Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[jerryseinfeld1]

This has been one of my biggest pet peeves recently. Many of the arguments on this forum seem to stem from a place of "they said" without ever specifying who "they" are. For those of you that find yourselves doing this, it amounts to a fallacious strawman argument. You're creating a position and arguing against it, rather than attacking a particular argument made by specific research or a specific person. Your argument becomes meaningless because it's not directed at any express position someone has taken or holds. In other words, you're arguing against nothing or rather something you believe others hold when they do not.

You're right in theory, but narratives and "memes" do exist.

[Michael Hardner]

You're right in theory, but narratives and "memes" do exist.

Agreed - but how can you argue against that ?

It's another form of ad hominem... very effective to persuade the masses but not a technique we should use on here. I particularly hated the denigrating of the Tea Party and Occupy movements - I mean, the movement came from somewhere - if they're all idiots then we're all idiots and what hope do we have ?

[jerryseinfeld1]

Agreed - but how can you argue against that ?

It's another form of ad hominem... very effective to persuade the masses but not a technique we should use on here. I particularly hated the denigrating of the Tea Party and Occupy movements - I mean, the movement came from somewhere - if they're all idiots then we're all idiots and what hope do we have ?

Here is a "meme" - and you might disagree with me - George W Bush was an awful President.

Certainly he presided over an awful time. I can't think of a President who has been faced with the challenges he was. Can you?

9-11, plus the credit bubble popping, all in one Presidency. Tough.

[Michael Hardner]

Here is a "meme" - and you might disagree with me - George W Bush was an awful President.

What does that have to do with what we're talking about ? I was addressing the practice of grouping extreme views with substantiated views in order to discredit the latter.

[jerryseinfeld1]

What does that have to do with what we're talking about ? I was addressing the practice of grouping extreme views with substantiated views in order to discredit the latter.

OK then let's talk about the climate meme. Nobody knows what causes climate fluctuations. Nobody.

[jerryseinfeld1]

This sums up the whole thing

[Michael Hardner]

OK then let's talk about the climate meme. Nobody knows what causes climate fluctuations. Nobody.

What does "knows" mean ? If you want to get philosophical and stare at our shoes we could question what "causes" means and resolve to not know anything.

They know how warming happens as much as climate science could hope to know such things.

[wyly]

OK then let's talk about the climate meme. Nobody knows what causes climate fluctuations. Nobody.

well there you go that explains it...as cyber has already pointed out you don't even comprehend your own links, and now this "nobody knows" , change that to "Jerry doesn't know", so if jerry doesn't know it it's impossible anyone else does either because apparently jerry knows everything ....

most 8th graders could list a variety of factors responsible for climate fluctuations that you freely admit you're not even aware of a single cause of climate fluctuation sums up your knowledge of the issue...zero...

you're a forum troll, you add nothing constructive to the debate you're here only to inflame the thread, a waste of everyone's time...

Edited September 16, 2012 by wyly

[Pliny]

What is climate change? Change in the climate? When it was global warming we couldn't argue about climate as being an indicator of global warming, the trend over time had to be shown as the indicator of global warming. Now that it is called "climate change" climate can be argued as an indicator of climate change and the trend is not as important. I think that changing the name was a semantic tactic because the trends predicted by the models was not materializing.

The fact of the matter is that with the political hope of replacing fossil fuels with alternative fuels means disappearing fossil fuel revenues for governments and new revenue streams must be created. Air will never disappear so it is the most secure source of revenue if it can be taxed. It is our future.

[Michael Hardner]

I think that changing the name was a semantic tactic because the trends predicted by the models was not materializing.

Actually, there is a good reason for changing the name, which isn't what you stated: that warming may not happen in all locations, and that there are other effects too.

I guess you think they're lying then ?

[Pliny]

Actually, there is a good reason for changing the name, which isn't what you stated: that warming may not happen in all locations, and that there are other effects too.

Of course. That's a better reason than what I stated.

I guess you think they're lying then ?

They are being political. Is that the same thing? Just like the instituting of the central bank was supposed to eliminate depressions, recessions and bank failures it has done none of those things. They believe their own propaganda that they are so powerful they can, with the proper tools, control an economy while as a sort of purely unintended consequential side-effect benefit their own wealth, power or status. As they are the most intelligent and worthy human beings on the planet who else should take on such responsibility as the purity of the air and the conservation of the earth's resources. Unfortunately, to help all of us undermenschen they must maintain and protect the wealth, power and status they have lest we destroy ourselves and the planet.

