AGW.
Oh right.
I forgot, you're the weirdo.
Nevermind.
This is true. But look, it shouldn't be that hard. Let's suppose some group of economists showed up with a computer model that they said could predict the economy, in particular some stock market index. Now, we don't study economics for a living, what's the deal with all the Greek letters and bullshit in their academic papers?
Still, we could have them try to predict the future. And then judge their predictions with what actually happened. And then what if their predictions are obviously wrong? No matter how many PhDs or Nobel Laureates get up and tell you this is our best science, you're not going to trust that model to make serious decisions with.
OK, but most predictions are really decades into the future. You can't really measure their success based on day to day weather.
They don't all say that our increase of CO2 (not necessarily even our biggest influence on the climate, BTW) is leading to catastrophe.
Ok, fine. It will only be a very bad, costly thing, with whole civilization having to shift and fight over newly created rich and poor areas of land. It won't cause the extincion of humanity. It might even be good for Russia, for example. But it won't be good if you're near the sea or an island nation. Or have a big stake in keeping things nice and stable.
-
I forgot, you're the weirdo.
Even though i know this, but it's so goddamn hard to resist making fun of it
OK, but most predictions are really decades into the future. You can't really measure their success based on day to day weather.
This is where a big part of the problem lies. Everyone is trying to do exactly this. Since media and anti-global warming people keep trying to use the day-to-day weather to tell the public that global warming is a hoax, the pro-global warming people try to do the same thing because it's hard to combat the deluge of "LOOK ITS COLD TODAY GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE" by telling people to wait 10 years and count the # and intensity of hurricanes. People will believe the NOW. So then we end up with global warming scientists trying to directly link immediate events to rising temperatures, which is almost as retarded as trying to link them as proof against the effect of rising temperatures.
-
This may be true, different scientists may have different theories. It's kind of how science works. Then we figure out which is right and why/how to know what was valuable information and what was just crap. Science.
Indeed. So are you ready to fundamentally transform your way of life / the economy based on that sort of foundation?
-
OK, but most predictions are really decades into the future.
We're two decades or so in at this point. Also, the guys who run the models said that the models show something like 15 year pauses. We've observed one that's longer and hasn't ended yet.
Or have a big stake in keeping things nice and stable.
Like it's ever been nice and stable? Seriously, WTF is it about thinking we've hit the perfect climate and we're ruining it all? What about the Roman Warm Period? Medieval Warm Period? Little Ice Age? You're wrong before you've even started if you think there's anything stable that we can protect.
-
Since media and anti-global warming people keep trying to use the day-to-day weather to tell the public that global warming is a hoax
This is mostly a "Linux hardware" style troll of making the other side look ridiculous by doing the same thing they do. To wit, just the other day:
That you think only one side does it just shows that you're not paying attention or arguing in bad faith.
-
That you think only one side does it just shows that you're not paying attention or arguing in bad faith.
Holy fucking shit man, did you not just read what I wrote?
the pro-global warming people try to do the same thing because it's hard to combat the deluge of "LOOK ITS COLD TODAY GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE" by telling people to wait 10 years and count the # and intensity of hurricanes. People will believe the NOW. So then we end up with global warming scientists trying to directly link immediate events to rising temperatures, which is almost as retarded as trying to link them as proof against the effect of rising temperatures.
Seriously though. Reading, can you haz it?
-
Holy fucking shit man, did you not just read what I wrote?
Yeah, I got to that after I wrote what I wrote. Revise my remarks to pointing out how you got the chain of events backwards. Either way, you're wrong.
-
Also, since when did Bill Nye become a climate scientist. Where is his study on how global warming made Texas flood or Alaska burn? It's the same old FUD from the other side.
I'm not arguing about the left-wing FUD because most of the people here (IN THIS FORUM) aren't spreading it. Just the anti-global warming side here seems to be intent on doing that.
-
Revise my remarks to pointing out how you got the chain of events backwards. Either way, you're wrong.
chain of events... yes, point me to the first of the "today's weather proves/disproves global warming" stories so we can see who started it all
-
You're wrong before you've even started if you think there's anything stable that we can protect.
I'm just going to stop here, because everything I've tried to say, you end up saying it better.
-
This may be true, different scientists may have different theories. It's kind of how science works. Then we figure out which is right and why/how to know what was valuable information and what was just crap. Science.
OK, but most predictions are really decades into the future. You can't really measure their success based on day to day weather.
