1379: "4.5 Degrees"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

dawolf
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby dawolf » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:08 pm UTC

cwDeici wrote:Some people are actually saying we need to end industrialization? I guess I saw that somewhere and responses to it.

Ugh... that's very roughly at the level of saying firewood is an efficient fuel or that most people should die to keep emissions down.


Someone posted a strawman, that to fight climate change means ending industrialisation.

I remain confused how adding ~5% to worldwide costs (and that really is the kind of level we're talking about, as a percentage of all GDP, and it will almost certainly be a lot lower) is somehow going to lead to the end of the industrialised world.

Climate change, on the other hand, could do just that. Just as ocean acidification really could lead to crippling food shortages in certain areas as the coral reefs, shellfish and fish hatcheries are destroyed.
Last edited by dawolf on Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:10 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.

*Kat*
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:36 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby *Kat* » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:08 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
*Kat* wrote:People talk about Global Warming like its going to be the end of the world. But I don't know that it is. Humans are resilient and the human race has survived climate changes in the past with far fewer resources than what we now have at our disposal.


"Dinosaurs have survived climate changes in the past with far fewer resources than we have today" - unknown dinosaur in the very late Cretaceous.


Really? And just what sort of resources did the dinosaurs have? Did they have interstate commerce? What about transcontinental communications? How about mass transit? Were they even capable of rubbing two sticks together to make fire?

Nope.

Therefore this is not a apt comparison.

dawolf
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby dawolf » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:19 pm UTC

*Kat* wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
*Kat* wrote:People talk about Global Warming like its going to be the end of the world. But I don't know that it is. Humans are resilient and the human race has survived climate changes in the past with far fewer resources than what we now have at our disposal.


"Dinosaurs have survived climate changes in the past with far fewer resources than we have today" - unknown dinosaur in the very late Cretaceous.


Really? And just what sort of resources did the dinosaurs have? Did they have interstate commerce? What about transcontinental communications? How about mass transit? Were they even capable of rubbing two sticks together to make fire?

Nope.

Therefore this is not a apt comparison.


Would a massive asteroid the size of the one at the K/T boundary also screw humanity? What about the P/Tr boundary event? Or any of the other extinction events?

The answer is undoubtedly yes. Regardless of however much interstate commerce we have.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9845
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby addams » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:21 pm UTC

cwDeici wrote:Some people are actually saying we need to end industrialization? I guess I saw that somewhere and responses to it.

Ugh... that's very roughly at the level of saying firewood is an efficient fuel or that most people should die to keep emissions down.

And; That seems silly, to you?

I call Poe's Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

There are real live living individuals that Believe that.
It is Simple.

Spoiler:
"Wood is the better way to go." they say.
"It is not dirty, like Nuclear and Oil."

They are willing to Explain.
My Head Keeps Exploding.

I don't hear the whole story before, !BOOM!
I hear, I am not a good Listener.

Are you Joking or are you Serious?

Some people say these extreme things and they are Joking.
It's funny. People find humor in Opposites.

Have you ever Joked about burning yourself with Ice?
When working with Ice, it happens.

Loads of people think our Human Population is Too High.
Some want the Population to Drop and Drop Fast.

Other people think the Temperature is Too High.
They want it to Drop and Drop Fast.

I have met such people.
I have been such a person.

I have spent some time being a TeenAger
out Camping with Dreams of Survivalism.

I grew up.
Many of my fellow Americans have not bothered to grow up.

You?
Are you Rooting for Complete Collapse of the US Government?
Collapse of the Infrastructure? Are you Ready for a life off the Grid?

The Wild-Wild West?
Where Men are Men and Sheep are Nervous?

At least with Global Warming,
When the Idiots break the Electricity we won't be so dang Cold.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

*Kat*
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:36 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby *Kat* » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:37 pm UTC

dawolf wrote:
*Kat* wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
*Kat* wrote:People talk about Global Warming like its going to be the end of the world. But I don't know that it is. Humans are resilient and the human race has survived climate changes in the past with far fewer resources than what we now have at our disposal.


"Dinosaurs have survived climate changes in the past with far fewer resources than we have today" - unknown dinosaur in the very late Cretaceous.


Really? And just what sort of resources did the dinosaurs have? Did they have interstate commerce? What about transcontinental communications? How about mass transit? Were they even capable of rubbing two sticks together to make fire?

Nope.

Therefore this is not a apt comparison.


Would a massive asteroid the size of the one at the K/T boundary also screw humanity? What about the P/Tr boundary event? Or any of the other extinction events?

The answer is undoubtedly yes. Regardless of however much interstate commerce we have.


provided humanity survives the initial impact I do believe that yes, we can also survive the consequences. For a time, at least. We've just got too many built up resources to die off that easy.

But when I spoke of climate change I wasn't talking about climate change caused by an extinction event like an asteroid. I was referring to the more gradual climate change reference in the original comic.

dawolf
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby dawolf » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:45 pm UTC

*Kat* wrote:provided humanity survives the initial impact I do believe that yes, we can also survive the consequences. For a time, at least. We've just got too many built up resources to die off that easy.

But when I spoke of climate change I wasn't talking about climate change caused by an extinction event like an asteroid. I was referring to the more gradual climate change reference in the original comic.


It's quite clearly stated by Alvarez et al that it was not the immediate impact of the asteroid that caused the extinction event. He believes that it was cold (dust from the explosion) followed very shortly by a very strong greenhouse effect (mostly carbon dioxide, some water vapor) & acid rain (sulphuric acid & nitric acid).