[bleeding heart]

As they are the most intelligent and worthy human beings on the planet who else should take on such responsibility as the purity of the air and the conservation of the earth's resources. Unfortunately, to help all of us undermenschen they must maintain and protect the wealth, power and status they have lest we destroy ourselves and the planet.

The climate scientists?

ok.

[Wayward Son]

When it was global warming we couldn't argue about climate as being an indicator of global warming, the trend over time had to be shown as the indicator of global warming. Now that it is called "climate change" climate can be argued as an indicator of climate change and the trend is not as important. I think that changing the name was a semantic tactic because the trends predicted by the models was not materializing.

Michael Hardner subsequently mentioned that there were good reasons to change the name. You are both wrong, because there has never been a name change. This is simply a meme that has developed and was pushed by the likes of Limbaugh and Beck after their darling Luntz (in the Bush administration) pressed for a change within the administration to only refer to climate change/global warming as climate change. This was because Luntz found, through studies, climate change to be the term more likely to pacify people from feeling that action must be taken. There is nothing controversial about that. Luntz has openly admitted his role, and the meme only developed after Luntz.

The meme is, like every meme spread by the deniers of climate science, completely wrong. The IPCC was founded in 1988 not as the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming, but as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Furthermore going back to the initial journal articles in the 1970s the naming has been completely consistent: with climate change refering to all effects (including global warming) that result from changes in GHG concentration, and global warming refering specifically to surface temperature increases caused by increased GHG levels. So in the scientific literature global warming is a subdivision of the whole. The terminology has never changed. People have been taken for a ride by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk - a group of people who know almost nothing about climate science, and what they do know is wrong.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Wayward Son

[wyly]

which is what we've been telling pliny, shady,simple and all the members of the deniers club for a number of years...but they keep going back to old talking points as if nothing has changed...accurate facts have no relevance to their mindset...

[Wayward Son]

I probably shouldn't, but I still hold out hope for intellectual honesty to develop.

[Pliny]

Michael Hardner subsequently mentioned that there were good reasons to change the name. You are both wrong, because there has never been a name change. This is simply a meme that has developed and was pushed by the likes of Limbaugh and Beck after their darling Luntz (in the Bush administration) pressed for a change within the administration to only refer to climate change/global warming as climate change. This was because Luntz found, through studies, climate change to be the term more likely to pacify people from feeling that action must be taken. There is nothing controversial about that. Luntz has openly admitted his role, and the meme only developed after Luntz.

The meme is, like every meme spread by the deniers of climate science, completely wrong. The IPCC was founded in 1988 not as the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming, but as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Furthermore going back to the initial journal articles in the 1970s the naming has been completely consistent: with climate change refering to all effects (including global warming) that result from changes in GHG concentration, and global warming refering specifically to surface temperature increases caused by increased GHG levels. So in the scientific literature global warming is a subdivision of the whole. The terminology has never changed. People have been taken for a ride by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk - a group of people who know almost nothing about climate science, and what they do know is wrong.

Unimportant. The media talks about it in the terms that will bring about the most effect on the public. Global warming had run its course as models were not predicting the future temperature increase accurately.

It is the "Intergovernmental" panel on climate change and government is the emphasis. They pay the scientists to look for climate change and scientists find climate change. Climate change is a natural occurrence and can be found. The difficulty is more in relating causation to anthropomorphic activity.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

In other words, it's a conspiracy.

[Pliny]

which is what we've been telling pliny, shady,simple and all the members of the deniers club for a number of years...but they keep going back to old talking points as if nothing has changed...accurate facts have no relevance to their mindset...

Yes, accurate facts like Wall St., making all those donations to Republicans in 2008? In truth it was the Democrats receiving donations at least three to one over Republicans.

[Pliny]

In other words, it's a conspiracy.

Or maybe just central planning.

[Wayward Son]

Unimportant.

Too bad (but unsurprising) that facts are unimportant to you.

The media talks about it in the terms that will bring about the most effect on the public.

First of all the media as whole has changed very little.

