Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[lexluthermiester]

So it would seem "wet-dream" logic is alive and well...

 

[the54thvoid]

Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion thread....

Just a reminder.

 

[Space Lynx]

The people using said product are the cause of it's byproduct(pollution/CO2 emissions). People have a choice to use, or not to use, oil based products.

I agree with you about 80% only here, I think you are wrong on part of it though. In regards to people using oil, poor people especially have no choice but to use oil cars for example as electric cars simply have not come down in cost enough. It makes more sense for me to buy a brand new chevy spark for 11 grand, then a prius at 23 grand, or true electric car at 28 grand. Until the hybrids and electric's come down in price to match the lowest cost gas cars, I don't think that is a fair statement when people are living paycheck to paycheck raising a family, etc.

 

[Vya Domus]

This is a guilt by association fallacy/ad hom. The "scientists" studying ether are not the scientists studying climate change.

Do you have any reason to believe people researching climate change are less prone to come up with erroneous theories compared to the ones who studied the ether ? I don't. I just gave that as a relatively famous example of scientists working on a wrong theory for a very long time because it was a very popular idea. You're looking too much into it, I wasn't trying to discredit scientists studying climate change. And another thing is that the ether wasn't politicized but climate change is, that makes me more warry.

Any serious scientist is a sceptic -- that's why their hypotheses, which aren't "true," are peer reviewed and tested before accepted as a legitimate hypothesis, which is to say that it is the best idea that research can verify to explain some phenomenon. Peer review is key in this, as Kuhn points out -- those scientists studying ether (and generations after) were looking for an explanation for the universe (Universal capital T Truth, like Hawking and Einstein searching for an equation to explain the whole universe), not localized phenomena that may or may not be reproducible universally (studying localized phenomena to develop explanations for the universe, small t truth).

Peer reviewing is a big part of what I was saying. Your paper is reviewed by an authority who is inevitably biased in way or another, in essence your ideas must pass the filter of "majority consensus" and that can be a problem in and of itself. Peer reviewing is very effective at filtering out outrageous ideas but those ideas may or may not be true.

To point to yet another example in physics, de Broglie's examiners dismissed him for his proposal that all matter can behave as waves. That idea was only accepted because Einstein thought it was worth looking into it, peer reviewing is a real impediment in allowing new ideas to come forth and many have expressed their dislike of how this done.

When you say things like "humans aren't the only contributor to climate change" you are correct, and it is a nuance that is underappreciated in the discourse around climate change. That's good science -- the majority of evidence suggests that humans have an impact on climate change, but they are not the only contributor, we are in a warming cycle, a dozen other externalities, etc.

It's a nuance that is often completely ignored by almost everyone, including researches and it matters. I can bet you in these 100 pages of comments I can find at least a couple of dozen instances of people claiming that humans are the sole cause of climate change and I can also bet that you guys didn't jump to correct them. See where I am coming from ?

The global warming community needs to understand that they don't have to lie or twist the truth to make their point, that's my problem with them.

 

[Aquinus]

Do you have any reason to believe people researching climate change are less prone to come up with erroneous theories compared to the ones who studied the ether ?

It's a nuance that is often completely ignored by almost everyone, including researches and it matters. I can bet you in these 100 pages of comments I can find at least a couple of dozen instances of people claiming that humans are the sole cause of climate change and I can also bet that you guys didn't jump to correct them. See where I am coming from ?

The global warming community needs to understand that they don't have to lie or twist the truth to make their point, that's my problem with them.

Are we talking about scientists or random armchair warriors posting about climate change? The first point is amusing because there is no field with flawless science, this is why the scientific method exists because we disprove theories and refine our hypothesis based on new data that comes to light. The second point is valid, but the community doesn't invalidate the science we have to date.

You sound more upset with the community than with the science.

 

[Vya Domus]

You sound more upset with the community than with the science.

I am upset with both, I've seen keyboard warriors as well as figures in the scientific community do this.

 

[Aquinus]

I am upset with both, I've seen both keyboard warriors and figures in the scientific community do this.

Yes, but on the scientist side, you either have an issue with the claimed hypothesis or you have an issue with the data. You don't sound like you have an issue with the data, just the conclusions being made from it. Regardless of humanity's involvement though, does that really change anything in the grand scheme beyond changing our perception of the problem? The problem didn't disappear because of an inaccurate hypothesis. Sure, scientists said decades ago that by now we would have reached the point of no return. Alarmist, maybe, but the trend in that direction has continued and the data supports that.

I totally understand people not being more exact with their words being frustrating, but I don't really think that changes anything, at least if you're looking at it with with an ounce of flexibility. I'd prefer to not "throw the baby out with the bong water," just because some assertions were not even necessary wrong, but exaggerated. What's not an exaggeration is the rate of change. It really is unprecedented, regardless of the cause and we're going to have to deal with it regardless.