Note that he believes one of the main causes of the extinction was high levels of carbon dioxide.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3355
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:48 pm UTC

*Kat* wrote:
dawolf wrote:
*Kat* wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
*Kat* wrote:People talk about Global Warming like its going to be the end of the world. But I don't know that it is. Humans are resilient and the human race has survived climate changes in the past with far fewer resources than what we now have at our disposal.


"Dinosaurs have survived climate changes in the past with far fewer resources than we have today" - unknown dinosaur in the very late Cretaceous.


Really? And just what sort of resources did the dinosaurs have? Did they have interstate commerce? What about transcontinental communications? How about mass transit? Were they even capable of rubbing two sticks together to make fire?

Nope.

Therefore this is not a apt comparison.


Would a massive asteroid the size of the one at the K/T boundary also screw humanity? What about the P/Tr boundary event? Or any of the other extinction events?

The answer is undoubtedly yes. Regardless of however much interstate commerce we have.


provided humanity survives the initial impact I do believe that yes, we can also survive the consequences. For a time, at least. We've just got too many built up resources to die off that easy.

But when I spoke of climate change I wasn't talking about climate change caused by an extinction event like an asteroid. I was referring to the more gradual climate change reference in the original comic.

Yeah, I was just making the general point that when we do go extinct, we'll still have survived everything up to the one thing that does manage to wipe us out - and, personally, I'd rather the species did better than just survive - Alpha Complex is fun to visit, but a lousy place for your descendants to live...

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby EMTP » Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:15 am UTC

RMc wrote:One major problem with the AGW "debate" is that it's not a debate at all; both sides are absolutely convinced that they are the Good People of the World, and the other side is filled with moral and intellectual midgets, not even worthy of being alive, let alone be allowed to hold opinions. (It kinda makes it tough to form a consensus.)


Not really. 97% of climate scientists agree that it's happening and it's human caused. That's a consensus.

Climate deniers being wrong on the internet, and kind souls trying to educate them, is not a debate. The debate's over; they lost.

Nice false equivalence there between the scientists and all the normal people who think they know what they're talking about, and the conspiracy theorists.

Funny thing is, I'm mostly on the side of the "believers"; I think AGW is probably happening, and humans are probably causing at least some of it. I haven't the faintest notion what to do about it, or even if anything can be done.

But the whole thing is so damn politicized that the AGW people are making things worse through their zealotry: going up to someone's door and shrieking, "Join our church now or forever burn in hell!" Is not likely to win a lot of converts.


Kids, this is what people mean by "concern trolling." Thanks for that example, RMc. Your "concern" is noted. :roll:

Really? And just what sort of resources did the dinosaurs have? Did they have interstate commerce? What about transcontinental communications? How about mass transit? Were they even capable of rubbing two sticks together to make fire?

Nope.

Therefore this is not a apt comparison.


It's not meant to be a literal comparison, but it raises an important point, which is:

1. Writing about the fate of a civilization is something only civilized people -- people living within a civilization -- do.

2. We know that civilizations can and do collapse.

So: When techno-pollyannas say that civilization has survived all it's past challenges, they are suffering from the mother of all sampling biases.


You should also recognize that the achievements you mention make societies more powerful in some ways, but more frail in others. We depend on these complex systems to support a global population of seven billion. These complex systems require all sorts of things to go right, all over the world, in order to get the inputs of energy, material, human expertise, and social regulation necessary for them to work, and other mechanisms in turn depend on them in order to work.

An iPhone is a lot more powerful than a sundial, but if you drop them both in the ocean, only the sundial will still tell time.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

RMc
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:38 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby RMc » Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:01 am UTC

Not really. 97% of climate scientists agree that it's happening and it's human caused. That's a consensus.


Great, except "climate scientists" aren't the people you need to convince, and they're only a tiny percentage of the population in any case.

Climate deniers being wrong on the internet, and kind souls trying to educate them, is not a debate. The debate's over; they lost.


But they aren't losing the real battle, the one for public opinion. This series of polls (sorry, don't know how to make a link; it's at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... -8-charts/) shows that most Americans don't see AGW as an imminent threat, it's not a "top priority", and agree it's became highly politicized. (More Americans are coming around on AGW, though, so there's that.)

Nice false equivalence there between the scientists and all the normal people who think they know what they're talking about, and the conspiracy theorists.


Come on, now. Yes, I know for you it's as simple as black and white, Good Guys and Bad Guys. But millions of others don't look at it that way; if anything, a slight majority still favours the Bad Guys!

Kids, this is what people mean by "concern trolling." Thanks for that example, RMc. Your "concern" is noted.


Good God, man, I'm agreeing with you, and you're still being a jerk? Do you really think you're going to convert people to your cause with arrogance and scorn? Or is Being Right the only thing that matters?

You can drop the holier-than-thou routine, pal. With your attitude, you couldn't convince people that water is wet.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby EMTP » Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:14 am UTC

RMc wrote:
Great, except "climate scientists" aren't the people you need to convince, and they're only a tiny percentage of the population in any case.


I don't need to convince anyone. You live on this Earth too. You claim to acknowledge the reality of AGW. So what are you doing to convince the public?

But they aren't losing the real battle, the one for public opinion. This series of polls (sorry, don't know how to make a link; it's at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... -8-charts/) shows that most Americans don't see AGW as an imminent threat, it's not a "top priority", and agree it's became highly politicized. (More Americans are coming around on AGW, though, so there's that.)