1) Frank Luntz working for the Bush administration advised the administration to use one term over the other.

2) Ignorant deniers like Limbaugh and Beck being the dishonest hacks that they are ran with the change coming from Luntz and spread the false meme that the scientific community had changed the term.

3) This filtered down to deniers in the general population who further spread the false meme.

4) This group of deniers now claim that the meme is found throughout the media, when the reality is that honest media has not changed, but the dishonest ignorant denier media like Fox news have.

5) When the deniers are shown that they are wrong, they just make up excuses.

Global warming had run its course as models were not predicting the future temperature increase accurately.

Not true.

It is the "Intergovernmental" panel on climate change and government is the emphasis.

Science is the emphasis.

They pay the scientists to look for climate change and scientists find climate change.

Who pays? The IPCC? The Government? Who paid for climate change skeptic Muller to run his BEST research, which convinced him and his team that the world was not only warming along the exact same lines as the IPCC, but that humans were responsible for almost 100% of that warming? (Hint: it was neither the IPCC nor the Government).

Climate change is a natural occurrence and can be found.

SO WHAT????

I do appreciate the deniers though. Making sure at least one of them was on the jury kept me out of prison. The prosecution may say that I murdered this person, but people die from natural causes all the time. Sure they may say that this death was obviously not natural, but people die from natural causes all the time. Sure all the stacks of evidence may show that the person was actually murdered and that I was the person who did it, but people die from natural causes all the time. How is it even possible that I could have murdered this person? The world is really big and I am just a person, the whole idea of it is just ridiculous. People die all the time from natural causes and because dying does naturally occur that means that all dying must be natural and people can never be the cause of it. And look at the people who arrested me, charged me and are prosecuting me - all of them have their salaries paid for by the government. Their jobs depend on blaming people for things that happen naturally all the time - like people dying. Walked free.

The difficulty is more in relating causation to anthropomorphic activity.

Not really that difficult as it has been done. Starting with the basic sciences going back more than hundred years that showed how greenhouse gases trap heat, combined with the reality of humans spewing copious amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere every year. Beyond those basics hundreds upon hundreds of studies have expanded our knowledge and understanding. While a group of deniers plugged their ears, covered their eyes and shouted long debunked stupidity day after day.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Wayward Son

[cybercoma]

I do appreciate the deniers though. Making sure at least one of them was on the jury kept me out of prison. The prosecution may say that I murdered this person, but people die from natural causes all the time. Sure they may say that this death was obviously not natural, but people die from natural causes all the time. Sure all the stacks of evidence may show that the person was actually murdered and that I was the person who did it, but people die from natural causes all the time. How is it even possible that I could have murdered this person? The world is really big and I am just a person, the whole idea of it is just ridiculous. People die all the time from natural causes and because dying does naturally occur that means that all dying must be natural and people can never be the cause of it. And look at the people who arrested me, charged me and are prosecuting me - all of them have their salaries paid for by the government. Their jobs depend on blaming people for things that happen naturally all the time - like people dying. Walked free.

Oh man... GOLD STAR!

[jacee]

Oh man... GOLD STAR!

[Pliny]

Too bad (but unsurprising) that facts are unimportant to you.

Let's call it what it is. The sky is falling.

First of all the media as whole has changed very little.

1) Frank Luntz working for the Bush administration advised the administration to use one term over the other.

2) Ignorant deniers like Limbaugh and Beck being the dishonest hacks that they are ran with the change coming from Luntz and spread the false meme that the scientific community had changed the term.

3) This filtered down to deniers in the general population who further spread the false meme.

4) This group of deniers now claim that the meme is found throughout the media, when the reality is that honest media has not changed, but the dishonest ignorant denier media like Fox news have.

5) When the deniers are shown that they are wrong, they just make up excuses.

I remember the science community suggesting that we should not be arguing about global warming but climate change. It seems global warming was proven over the century and was the source of climate change. Temperatures rose about 1.5 degrees fahrenheit. Then, even though GHG emissions had accumulated and were increasing there was a 10 year lull in warming, something that should not have happened if the theory of global warming were correct. And you can check back on earlier threads the advocates of global warming were arguing about global warming not climate change.

Science is the emphasis.

Not when it becomes political.