 

[Vya Domus]

Yes, but on the scientist side, you either have an issue with the claimed hypothesis or you have an issue with the data. You don't sound like you have an issue with the data, just the conclusions being made from it. Regardless of humanity's involvement though, does that really change anything in the grand scheme beyond changing our perception of the problem? The problem didn't disappear because of an inaccurate hypothesis. Sure, scientists said decades ago that by now we would have reached the point of no return. Alarmist, maybe, but the trend in that direction has continued and the data supports that.

I totally understand people not being more exact with their words being frustrating, but I don't really think that changes anything, at least if you're looking at it with with an ounce of flexibility. I'd prefer to not "throw the baby out with the bong water," just because some assertions were not even necessary wrong, but exaggerated. What's not an exaggeration is the rate of change. It really is unprecedented, regardless of the cause and we're going to have to deal with it regardless.

You have to be exact and paint a picture as close to the truth as possible because if you're not people will, rightfully so, assume you have some sort of malicious intent for not doing so.

 

[R-T-B]

The person which I was quoting clearly put more emphasis on popular opinion rather than science, and therefore evidence, by the way he phrased that sentenced. I read and interpret things very carefully.

The thing is, to challenge the status quo of well regarded science generally requires evidence.

You have none so it's dead on arrival. That's the crux of the issue. No one accepts a challenge to the status quo on face value, nor should they. Most people in fact KNOW LESS than the scientists they are challenging, so it in that case is yes, best to listen to the popular accepted theory.

 

[Aquinus]

You have to be exact and paint a picture as close to the truth as possible because if you're not people will, rightfully so, assume you have some sort of malicious intent for not doing so.

I don't think that's going to be possible. The scientific method by definition is imperfect. There are always going to be claims that don't hold up to scrutiny, but that doesn't mean that we should reject all science unless they can get it on the first go. Viewing that as malicious is a bit paranoid.

 

[Vayra86]

Really? then how come this is the lowest temps in over 20yrs was just observed here in Australia and that the USA is going through one of the coldest Winters in god knows how long? It cant be BS when its literally happening RIGHT NOW! Do you call it a coincidence that this has just happened to happen when the world stopped? Manufacturing lessened globally, Planes, cruise ships basically stopped! and then the temps dropped! and here in Australia where the Ozone layer is the thinnest the difference is amazing! So unless you got proof what your saying is BS as my proof is right here right now!

Wow.... really. You realize an average is made up of highs and lows, I do hope?

'Its cold now' = Climate change doesn't exist. Erhhh...

If anything what we've seen this winter (we had good old snow again this year... so you're not the only one observing the current weather...) is a peak to rebalance the average, but the trend is still up up up. Many long term graphs look like that. A line with many sharp bends positive and negative.... but a trend that still heads up.

Its also no secret that climate change leads to more extreme weather situations. Colder weather, with a warm average... is therefore extremely plausible, but the periods are much shorter. In the same way, there is more draught AND more flooding all at the same time. Things move to extremes. Its not a return to norm. Climate change is the loss of temperate climates.

 

[Mescalamba]

Wow.... really. You realize an average is made up of highs and lows, I do hope?

'Its cold now' = Climate change doesn't exist. Erhhh...

If anything what we've seen this winter (we had good old snow again this year... so you're not the only one observing the current weather...) is a peak to rebalance the average, but the trend is still up up up. Many long term graphs look like that. A line with many sharp bends positive and negative.... but a trend that still heads up.

Its also no secret that climate change leads to more extreme weather situations. Colder weather, with a warm average... is therefore extremely plausible, but the periods are much shorter. In the same way, there is more draught AND more flooding all at the same time. Things move to extremes. Its not a return to norm. Climate change is the loss of temperate climates.

Majority of stuff goes towards entropy. So eventually it will balances out.

Only question is if mankind will be still present.

 

[R-T-B]

Majority of stuff goes towards entropy. So eventually it will balances out.

Yeah, I mean if we're going towards entropy, eventually the universes heat death will kill us all. No question. But that's a ways off.

 

[Caring1]

The thing is, to challenge the status quo of well regarded science generally requires evidence.

You have none so it's dead on arrival. That's the crux of the issue. No one accepts a challenge to the status quo on face value, nor should they. Most people in fact KNOW LESS than the scientists they are challenging, so it in that case is yes, best to listen to the popular accepted theory.

The Earth was flat as believed by a majority concensus, science said so at the time.

 

[lexluthermiester]

eventually the universes heat death will kill us all.

Incorrect. That is only a theory and not a very good one. That theory is based on the same principles that fail to explain why the Universe is expanding and accelerating.

 

[Vya Domus]

The Earth was flat as believed by a majority concensus, science said so at the time.