Now you're shifting your ground. First it was about a "debate" and convincing deniers, and now it's about public opinion, which is something completely different.

When we look at public opinion, the objective fact is that the public divide on climate change is between leftists and independents vs the right. The right has constructed one of their little denial machines as it pertains to climate science. But reaching out to the non-reality-based community, and treating them with kid gloves, doesn't achieve anything. See the Obama presidency, 2008-2010 inclusive.

Kids, this is what people mean by "concern trolling." Thanks for that example, RMc. Your "concern" is noted.


Good God, man, I'm agreeing with you, and you're still being a jerk? Do you really think you're going to convert people to your cause with arrogance and scorn? Or is Being Right the only thing that matters?

You can drop the holier-than-thou routine, pal. With your attitude, you couldn't convince people that water is wet.


You are a concern troll. You know that, surely? I mean, you have five posts, all in this thread. You created an account in order to post to this thread, and you've spent the entire time selling a false equivalence of climate deniers and scientists and complaining that we are saying mean things to deniers. Did you really think no one was going to put that together?

And no, you don't win any points with me by half-acknowledging basic scientific facts in order to concern troll. Your repeated misrepresentations of the facts and shifting your ground in your argument completely defeat your rather pathetic effort to cast yourself as an objective judge of who, or what is convincing, and to whom. You were always going to end up whining that I was mean to you, or emotional, or holier-than-thou. It's what you do. :roll:
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:19 am UTC

RMc wrote:Great, except "climate scientists" aren't the people you need to convince, and they're only a tiny percentage of the population in any case.
This is precisely the issue I was referring to; tell me, when your cardiologist says you need to lower your cholesterol, stop smoking, and start exercising, do you say to them "I want to hear both sides of this debate, maybe increased cholesterol and smoking and being a fatass is great for my heart"? If a mechanic pointed to your smoking engine and said 'That's the problem, you need a new one of those things', would you say "Nah, my tires just need air'?

For some reason, there is some science that has become politicized, and it's dumbfounding. There's no debate on Evolution, but Creationists are forcing their way into science education. There's no debate on vaccinations, but anti-vaxers are forcing their way into public health. There's no debate on whether or not the Holocaust occurred, but Holocaust deniers are spreading their lies and misinformation, saying things like "Lets just reevaluate the numbers".

Denialism is a very cheap and devious paradigm that is running contrary to progress, and it's not a debate that needs to be had, or a populace that needs to be won over, it's a trend that needs to be nipped at the bud with early education on data evaluation and why your opinions are worthless in the face of an experts analysis.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4579
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:01 am UTC

Izawwlgood, I don't think you're understanding what RMc is saying at all.

To use your cardiovascular health analogy, say there's a national public health concern about obesity and its impact on heart health. All of the medical professionals agree that lowering fat and cholesterol levels will improve people's health, and that there is a widespread need for people everywhere to do that. The question is settled there, in one sense -- there is no credible, professional, well-educated doubt about the link between obesity and heart health. But the general public isn't all on board with that. Lots of people don't care, or aren't certain that it's really that important. Suppose the food industry was also paying shills to spread such uncertainty and doubt. The argument amongst the experts may be long settled, but there is an argument ongoing amongst the general public still, and if you want to actually solve the obesity problem, that's the argument you need to win.

And, more to RMc's point I think, something like fat shaming is probably not an effective way to win that argument in the sphere of public opinion, aside from generally being a not nice thing to do.

And to add my own two cents to the discussion, via that analogy: even given a professional consensus that obesity heavily impacts heart health, and even managing to convince enough of the general populace that that is the case, there is still a separate policy debate to be had about whether banning ice cream, or heavily taxing foods based on their fat and cholesterol content, and so on, is an acceptable solution to that problem, or an unjust abridgment of liberties.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby EMTP » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:39 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Izawwlgood, I don't think you're understanding what RMc is saying at all.

To use your cardiovascular health analogy, say there's a national public health concern about obesity and its impact on heart health. All of the medical professionals agree that lowering fat and cholesterol levels will improve people's health, and that there is a widespread need for people everywhere to do that. The question is settled there, in one sense -- there is no credible, professional, well-educated doubt about the link between obesity and heart health. But the general public isn't all on board with that. Lots of people don't care, or aren't certain that it's really that important. Suppose the food industry was also paying shills to spread such uncertainty and doubt. The argument amongst the experts may be long settled, but there is an argument ongoing amongst the general public still, and if you want to actually solve the obesity problem, that's the argument you need to win.

And, more to RMc's point I think, something like fat shaming is probably not an effective way to win that argument in the sphere of public opinion, aside from generally being a not nice thing to do.


That is where your analogy falls apart. Climate deniers are not fat people, or smokers -- they are the people promoting the propaganda of the tobacco companies; they are the people promoting the idea that GMOs are a secret conspiracy by corporate America to make you fat.

The confusion the climate deniers are promoting and you are falling prey to is the confusion between a tiny minority of very loud conspiracy theorists and a large group of people in society who aren't paying attention to climate change or aren't motivated to take strong action -- a group that exists, and is sometimes a majority, as regards any long-term issue you could name -- education, public infrastructure, space exploration.

The loud, irrational conspiracy theorists are not responsible for, or accountable to, a large indifferent or semi-indifferent fraction of society, and flattering them or pandering to them accomplishes nothing to move the needle of public opinion. It's no different than pandering to racists or misogynists or religious bigots -- better to treat those who behave contemptibly with appropriate and rational contempt.
Last edited by EMTP on Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:44 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

bane2571
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:15 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby bane2571 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:42 am UTC

Dyno wrote:I don't want to insult anyone, but apart from anything else, I really do believe that anyone citing the "97%" figure should be barred from making further "scientific" claims..


