Climate change broke houston weather again. (The official everyone gets a h[w]oosh thread)
-
News flash, Ice Cap coverage grows and shrinks. The overall trend over the last several decades is that it is shrinking, but due to the aforementioned fact, it can also be thicker now than 2 years ago despite that overall shrinking trend.
It's also hugely dependent on winds. It stays damn cold up there, so the real problem is often the wind blowing ice to more southerly lattitudes.
-
To me the assertion that "the ice is growing for 2 years out of 10, climate change is a hoax" isn't any more ridiculous than the assertion that "the polar ice caps will be gone in a decade!"
Yet, the ridiculous claims from climate scientists (Al Gore was quoting, not coming up with his own numbers) get a pass because CONSENSUSTM!
It doesn't matter how wild the speculation they make on what disasters may follow, because the overall temperature is on an upward trend for the last
decadecentury (there's been a dip). So, they could say our faces will melt off tomorrow, and if anyone objects, they are ignorant red-neck climate change skeptics.And with every ridiculous claim that the climate-changers make, their case looks more stupid to the average person. So, instead of looking at the data and making a decision for themselves, the reaction becomes "let's tear this apart. Oh look the sun is cooling, convection, clouds are white". And so you end up with stupid on both sides. Like the scientist that thought they found the missing link, found out it was a pig's tooth, and covered it up, insisting he still had the missing link.
But for some reason climate science is protected from bad practices, because they have a good cause. No, it's that liberals don't give a damn when they are wrong, because "whatever it takes" is valid when you have a good-causeTM
But the truth is that, while the temperature does go up from more CO2, even though there's a saturation point, various "feedback effects" of positive or negative nature compete to control the final temperature. And that means, they just don't know what the final outcome will be.
They seriously have as good as a guess as to what might happen a few centuries from now, as to when the end-of-the-worlders know when that's going to actually happen (Jesus, Mayans, any of them).
-
To me the assertion that "the ice is growing for 2 years out of 10, climate change is a hoax" isn't any more ridiculous than the assertion that "the polar ice caps will be gone in a decade!"
I agree. Nevertheless, it's always good to investigate predictions so we can refine our theories. This is what science does. As so many previous predictions fail, it's important to understand why. We should also be extremely skeptical of theories that show little or no skill, as is the case with most CO2 climate theories.
-
theories that show little or no skill
Well, I'm more concerned with the fact that, as you go back in history the accuracy of temperature reports gets worse and worse, and that most of this upward trend fits within the every increasing margin of error as you walk backwards in time.
I mean, some of their temperatures were collected from trade ships dropping buckets in water.
The temperature may increase in the next decade 2 degrees taken from average temperatures with a +/- 5 degree margin of error.
-
Well, I'm more concerned with the fact that, as you go back in history the accuracy of temperature reports gets worse and worse, and that most of this upward trend fits within the every increasing margin of error as you walk backwards in time.
I'm more concerned with the violence their doing to the integrity of the measurements with all of the adjustments. But either way, their projections have not been skillful so far.
-
But, they have to make an upward trend synchronized with all the different forms of measuring temperature.
-
-
That's the problem with SJW.
They can't shut it off, and everything, literally everything, is a metaphor for their "problem".
Did you watch Sargon's video about Gender Studies?
"They can't shut it off" is like top of the list.
You'll be wondering if the _____ in your _____ was harvested by women, and whether or not that's a victory for women, or just another example of their exploitation. paraphrased
So, even if their problem is solved, it's just a cover for their problem.
Which is where I see this climate change going. Even if we "solve" it, it will simply be existing in a more sinister hidden way.
-
Yet, the ridiculous claims from climate scientists (Al Gore was quoting, not coming up with his own numbers) get a pass because CONSENSUSTM!
When 97% of the scientists that study climate change agree but a handful of loonies posting in forums vehemently disagree... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
And with every ridiculous claim that the climate-changers make, their case looks more stupid to the average person.
Average people think science is stupid.... well, somone's stupid here, but it's unlikely to be all the people with doctorates.But for some reason climate science is protected from bad practices, because they have a good cause. No, it's that liberals don't give a damn when they are wrong, because "whatever it takes" is valid when you have a good-causeTM
Sciencific consensus is argued because politics... seems to me like even more reason why I should believe the scientists rather than the naysayers.
-
I escaped 10 posts to a new onebox: Oneboxing incorrectly escapes smart quotes
-
When 97% of the scientists that study climate change agree but a handful of loonies posting in forums vehemently disagree... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
What is it that you think this 97% agree upon?
-
I moved 2 posts to an existing topic: Oneboxing incorrectly escapes smart quotes
-
What is it that you think this 97% agree upon?
That the climate is being influenced at least in some amount by what humans are doing.
-
When 97% of the scientists that study climate change agree but a handful of loonies posting in forums vehemently disagree... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
You see, you're doing exactly what I said would happen.