Changing the status quo requires new evidence and ideas but since it's best to listen to whatever is popular there is no incentive to pursue new evidence and ideas, why bother ?

Only thing I can say is thank God people on this forum aren't actual researches.

 

[claes]

The Earth was flat as believed by a majority concensus, science said so at the time.

Climate change and a flat earth (I can’t believe we’re still dealing with this argument)

When I started this blog, I wanted it to be entirely about science and the fundamental concepts of logic. As such, I decided that topics like religion and politics where off limits. However, anytim…

thelogicofscience.com

Changing the status quo requires new evidence and ideas but since it's best to listen to whatever is popular there is no incentive to pursue new evidence and ideas, why bother ?

Only thing I can say is thank God people on this forum aren't actual researches.

If you’re going to keep arguing from ignorance and calling it reason you could at least engage with the argument:

The overwhelming consensus on climate change

The climate is changing, and we are the primary cause. These are simple facts that are supported by a vast body of evidence and agreed upon by virtually allcr experts. Nevertheless, many people con…

thelogicofscience.com

“But scientists are just following the ‘dogma’ of their field”

This well-worn trope argues that lots of scientists actually have evidence against anthropogenic climate change, they just don’t publish it because in science it is supposedly forbidden to go against the “dogma” of your field. This is one of those fundamental misunderstandings of science that just will not die. Science is extremely adversarial. We love to prove each other wrong. Further, every scientist who was ever considered great was great precisely because they discredited the views of their day. No one gets anywhere in science by blindly going with the “dogma” of their fields. If anyone actually had compelling evidence that we weren’t causing climate change, they would publish in a high-ranking journal and collect their Nobel Prize. No one has done that precisely because those data don’t exist.

“But scientists have been wrong before”

This is another trope that I have dealt with many times before, so I’ll be brief. First, there are few (if any) examples where modern science has been wrong about something with the same level of evidence that we have for climate change. The “evidence” that was used for things like the sun orbiting the earth is not even remotely comparable to the evidence for climate change.

Second, past mistakes do not automatically negate the evidence for climate change. If it did, then you could use it any time that you wanted to discredit any scientific study. “You think that smoking causes cancer? Well science has been wrong before, so I don’t have to accept that.” See how stupid that is? You need actual evidence to discredit climate science.

Third, this argument is inherently self-contradictory, because it is only through science that we know that previous scientists have been wrong, but based on this argument, we can’t trust science. Therefore, we have no more reason to trust the evidence that the earth moves around the sun than we do for the discredited evidence that the sun moves around the earth. In other words, if the fact that scientists have been wrong before means that we can’t trust scientific discoveries, then we can’t trust the scientific discoveries that were used to show that scientists had been wrong before. It’s a paradox.

See these posts for more details

Also read this post before arguing that “most scientific studies are actually wrong”

“But there used to be a consensus that smoking was safe”

This is just a special case of the “science has been wrong before” argument. Further, it’s not even true. Tobacco companies certainly ran a good misinformation campaign (much as fossil fuel companies do today), but actual scientific studies have consistently shown that smoking is dangerous. Indeed, scientists suggested that smoking was dangerous way back in the early 1900’s, and essentially all of the research since then (minus a few industry-driven papers) confirmed their suspicions (you can find an overview of this history in Proctor 2012).

“But in the 70s there was a scientific consensus on global cooling”

No, there wasn’t. There was certainly media hype about this, but it was never a prominent scientific position. Indeed, there were a grand total of 7 papers on it, compared to 42 during the same time span that argued that we were causing global warming (Peterson et al. 2008).

“But scientists don’t agree about the extent to which we are causing climate change”

This is a very common tactic among science deniers: taking a minor disagreement and conflating it with a major one. There is some disagreement among analyses about exactly how much we are contributing to climate change, but they all agree that the majority of the change is being caused by us. There is no serious disagreement that we are the primary cause. If there was, this would, once again, be easy to find in the literature, but good luck finding many studies that argue that we are only playing a minor role. They are virtually non-existent.

Edit: A more in-depth piece on science, consensus, and peer-pressure

Science and the Public Part 3: A Scientific Consensus is Based on Evidence, not Peer Pressure and Adherence to Dogma

In this post, I am going to debunk an argument that is very commonly used by the anti-science movement. Namely, the argument that scientists merely go along with the accepted dogma of their field a…

thelogicofscience.com

 

[the54thvoid]

The Earth was flat as believed by a majority concensus, science said so at the time.

No. That was religion. The Earth was believed to be the centre of the Universe. It was heretical to say otherwise. Luckily for us, scientific thinking began to turn the dogma around.

Petroleum (like radiation) was never thought to be a bad thing, until it was. So in many ways these backwards analogies actually work counter to the intended 'argument'. That's is, those who are saying the majority science consensus is wrong are those clinging to the older, outdated belief.