I've read the Cook et al study and it's pretty poor. I wouldn't say phrenology bad, but it screams intentional bias. They took a shades of grey scenario, redefined it so everything that wasn't "No" counted as "yes".

This is from the paper:

Code: Select all

Endorse AGW        32.6% (3896) 97.1 34.8% (10 188) 98.4
No AGW position   66.4% (7930) — 64.6% (18 930) —
Reject AGW            0.7% (78) 1.9 0.4% (124) 1.2
Uncertain on AGW   0.3% (40) 1.0 0.2% (44) 0.4


So essentially the paper threw out 66.4% of papers that mentioned global warming - but did not say yes or no. To rephrase that, by the paper's own data, 67% of global warming papers surveyed did not say it was caused by humans. From this the paper concludes a 97% consensus. They do give a plausible explanation (after a consensus is reached, people stop talking about it) but I don't personally find it an acceptable reason to discard 2/3 of available data. Ref: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2 ... 024024.pdf

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby EMTP » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:47 am UTC

I don't want to insult anyone, but apart from anything else, I really do believe that anyone citing the "97%" figure should be barred from making further "scientific" claims..


Again, why is your ignorance about the 97% consensus of any concern to the world at large?

Why should I care about your beliefs?

Facts are facts -- they are still facts, if you chose to believe different.

bane2571 wrote:I've read the Cook et al study and it's pretty poor.


Nope, sorry, it isn't. (And if you'll look carefully at the data from the Cook study you posted, and do a little basic math, you will see that it shows what you claim about their methods to be wrong.) Thank you for playing though!
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4579
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:52 am UTC

EMTP wrote:The confusion the climate deniers are promoting and you are falling prey to

What confusion am I falling prey to? I'm not on any kind of fence. Obesity causes heart disease, smoking causes cancer, CO2 levels cause climate change and human activity is raising CO2 levels.

I'm just clarifying that another poster is distinguishing between two "debates":
- the debate amongst the big swaths of the uneducated public who are on the fence or hold conflicting but usually unfounded opinions; and
- the debate among educated experts, which was settled well enough a while ago leaving a broad and well-justified consensus on the matter.

Acknowledging the first is unsettled doesn't mean thinking the second is unsettled. They're different matters entirely.

Also, since in the cases of smoking and obesity and CO2 levels alike you're calling on the public at large to change their behavior, and many members of that public will happily believe falsehoods told to them by people with an agenda (or just ignore inconvenient arguments the other direction) if it lets them continue their comfortable behavior, then yeah, a lot of the "denialists" are "fat people" in the analogy. Not everyone denying climate change is a paid shill; a lot of them just believe the paid shills because they trust them, or someone they trust trusts them, or just because it's convenient to do so, or because it's inconvenient to believe the experts, shills aside. Those are the people you don't want to be "fat shaming" if you want to win them over.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

gimmespamnow
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:35 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby gimmespamnow » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:55 am UTC

chenille wrote:
cwDeici wrote:It's just a money problem, except for poor countries, but then again what's new?

That's a pretty big exception. When people say that global warming is expected to cost millions of lives, who did you think they were talking about? Of course wealthy cities like New York and Tokyo should get walls no problem.

It is a huge money problem even in the wealthy countries. For instance, New York City has walls already, and they still got horrible damage from a hurricane 2 years ago and they haven't fully recovered from it yet: for instance, there are subway stations that aren't expected to reopen until 2016, (4 years after Sandy!) If you just put a dollar value on Manhattan Island not having power for almost a week, the pollution controls that Obama announced last week look pretty cheap.

RMc wrote:One major problem with the AGW "debate" is that it's not a debate at all; both sides are absolutely convinced that they are the Good People of the World, and the other side is filled with moral and intellectual midgets, not even worthy of being alive, let alone be allowed to hold opinions. (It kinda makes it tough to form a consensus.)

Funny thing is, I'm mostly on the side of the "believers"; I think AGW is probably happening, and humans are probably causing at least some of it. I haven't the faintest notion what to do about it, or even if anything can be done.

But the whole thing is so damn politicized that the AGW people are making things worse through their zealotry: going up to someone's door and shrieking, "Join our church now or forever burn in hell!" Is not likely to win a lot of converts.

This, just, rubs me the wrong way. (I hadn't heard the term "concern troll" before, but that certainly fits.) I think it is the bit about "consensus." Say you have two women who both claim to be the mother of a infant... Are you suggesting there is some sort of compromise solution in that situation where you cut the baby in half and give part of it to each woman? Are you saying that one of the people in that disagreement wouldn't be entirely justified in calling the other person a kidnapper? Settling debates like that based on who is the "politest" probably isn't going to find the correct answer any better than flipping a coin would...

bane2571
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:15 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby bane2571 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:42 am UTC

EMTP wrote:Nope, sorry, it isn't. (And if you'll look carefully at the data from the Cook study you posted, and do a little basic math, you will see that it shows what you claim about their methods to be wrong.) Thank you for playing though!

What?
I put the data right there in my post, I can clearly explain how they got to the 97% value - they ignored 66% of the results, then worked out their result from what remained. I've even read the justification they used for ignoring - again - 2/3 of their data and I've already stated that I don't agree with it. I'm not sure what the problem you have with my post is but I'd rather you didn't just dismiss it out of hand.