When 97% of scientists agree on an issue, it doesn't give them the right to make ludicrous exaggerated claims, and then call you a skeptic and loony if you don't agree with every single claim.
What consensus does is give you the responsibility to be honest about what you are claiming.
That 97% should tell the 1 scientist in their ranks that, no, the ice caps won't evaporate by 2016.
But yet, these outlandish claims are allowed, because the surrounding community makes the whole issue binary.
Either you believe that the world is going to end in 3 years, or you disagree that the climate is changing.
-
@boomzilla said:
What is it that you think this 97% agree upon?
That the climate is being influenced at least in some amount by what humans are doing.
Either you believe that the world is going to end in 3 years, or you disagree that the climate is changing.
Again, can you not see what you've done, and why this is bad for everyone.
If I say the ice caps aren't going to go poof in 12 hours, you say I think humans have no impact on the climate.
That's the problem with this entire debate.
We will never see a sensible ethical effort to find the absolute truth, because the politics of the issue has crept into the scientific thought.
-
Got to love how often people dismiss scientists, the most rational people on the planet, as irrational.
Not necessarily talking about anyone in particular; it's a general observation.
-
I am huh.
I have also read actual scientific papers on this. I'm not agreeing with the consensus simply because it is a consensus, I would count myself as part of the consensus.
Either you believe that the world is going to end in 3 years, or you disagree that the climate is changing.
Classic strawman... this is the stupidest thing I've read yet today. Are you really that dumb?
-
-
If I say the ice caps aren't going to go poof in 12 hours, you say I think humans have no impact on the climate.
Because your 12 hour thing (or your 3 year thing, or any other number you're just making up to support yourself) is a completely fabricated piece of strawman bullshit?
-
That the climate is being influenced at least in some amount by what humans are doing.
Yes, that's about right. There's broad disagreement about how much that effect is and what the consequences will be. The 97% figure is typically touted as a consensus for the really dire stuff, which is just wrong.
Whether the loonies are confused or just being sloppy between "no effect" and "no significant effect" or "no significant net negative effect," I think they're on firmer ground than most of the people talking about a 97% consensus.
Then, too, the most common source of this that I've seen was the 2013 Cook, et.al paper, which is garbage.
-
Got to love how often people dismiss scientists, the most rational people on the planet, as irrational.
We all do it, and scientists aren't necessarily as rational as we all think. Just ask @Gaska! (SCNR)
-
completely fabricated piece of strawman bullshit?
I'm exaggerating on purpose.
The 97% figure is typically touted as a consensus for the really dire stuff, which is just wrong.
-
@RaceProUK said:
the most rational people on the planet
All that proves is someone made a pretty convincing hoax
-
I am huh.http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
I have also read actual scientific papers on this. I'm not agreeing with the consensus simply because it is a consensus, I would count myself as part of the consensus.
You may not believe me, but I didn't see this before I guessed that you were thinking of this.
@xaade said:
Either you believe that the world is going to end in 3 years, or you disagree that the climate is changing.
Classic strawman... this is the stupidest thing I've read yet today. Are you really that dumb?I would have gone with hyperbole, but it gets across how the bogus 97% figure is used.
-
That took 40 years.
Which meant that there had to be some consensus, otherwise the hoax would have been discovered sooner.
-
I would have gone with hyperbole, but it gets across how the bogus 97% figure is used.
if xaade didn't follow the hyperbole with some really bad pseudoscience of his own, it wouldn't be so egregious.
-
There was also consensus that light travelled through ether; that one lasted centuries before being proven wrong.
Like I said, a successful hoax is only proof someone made a successful hoax.
-
It's very simple guys.
People are hiding by the consensus to make exaggerated claims of doom and gloom, and yet if you disagree with the worst of the exaggerated claims, you are painted as a loony skeptic.
I mean, the term "skeptic" has become a taboo stigma used against people that disagree with the climate science, when skepticism is one of the most valuable traits to have when participating in scientific experiments. That's how absurbly caustic the environment for discussion has become.
-
Look, if you want to say "the media or politicians are blowing the consensus out of proportion" - that's one thing. But to use that as the core for your argument on why climate change is clearly not real... that's just stupid.
-
climate change is clearly not real
Can you quote me?
Because otherwise, you're part of the problem.
And if I did say that it was outright not real, I'll correct that.
I believe that I've said, time and time again, that the real science is that CO2 does cause warming, but this has a saturation point. That is fact and real. But the debate is whether the net effect of all the competing feedback effects will have a disastrous outcome.
The consensus is merely on that humans have an impact on climate.
-
People are hiding by the consensus to make exaggerated claims of doom and gloom, and yet if you disagree with the worst of the exaggerated claims, you are painted as a loony skeptic.
That would be an accurate description of the current state of the modern 'news' media; science itself, however, is much more reasonable about the whole thing
-
Oh i dont know. How about your link of the terrible article that global warming is a myth because of the ice caps happening to have grown over a random 2 year period?
-
If that wasn't saying it, it sure as hell was implied.
-
Did you read my post?