Science is only scientific when subjected to analysis by peers. When the vast majority accept the theory, based on their own scientific rigour, then the theory gains more probability.

Case in point. Nuclear Theory is exactly that. Theory. But our understanding of it so far allows us to build nuclear reactors. All based on accepted scientific consensus. Gravity is theory. But we use an understanding based on consensus to put satellites in orbit.

 

[claes]

But @the54thvoid, how do we know the earth isn’t flat? The scientific consensus is that it isn’t, therefore it must be!

 

[Vya Domus]

If you’re going to keep arguing from ignorance and calling it reason you could at least engage with the argument:

You guys don't know how to deal with the things put forward because there is no article you can copy-paste here for that, it requires original thought, so instead you just keep spamming me with the same information as if I was simply denying climate change and it's hilarious.

No. That was religion. The Earth was believed to be the centre of the Universe. It was heretical to say otherwise.

Geocetrism was a belief that arose in different parts of the world irrespective of their religion. As a matter of fact various scholars of those times actually tried to use real mathematics to try and model the motion of planets. It was only natural for people to believe the Earth was the center of the universe just by looking at the sky, the core idea had nothing to do with religion, it was just an astronomical observation.

So no, it wasn't just religion. It seems everyone has this bizarre notion that it's either hard scientific fact or ancient religious garbage. It's not that black and white.

 

[claes]

I appreciate your condescension (how thoughtful!), but I think you need to reread. Aside from all of the non-copy-pasted, patent pending Claes thoughts I offered, I actually pointed out that you weren’t arguing against climate change in my previous post in order to help you get out of the weeds. I was trying to steelman your strawman so others didn’t misrepresent your claim, and generally agreed with you...

My criticism is directed to your other claim, that “the climate changes irregardless of humans.” That’s the only real disagreement I have with you, and you aren’t defending that claim/haven’t responded to my counter-claims, so as far as I can tell I’m just a generous participant in this discourse!

I mean this earnestly — please consider reading those two articles! They’ll help sharpen your argument and maybe help clarify what exactly you mean when you dismiss scientists as having “no desire to pursue new ideas because consensus on climate change” while you simultaneously argue that those ideas they need to shift away from are true. Plus I taught the author logic while they were getting their masters so in a way you’ll be doing me a favor (especially if you think they’re wrong!).

 

[Vya Domus]

My criticism is directed to your other claim, that “the climate changes irregardless of humans.” That’s the only real disagreement I have with you

See that curve ? Exactly, it's a curve, not a flat constant line. The climate changes irrespective of what we do. All this talk about science and evidence and you can't admit something this basic ?

See how we are also near a local temperature maximum anyway in the last 100 000 year window ?

 

[claes]

Sorry, I don’t understand — what’s your argument?

If you’re arguing that the climate changes, I agree.

If you’re arguing that we’re at a warming peak, I agree.

This is exactly why scientists reached a consensus that “global warming” wasn’t a helpful way to talk about climate change and engaged in an effort to shift discourse away from that language. It might be accurate to say that humans are contributing to the current warming, but they also contribute to the eventual cooling, as both are processes of climate change. It’s not about whether the earth is getting hotter or colder, it’s about how CO2 emissions are effecting those shifts.

If you’re arguing that human CO2 emissions don’t effect the climate, I disagree, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the scientific consensus is inaccurate in some way. That graph doesn’t warrant that claim, it just shows that we’ve been in an unusually long and erratic warming period, and correlation being what it is, one might infer that (fill in the blank)...

What new ideas do you think you are needed?

 

[Vya Domus]

If you’re arguing that human CO2 emissions don’t effect the climate, I disagree, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the scientific consensus is inaccurate in some way. That graph doesn’t warrant that claim, it just shows that we’ve been in an unusually long and erratic warming period, and correlation being what it is, one might infer that (fill in the blank)...

You're forcing me to think you're either an elaborate troll or just really unintelligent.

The climate changes without our intervention != Humans can't influence the climate. Humans can influence the climate, those two ideas are not mutually exclusive as shown by the data and take place simultaneously.

Temperatures changed as a function of time before we existed, so did CO2 by the way. The climate changes without our intervention, we can influence it, but it's gonna change regardless.

 

[the54thvoid]

Yeah, to confirm, nobody here's saying humans are the sole cause. What post industrial processes have done is to pump out a tremendous volume of greenhouse gases. And Btw, as pointed out earlier, methane is worse than CO2. That's globalization of meat and dairy consumption. Worse, the Siberian permafrost is thawing, releasing large volumes of the stuff. In that way, the 'small' post industrial increase in global temp has exacerbated that process of thaw, releasing a nature source of greenhouse gases.

Ironically, I'm at work now taking a delivery of CO2.