Catprog
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:53 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Catprog » Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:25 am UTC

bane2571 wrote:
Dyno wrote:I don't want to insult anyone, but apart from anything else, I really do believe that anyone citing the "97%" figure should be barred from making further "scientific" claims..


I've read the Cook et al study and it's pretty poor. I wouldn't say phrenology bad, but it screams intentional bias. They took a shades of grey scenario, redefined it so everything that wasn't "No" counted as "yes".

This is from the paper:

Code: Select all

Endorse AGW        32.6% (3896) 97.1 34.8% (10 188) 98.4
No AGW position   66.4% (7930) — 64.6% (18 930) —
Reject AGW            0.7% (78) 1.9 0.4% (124) 1.2
Uncertain on AGW   0.3% (40) 1.0 0.2% (44) 0.4


So essentially the paper threw out 66.4% of papers that mentioned global warming - but did not say yes or no. To rephrase that, by the paper's own data, 67% of global warming papers surveyed did not say it was caused by humans. From this the paper concludes a 97% consensus. They do give a plausible explanation (after a consensus is reached, people stop talking about it) but I don't personally find it an acceptable reason to discard 2/3 of available data. Ref: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2 ... 024024.pdf



So your saying that .7% reject AGW , .3% are uncertain and 32.6% endorse it . The other 66.4% have not expressed their opinion.

So using your numbers. 1% of papers reject AGW. Or 99% of the papers did not say it was not caused by humans.

*Kat*
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:36 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby *Kat* » Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:51 am UTC

bane2571 wrote:
EMTP wrote:Nope, sorry, it isn't. (And if you'll look carefully at the data from the Cook study you posted, and do a little basic math, you will see that it shows what you claim about their methods to be wrong.) Thank you for playing though!

What?
I put the data right there in my post, I can clearly explain how they got to the 97% value - they ignored 66% of the results, then worked out their result from what remained. I've even read the justification they used for ignoring - again - 2/3 of their data and I've already stated that I don't agree with it. I'm not sure what the problem you have with my post is but I'd rather you didn't just dismiss it out of hand.


And, if you have time could you please give the non-science-y people among us a for Dummies overview of what has y'all so utterly convinced that
1) The Climate is changing.
2) This change is man-made.
3) This change can be reversed.
4) Also, what happens if we don't reverse it? You keep implying dire consequences but haven't enumerated any of them.

This is a sincere request. I'm not stupid but as I've said before, I'm not a science person. I'm a history and anthropology person. Historically the Earth has warmed and cooled many times over the millennium of human's existence. Anthropologically there is a tendency among Man to blame problems we can't solve on things that we can control. In the distant past Global Warming would of been attributed to unhappy gods which in turn would of been blamed on inadequate worship

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:16 am UTC

bane2571 wrote:
EMTP wrote:Nope, sorry, it isn't. (And if you'll look carefully at the data from the Cook study you posted, and do a little basic math, you will see that it shows what you claim about their methods to be wrong.) Thank you for playing though!

What?
I put the data right there in my post, I can clearly explain how they got to the 97% value - they ignored 66% of the results, then worked out their result from what remained. I've even read the justification they used for ignoring - again - 2/3 of their data and I've already stated that I don't agree with it. I'm not sure what the problem you have with my post is but I'd rather you didn't just dismiss it out of hand.
You're deliberately leaving out information. This is their abstract;
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research

In short, they used data that was there. This is how science works. If you, say, want to look at people who have died of cardiac arrest and cross reference that with people who watch scary movies, and your polling nets you a bunch of people who watched scary movies but died of gun shot wounds, you exclude them from your report.

This rejection of 66% of papers that didn't profess an position isn't bad science, because the Ball Poll is A ) using a statistically significant sample size, and B ) looking at PAPERS THAT PROFESS A POSITION. Of which... how many agree?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Catprog
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:53 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Catprog » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:17 am UTC

1) http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/pl ... 2015/trend

Yes their has been temperatures drops over 10 years before , but over the 40 years their has been an increase.

2)http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm a list of aguments

3)Even if it can't be reversed should we still try to stop the increase?

4)Increase droughts and floods as rain pattern change for starters.

bane2571
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:15 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby bane2571 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:34 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:This rejection of 66% of papers that didn't profess an position isn't bad science, because the Ball Poll is A ) using a statistically significant sample size, and B ) looking at PAPERS THAT PROFESS A POSITION. Of which... how many agree?

The commonly quoted statistic from this paper is "97% of scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming" and that is the point I have a problem with. I completely agree, and happily, that 1% of the papers surveyed say anthropogenic global warming is not happening or are unconvinced. 66% of the papers however say nothing. How can you say 97% agree when 66% have no stated position? Do you not think the opinion of those authors counts?

What would of been more honest is to say 1/3 of climate scientists support the AGW consensus and nearly none oppose it. This however is not news worthy and that is where my distrust of climate reporting on both sides of the argument stems from, chasing headlines with hyperbole.

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:40 am UTC

EMTP wrote:
I don't want to insult anyone, but apart from anything else, I really do believe that anyone citing the "97%" figure should be barred from making further "scientific" claims..


Again, why is your ignorance about the 97% consensus of any concern to the world at large?

Why should I care about your beliefs?

Facts are facts -- they are still facts, if you chose to believe different.

bane2571 wrote:I've read the Cook et al study and it's pretty poor.