I was making satire of it.
I was pointing out that this claim is just as ridiculous as the claim that the ice caps would be gone by now.
And that wasn't just Al Gore, that was Al Gore quoting actual scientific claims. Which were protected by the consensus, rather than being exposed as a ridiculous claim.
-
But to use that as the core for your argument on why climate change is clearly not real... that's just stupid.
Yes, it's easy enough to just look at the numbers and the predictions and see that it ain't all that. But the groupthink / consensus is still important in how it all gets propagated.
-
I was making satire of it.
@xaade said:
Before you say it, I know that two years of expanding might not equalize 5 years of shrinking....
But I don't very much care about that.
I don't know if that's much satire. All i read was a link to an article disagreeing with Al Gore, followed by you sorta saying the article "might not" be 100% accurate, followed by you also disagreeing with Al Gore.Not sure how I was supposed to interpret it.
-
science itself, however, is much more reasonable about the whole thing
Uh huh...
@Max Planck said:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
-
Not sure how I was supposed to interpret it.
Basic math here:
This claim is bad.
Al Gore's claim was also bad.Neither of those two statements says that humans don't have an impact on climate.
-
quoting scientists' philosophical statements?
might as well quote some philosophists' scientific statements
-
@RaceProUK said:
science itself, however, is much more reasonable about the whole thing
Uh huh...
@Max Planck said:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Doesn't that basically reinforce my point? Science determines something, and then lets everyone else argue until they're dead.
Fuck you Discoquoting
-
This claim is bad.
Maybe if you'd actually said that, I might have read it that way.
I saw "Might not".
"MIGHT"far cry from calling it bad science.
-
I'm just saying that @RaceProUK's appeal to authority isn't terribly convincing and using a famous and pithy quote to do it.
Doesn't that basically reinforce my point? Science determines something, and then lets everyone else argue until they're dead.
People talk about how science is self correcting and that seems pretty accurate over the long term. But to use that observation to excuse people right now who are supposedly practicing science from having their own bias is wrong.
-
We all do it, and scientists aren't necessarily as rational as we all think. Just ask @Gaska! (SCNR)
Almost every scientist makes perfectly rational conclusions which we accept as facts and which impact our lives due to the abstract ideas being used in practical inventions, but they make the conclusions based on the giant shitload of random irrational assumptions, the same irrational assumptions that every human being makes - like that we can move our own bodies using our minds - which we would be unable to live without making. Irrationality can be a positive thing.
-
random irrational assumptions
Is one thing science doesn't do
@boomzilla said:People talk about how science is self correcting and that seems pretty accurate over the long term.
Yep.
@boomzilla said:But to use that observation to excuse people right now who are supposedly practicing science from having their own bias is wrong.
I was talking about science in general, not the individual people within it.
-
Anyway, I have nothing left to say since xaade apparently agrees with me and is merely railing against some imaginary climate change doom and gloom figure.
Maybe when xaade posts a link to any credible person claiming anything remotely like his hyperbole, then there'd be something to discuss. But all the radical hyperbole I've seen so far has been against globalwarming/climate change, not for it, so I'm not sure who xaade is actually arguing against.
-
I was talking about science in general, not the individual people within it.
This is a pet peeve of mine. What is "science in general?" Is it a body of knowledge? Is it the act of trying to discover new things about how things work? People have fuzzy notions of this stuff and that leads to fuzzy thinking and generalizations and being way too certain about things.
Anyways, what makes you think that "scientists" are more rational than accountants or lawyers or engineers?
-
But all the radical hyperbole I've seen so far has been against globalwarming/climate change, not for it,
I need to remember not to take your comments seriously.
-
What is "science in general?" Is it a body of knowledge? Is it the act of trying to discover new things about how things work?
Generally, I use it to mean both the body of proven knowledge, and the process of building on that knowledge.
@boomzilla said:Anyways, what makes you think that "scientists" are more rational than accountants or lawyers or engineers?
Scientists, especially research scientists, need to be able to apply reason and logic to a much greater extent than the others; within the field of study, scientists are among the most rational, if not the most rational.
Outside, in the real world… *shrugs*
-
People talk about how science is self correcting and that seems pretty accurate over the long term
Because you'll have a new generation that's divorced from the benefits the previous generation received.
Then they'll refuse the previous bias.
Flat-earth was a scientific idea based on observations (everything falls down, and therefore down is a cardinal direction, and therefore the earth is flat).
The observations were weak and some were misunderstood, but there was rational thought there.
And yet there was a lot of pushback when someone claimed otherwise.
Don't forget that ideas spread like genetics, and they like to protect themselves.
-
Is one thing science doesn't do
I'm pretty sure that Einstein, when he wrote e=mc2 and he saw e=mc2 on the paper, he was assuming that his eyes aren't playing tricks on him.Common sense says this assumption is obviously true, but when you think about it, there is no rational basis for this assumption, and there are alternative scenarios possible that would give the same effect.
Piltdown Man - Wikipedia