Who pays? The IPCC? The Government? Who paid for climate change skeptic Muller to run his BEST research, which convinced him and his team that the world was not only warming along the exact same lines as the IPCC, but that humans were responsible for almost 100% of that warming? (Hint: it was neither the IPCC nor the Government).

Are you arguing about global warming? We should be arguing climate change. Ummm...was it the oil companies? Ok it was Bill Gates and Charles Koch a sort of bipartisan deal I guess.

Anyway here is what Muller said, "Much to my surprise, by far the best match came to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice," said Muller. "While this doesn't prove that global warming is caused by human greenhouse gases, it is currently the best explanation we have found, and sets the bar for alternative explanations."

Get that? It is the best explanation we have found. Does this open the door to the fact there could some other explanation? Of course it does. Your statement that he found humans were responsible for almost 100% of it is not a fact. It is his best explanation.

I do appreciate the deniers though. Making sure at least one of them was on the jury kept me out of prison. The prosecution may say that I murdered this person, but people die from natural causes all the time. Sure they may say that this death was obviously not natural, but people die from natural causes all the time. Sure all the stacks of evidence may show that the person was actually murdered and that I was the person who did it, but people die from natural causes all the time. How is it even possible that I could have murdered this person? The world is really big and I am just a person, the whole idea of it is just ridiculous. People die all the time from natural causes and because dying does naturally occur that means that all dying must be natural and people can never be the cause of it. And look at the people who arrested me, charged me and are prosecuting me - all of them have their salaries paid for by the government. Their jobs depend on blaming people for things that happen naturally all the time - like people dying. Walked free.

Obviously this is the exact same thing as climate change. We are actually arguing about the consequences and results of climate change predicted by climate scientists from known data. That the earth warmed up 1.5F degrees over the period of a century is not the argument. The predictions are the argument. They are best guesses. Global warming or climate change, whatever point you wish to argue has certain observable scientific facts from which the future is extrapolated. There may be some unknown or unincluded facts that can change the extrapolated future.

It seems that when a theory is decided upon in science these days all data that disagrees with the theory is tossed out. The theory and its predictions are consequently taken up by true believers in science and politicians and presented as fact. It may be true that, all things remaining equal in the present course of events regarding climate means we will experience some dire consequences of climate change but I seriously doubt things will continue along as usual. The government will save us with carbon taxes or something like that. Right?

Not really that difficult as it has been done. Starting with the basic sciences going back more than hundred years that showed how greenhouse gases trap heat, combined with the reality of humans spewing copious amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere every year. Beyond those basics hundreds upon hundreds of studies have expanded our knowledge and understanding. While a group of deniers plugged their ears, covered their eyes and shouted long debunked stupidity day after day.

yep. We have gone over global warming quite a lot but we should be talking about its effects on climate.

We are concerned about what science "predicts" for the future. The prediction is not a fact many events can occur that can alter the prediction. What you are saying is that we will continue along not making changes, not developing alternative energies, not decreasing our dependency on fossil fuels which will result in ice caps melting and seas rising and we won't be able to deal with that at all and people will die and there will be famines and just general disaster. That sky is falling mentality.

[Michael Hardner]

Pliny, if there is a prediction of warming it doesn't mean that warming will happen every year, but that over time it will happen.

[wyly]

Pliny, if there is a prediction of warming it doesn't mean that warming will happen every year, but that over time it will happen.

ya deniers want to see a perfect upward trajectory with zero fluctuation on a graph which of course can never happen...which is the reason why data is graphed, to find a trend...

that deniers don't understand even that is an indicator of their scientific understanding, or lack of...

then there is their contradictory stance that climate change trends must be based on extremely long time lengths to be believable... and then they reverse that position insisting that the lack of a definitive upward trend in the short term data is evidence there is no warming...

and then there is the repeated confusion of prediction vs projection...prediction is based on knowing all the forcing/data and they remain constant...but climate scientists make projections not predictions because they can't know what the future forcing will be- will there be more or less solar activity, will there be more or less volcanic activity, will there be more or less anthropogenic GHG's, will there be more or less tundra/ocean methane releases, will there be a higher or lower albedo in the arctic?-all those are unknowns so they're are projections not predictions...projections have a higher margin of error, temp increase projections have proven accurate falling within the range upper and lower range of projections...

Edited September 17, 2012 by wyly