Nope, sorry, it isn't. (And if you'll look carefully at the data from the Cook study you posted, and do a little basic math, you will see that it shows what you claim about their methods to be wrong.) Thank you for playing though!


How is understanding the methodology used to arrive at 97% ignorance?

Instead of just saying random things are facts, can reassure me that you understand the methodology used to obtain that figure, rather than just religiously citing it as an article of faith?

What is a fact is that it wouldn't take much adjustment of the method to also find that 97% of evolutionary biologists believe in the existence of bigfoot. What was it again? 68 out of 70-odd out of 11000? Something of that order?

Question 1) Do you believe that large ape-like creatures exist or have existed?
Question 2) Do you believe that large mammals can go undetected in wild areas?
Question 3) Is it possible for large non-human homo species to co-exist with human beings?

Heck, I'd be surprised if it is as low as 97% since all those things are uncontroversially true. Or perhaps I should get some buddies to have some beers at my place while we rate abstracts, picking out ones that we can agree to interpret as somehow suggesting the existence of the Sasquatch.

Come on, this isn't science. It's a joke.

dawolf
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby dawolf » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:58 am UTC

Dyno wrote:
EMTP wrote:
I don't want to insult anyone, but apart from anything else, I really do believe that anyone citing the "97%" figure should be barred from making further "scientific" claims..


Again, why is your ignorance about the 97% consensus of any concern to the world at large?

Why should I care about your beliefs?

Facts are facts -- they are still facts, if you chose to believe different.

bane2571 wrote:I've read the Cook et al study and it's pretty poor.


Nope, sorry, it isn't. (And if you'll look carefully at the data from the Cook study you posted, and do a little basic math, you will see that it shows what you claim about their methods to be wrong.) Thank you for playing though!


How is understanding the methodology used to arrive at 97% ignorance?

Instead of just saying random things are facts, can reassure me that you understand the methodology used to obtain that figure, rather than just religiously citing it as an article of faith?

What is a fact is that it wouldn't take much adjustment of the method to also find that 97% of evolutionary biologists believe in the existence of bigfoot. What was it again? 68 out of 70-odd out of 11000? Something of that order?

Question 1) Do you believe that large ape-like creatures exist or have existed?
Question 2) Do you believe that large mammals can go undetected in wild areas?
Question 3) Is it possible for large non-human homo species to co-exist with human beings?

Heck, I'd be surprised if it is as low as 97% since all those things are uncontroversially true. Or perhaps I should get some buddies to have some beers at my place while we rate abstracts, picking out ones that we can agree to interpret as somehow suggesting the existence of the Sasquatch.

Come on, this isn't science. It's a joke.


Dyno, in that situation is would have to have been 11000 out of those with "Bigfoot" or "Sasquatch" in the abstract. In the same way as they were specifically looking for those with "Global Climate Change" or "Global Warming".

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:02 am UTC

dawolf wrote:Dyno, in that situation is would have to have been 11000 out of those with "Bigfoot" or "Sasquatch" in the abstract. In the same way as they were specifically looking for those with "Global Climate Change" or "Global Warming".


No, they couched it in such a way that most skeptics of AGW were surprised that only 97% agreed. They thought 100% of skeptics would.

So that is the relevant metric.

Nobody has, to my knowledge, claimed that the earth hasn't warmed in the recent record (dating back a century or so, that is), or that human beings have no impact.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Diadem » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:08 am UTC

*Kat* wrote:And, if you have time could you please give the non-science-y people among us a for Dummies overview of what has y'all so utterly convinced that
1) The Climate is changing.
2) This change is man-made.
3) This change can be reversed.
4) Also, what happens if we don't reverse it? You keep implying dire consequences but haven't enumerated any of them.

This is a sincere request. I'm not stupid but as I've said before, I'm not a science person. I'm a history and anthropology person. Historically the Earth has warmed and cooled many times over the millennium of human's existence. Anthropologically there is a tendency among Man to blame problems we can't solve on things that we can control. In the distant past Global Warming would of been attributed to unhappy gods which in turn would of been blamed on inadequate worship

We are convinced the climate is changing and that mankind is responsible, because our experiments and models tell us this is the case. That may sound like a cop out, but ultimately that's the answer. Your can then question the validity of those experiments, and those models, but at that point the question becomes impossible to answer without becoming science-y.

You're basically saying that you want to understand climate science, without doing climate science. That's just not possible. I mean, we can explain the big picture in ways that don't require any science, but the devil is always in the details, and those details can't be explained without requiring an understanding of climate science. As in many areas of life, at some point you are going to have to accept the authority of experts.

If a car mechanic tells me my car has problem X, I am not going to look inside my car to try and check if he's right or not. I'm not an expert, it would take me many, many hours, probably days, to learn enough about the inner workings of my car to be able to tell if the mechanic is right in his assessment. If for some reason I don't trust the guy, I'll instead go to a different garage and ask them.

Similarly if my doctor tells me I have some rare medical condition, and I don't trust him, I am going to go to another expert (another doctor) to ask for a second opinion. I might want to invest time in researching that condition, to see if the symptoms match, and if his proposed treatment makes sense. But that will require a lot of work, probably many weeks, that are only worth it because obviously my health is of paramount importance to me. And even then I'd still probably end up having to rely on what other doctors write about it.

The same is true in science. Even scientists are only experts in their own field, and have to trust the research of scientists in all other fields. You simple can't know everything about everything. No one is smart enough to understand all arguments about every detail in every field.