Both of these statements are undoubtedly true. However, even decades in the future, it may be difficult or impossible to determine which, if any, of the theories are correct. Not only do we not have any way to do controlled experiments, in the one and only experimental setup we do have, we are (attempting to) tinker with the experimental conditions as we're running the experiment. "Well, theory #17 would have been correct, but in 2021 you did/did not start/stop releasing/sequestering X% more/less CO2, so even though the theory is right, the predictions based on it are wrong, because you changed the experiment after the predictions were made."
-
Also, since when did Bill Nye become a climate scientist.
It's only when non-climate scientists say something stupid, that all of the sudden they aren't counted in the consensus.
Otherwise it's all like, 97% of scientists agree, including this one guy that studies earthquakes.
-
Also, since when did Bill Nye become a climate scientist.
I totally agree.
I'm not arguing about the left-wing FUD because most of the people here (IN THIS FORUM) aren't spreading it. Just the anti-global warming side here seems to be intent on doing that.
You still got the details wrong. In any case, I'm not spreading FUD.
yes, point me to the first of the "today's weather proves/disproves global warming" stories so we can see who started it all
You first. But seriously, before we were worried about it, we weren't talking about how weather was evidence of anything. Then we had to get worried about it.
This could all be projection on my part, because that's why I point out counter-AGW weather, because it's funny. I can't help it if anti-science AGW believers can't understand that they're being laughed at.
-
I'm not arguing about the left-wing FUD
What's the right-wing FUD?
That if we let politicians make bad policies based on left-wing FUD, that it will do massive damage to the economy?
I don't see how that is working against climate scientists here.
-
What's the right-wing FUD?
It's something he thinks that someone said on FOX NEWS. Wait a few posts, he'll bring it up again, because he's just trolling and doesn't have a good argument.
-
I think we can live in a world where AGW isn't the only explanation for rising temperatures, that climate scientists aren't qualified to make economic policy recommendations, that we can make small changes in a safe way, but that all of it could be for nothing if unknown event X takes the climate change in a new direction.
And we can do all of that without demonizing the efforts of climate scientists, or falling into a bad economic policy trap.
Can we agree on that?
Sustainable growth towards a sustainable energy solution for the economy and the environment.
-
Might end up being true, might not. Very true.
-
It's only when non-climate scientists say something stupid, that all of the sudden they aren't counted in the consensus.
Otherwise it's all like, 97% of scientists agree, including this one guy that studies earthquakes.
I am guessing Bill Nye's twitter posts aren't counted in the study of actual climate-related scientific papers.
Again, all you do is basically strawman and make up shit. It's just god awful to read and I don't know why I keep responding to it. A+
to you I guess.
-
Here's a picture of an elephant penis:
-
It doesn't work, stupid discourse.
-
Again, all you do is basically strawman and make up shit. It's just god awful to read and I don't know why I keep responding to it.
So you can post your own straw men and make up shit?
-
I am guessing Bill Nye's twitter posts aren't counted in the study of actual climate-related scientific papers.
Can you point to the scientific paper that made a good prediction about future temperatures?
I mean...you're the one saying that something awful will happen. Why should I believe you?
-
So you can post your own straw men and make up shit?
oh yeah, i've posted so many hypotheticals.
oh wait.... i don't have time to even do that, too busy making fun of everyone else's strawmen.
-
I mean...you're the one saying that something awful will happen. Why should I believe you?
you mean other than the articles i've posted to predicted temperature increases?
oh right,you don't bother to read links that dont agree with your own opinion so it's like the link never happened.
-
Can you point to the scientific paper that made a good prediction about future temperatures?
It doesn't matter; the predictions don't even agree with each other, so at least one is bound to be correct sooner or later.
-
Exactly, there's no point to backing up anything anyone says in here, it's all make believe anyway.
-
@boomzilla said:
I mean...you're the one saying that something awful will happen. Why should I believe you?
you mean other than the articles i've posted to predicted temperature increases?
oh right,you don't bother to read links that dont agree with your own opinion so it's like the link never happened.I went back through this topic and didn't see anything. I look at lots of links (even when @flabdablet posts them!) from around here.
Can you repost? Do you remember what they said? How did the predictions match up with reality? What was used to make the predictions?
I WANT TO BELIEVE. But so far it's all very unconvincing.
Antiscience - Wikipedia
Bill Nye on Twitter