The rational thing to do is to trust experts, unless you have evidence to the contrary. So the question is: When 97% of climate scientists tell you that the climate is changing, and that we are causing it, why wouldn't you trust them? You'd need some extraordinary reason to think that such a large group of very smart experts could all be mistaken or lying. What reason could that be?

Financial interests? That's certainly plausible. Many people will lie for money, many more will, subconsciously, adapt their views to suit their personal interests. The problem with this theory is that the opposing side has at least as much money, so this explanation falls short.
Confirmation bias? That's possible in small disciplines, but in something as huge as climate science? It seems unlikely, especially because science in general is very good at avoiding confirmation bias. That's pretty much what the scientific method is all about.
Because it's hard to belief, or difficult to accept? I sympathize, but that's just not a very rational reason.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

dawolf
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby dawolf » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:33 am UTC

Dyno wrote:
dawolf wrote:Dyno, in that situation is would have to have been 11000 out of those with "Bigfoot" or "Sasquatch" in the abstract. In the same way as they were specifically looking for those with "Global Climate Change" or "Global Warming".


No, they couched it in such a way that most skeptics of AGW were surprised that only 97% agreed. They thought 100% of skeptics would.

So that is the relevant metric.

Nobody has, to my knowledge, claimed that the earth hasn't warmed in the recent record (dating back a century or so, that is), or that human beings have no impact.


Your knowledge is flawed then.

A decade ago denialists were heavily into "it hasn't warmed", that "humans have no impact" and that "the science isn't settled".

Now, they are into "the warming has paused", that "humans have little impact", that "claims are exaggerated" and that "the science isn't settled".

In a few (5-10) years time, denialists will be moving into "the warming hasn't been that much", that "humans have some impact", that "mitigation is the best way to go" and that "the science still has gaps".

After that, I expect that denialists will be saying "its too late to do anything", "mitigation is the only way to go", that "humans have an impact, who could have possibly predicted that?" and that "the scientists should have warned us!"

It'll all be the scientists fault in the end, with the denialists who have helped screw the environment doing anything and everything to wash their hands of any guilt by blaming others.

RMc
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:38 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby RMc » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:53 am UTC

Why should I care about your beliefs?


The AGW zealots position, boiled down.

And the truly sad thing? They're probably right about AGW, but they'll never win the argument, because the rest of us have better things to do than be lectured by nasty, sanctimonious jerks.

But zealots (of anything, not just AGW) are playing a different game: they want to be victims, the Only Sane People in a world filled with selfish morons. Actually take the time to convince others of the plight that faces the planet? Naah, that's too much work; we'd much rather fling feces at non-believers, thanks. This allows them to score brownie points with...somebody.

And, no, you don't win any points from me


Wasn't trying to. I was merely trying to point out you aren't doing a good job of getting out your message. You do want to get your message out, right?

Actually, no. Zealots minds and hearts are locked in place, with nothing to contribute but the usual nastiness and the occasional internet cliche (such as "Thanks for playing!") OK, you win.

Thanks for playing.

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:22 am UTC

dawolf wrote:
Dyno wrote:
dawolf wrote:
A decade ago denialists were heavily into "it hasn't warmed", that "humans have no impact" and that "the science isn't settled".




Utterly irrelevant, even if true.

The fact is that the questions asked, at the time they were asked, were utterly incapable of differentiating skeptics from supporters. That renders it meaningless.

If I am testing a medicine using a methodology that is incapable of determining the health status of subjects no amount of statistical manipulation will yield anything of value, and any "result" will be spurious. Patterns in noise.

Catprog
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:53 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Catprog » Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:28 am UTC

dawolf wrote:
Dyno wrote:
dawolf wrote:Dyno, in that situation is would have to have been 11000 out of those with "Bigfoot" or "Sasquatch" in the abstract. In the same way as they were specifically looking for those with "Global Climate Change" or "Global Warming".


No, they couched it in such a way that most skeptics of AGW were surprised that only 97% agreed. They thought 100% of skeptics would.

So that is the relevant metric.

Nobody has, to my knowledge, claimed that the earth hasn't warmed in the recent record (dating back a century or so, that is), or that human beings have no impact.


Your knowledge is flawed then.

A decade ago denialists were heavily into "it hasn't warmed", that "humans have no impact" and that "the science isn't settled".

Now, they are into "the warming has paused", that "humans have little impact", that "claims are exaggerated" and that "the science isn't settled".

In a few (5-10) years time, denialists will be moving into "the warming hasn't been that much", that "humans have some impact", that "mitigation is the best way to go" and that "the science still has gaps".

After that, I expect that denialists will be saying "its too late to do anything", "mitigation is the only way to go", that "humans have an impact, who could have possibly predicted that?" and that "the scientists should have warned us!"

It'll all be the scientists fault in the end, with the denialists who have helped screw the environment doing anything and everything to wash their hands of any guilt by blaming others.


The four stage strategy

Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:46 am UTC

Catprog wrote:The four stage strategy

Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.


Wow, will you step back and take a look at yourselves for even one second?

Completely unable to even discuss the most vitally important part of science (methodology), instead just resorting to making up conspiracy theories.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby EMTP » Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:59 am UTC

How is that a conspiracy theory?

It's not. It's an accurate description of a range of excuses deployed by climate deniers.

I don't think anyone is adverse to discussing the science, but unfortunately the "skeptic" comments on the science in this thread so far, as is sadly typical, have been of the "What's the email for the president of physics?" ilk.

Trust me, if you happen upon an actual, valid or even plausible criticism, there will be no dearth of people to discuss it with you. If you're raising issues with the science and being ignored, you are probably falling prey to one of the iron laws of the internet:
"The amount of time it takes to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude greater than the time it takes to spout it."


RMc wrote:The AGW zealots position, boiled down.


It's so funny how poor your imitation of a neutral party is. You can't avoid sounding like the closeted denier that you are for five seconds.
Wasn't trying to. I was merely trying to point out you aren't doing a good job of getting out your message. You do want to get your message out, right?


Again, you haven't said why "getting out the message" is my problem. If you believe the science, it's your problem too. But you don't, really, do you?

You just don't want to face the reality here that you climate deniers -- like racist bigots, like flat earthers, like vaccine deniers, like young-Earth Creationists -- are a tiny minority that neither I nor anyone else not responsible for Republican fund-raisers has to appease.

Dyno wrote:How is understanding the methodology used to arrive at 97% ignorance?

Instead of just saying random things are facts, can reassure me that you understand the methodology used to obtain that figure, rather than just religiously citing it as an article of faith?


I can, but should I? Your own numbers prove that what you claim was used to derive the figure cannot have been done.

Cook et al is a peer-reviewed scientific paper. The burden on you is to show where it's flawed, which you've utterly failed to do.

To be clear: I have donated many hundreds of hours of my time, and will donate many more, to explaining climate science. But there is no point in banging my head against a brick wall of motivated reasoning. If I thought you actually wanted to know and were capable of accepting the information, I'd happily run through the methodology of Cook et al. But you are very far from convincing me that that would be a good use of my time.

*Kat* wrote:And, if you have time could you please give the non-science-y people among us a for Dummies overview of what has y'all so utterly convinced that
1) The Climate is changing.
2) This change is man-made.
3) This change can be reversed.
4) Also, what happens if we don't reverse it? You keep implying dire consequences but haven't enumerated any of them.

This is a sincere request. I'm not stupid but as I've said before, I'm not a science person. I'm a history and anthropology person. Historically the Earth has warmed and cooled many times over the millennium of human's existence. Anthropologically there is a tendency among Man to blame problems we can't solve on things that we can control. In the distant past Global Warming would of been attributed to unhappy gods which in turn would of been blamed on inadequate worship


First of all +1 to everything Diadem said.

Point the second, you can easily persuade yourself that the climate is changing. Look at sea level rise, mass balance of the ice sheets, habitat change, melting of permafrost, or just look at temperatures:

Image

Point the third, we know the change is man-made for many reasons, but the simplest is that we know we are raising the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and we know -- and have known for over 200 years -- that this warms the climate:

Image

The changes are mostly not reversible, but it's not a binary process, it's analogue. More greenhouse gases, more problems. Less, better. It's that simple.

Your final point is what the comic is about. I could enumerate to you all of the terrible consequences we can anticipate from 4.5C of warming, but in fact, you can demonstrate the problem to yourself much more simply than that. Are we dependent on the climate to live? Yes, among other things we have to grow our food. In the time we have been living in cities and growing our food, has the world ever seen a temperature swing like this, in two centuries from +0 to, as Munroe puts it, +1IAU? No, not even close. We don't know exactly how that world will unfold, but it cannot possibly be a safe thing to try.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:51 pm UTC

RMc wrote:Come on, now. Yes, I know for you it's as simple as black and white, Good Guys and Bad Guys. But millions of others don't look at it that way; if anything, a slight majority still favours the Bad Guys!

No. You're confused. It's not Good Guys versus Bad Guys. It's Informed People versus Ignorant People. Note when I say that that ignorance is not a sin - it's a state that everyone starts in. The problem is people (in positions of power ... frankly public opinion matters less than we like to pretend) refusing to inform themselves for idealogical reasons.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5750
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Angua » Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:40 pm UTC

Because we need some whimsy in this thread. I'm sure most people have seen at least the comic before. The video is only a couple of weeks old though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cjuGCJJUGsg

Image
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:51 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:How is that a conspiracy theory?

It's not. It's an accurate description of a range of excuses deployed by climate deniers.


When you put forward a theory that people are conspiring, especially with no proof of such conspiracy, I am justified in calling it a conspiracy theory.

Because that's what the word means.

I didn't ask about the scientific basis of the theory of global warming, please restrict yourself to the topic at hand. I asked you to justify the scientific basis for citing the studies that find 97% consensus on the basis of atrocious methodologies, nothing else.

speising
Posts: 2243
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby speising » Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Because we need some whimsy in this thread. I'm sure most people have seen at least the comic before. The video is only a couple of weeks old though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cjuGCJJUGsg

Image


exactly!

whether climate change is true or not, the fact is, that all the things that reduce greenhouse gasses also improve conditions for all of us in different ways.
eg. getting rid of burning fossil fuels is just plain healthy, i don't think anybody likes to breath car exhaust gasses.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:58 pm UTC

Dyno wrote:I didn't ask about the scientific basis of the theory of global warming, please restrict yourself to the topic at hand.

*Kat* did ask about it. There isn't just one single topic at hand.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26350
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:46 pm UTC

Dyno wrote:When you put forward a theory that people are conspiring

WHo has put forward such a theory?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:50 pm UTC

Can we also dispense with this notion that only one such paper has evaluated the consensus of climate scientists?

http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/Research/Climate_C ... change.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

And that numerous organizations have also released statements about their support of AGW:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus#ft1
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mikeski and 18 guests