Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2014 - 11:25pm PT
|
TomC quoted article "Is Science to Blame for Climate Denial? Science claims to have an evidence based way of knowing, but it claims to know things with equal certainty whether they are based on evidence or on scientifically orthodox beliefs that are not supported by evidence."
Wrong. That is not how science works. Start over. I am not patient enough to explain it all, but it has to do with things like theory + evidence + data + models + refinement over a period of many decades.
The IPCC uses words like probability to make it clear that they are talking about a likelihood, not a 100% proven fact. Climate science is not a belief system like religion, any more than models of atoms or brain chemistry.
" ... a different theory, namely that in addition to natural selection, God had a hand in pushing things in the direction that God wanted them to go."
This is irrelevant to climate science. The uniqueness of homo sapiens is indeed profound, just like the Big Bang.
But it is irrelevant to why people want to reject climate science.
People refuse to accept climate science because:
 they have a religious belief in Ayn Rand, consumption with no limits, capitalism, the Koch bros, and exploitation.
they believe that god's chosen people will find a way out, without having to stop driving a 15mpg monster truck 100 miles each way to work.
they are swayed by lobbyists who tell them the cost of a solution is greater "for them" than letting fate take its course.
(Who cares if 200 million people somewhere else die, and half the world in 50 years will have to make major sacrifices due to climate change?)
"... 66% of the public believe that God is actively involved in influencing what happens on Earth today and that God has been active since the beginning of time. Should we be surprised that, with a little help from corporate disinformation campaigns, so many people reject evolution, science and climate change?
All that is needed to fix this situation enough to get us moving on saving civilization is a bit of humility in Science.
Stand up for what you know from the evidence as scientific fact. Explain the rest as your personal belief and make room
for those who have other beliefs, especially when they are consistent with the evidence."
Denialism is not consistent with evidence. It is denience.
Not all opinions are equal. Some ignore the facts.
If someone's personal beliefs conflict with climate science, they are likely misinterpreting their bible/koran/torah etc.
There will only be one winner 40 years from now.
Just as creationism has become a search for gaps in the evolution record,
denialists will just harp on every little glitch in climate models.
IN 30-40 years of work, There is not the slightest evidence for any alternative CLIMATE MODEL that disagrees with the consensus projections.
As the climate models continue to get better, and get more and more data + evidence, denialists will be reduced to dust.
The point is: IT will be TOO LATE in 40 years to stop the effect of too much greenhouse gases.
We either react NOW, without the 100% proof of hindsight,
or wait until the consequences will be 10 times as severe.
It is not the fault of scientists that many people reject science.
That is the fault of all of society, including leaders, teachers, parents, and all educated and enlightened people.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2014 - 11:43pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^^
Pure presciptive programmed mass delusion
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 12:20am PT
|
The point is: IT will be TOO LATE in 40 years to stop the effect of too much greenhouse gases.
We're telling you the Apocalypse will be caused by the black hearts of men.
Your telling us the Apocalypse will be caused by black smoke.
little ironic
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 01:04am PT
|
RS "Mine is a reasoned response built upon the totality of the facts Ive been able to ascertain from voluminous materiels that I am able to access as a layman. Intuition has little to do with it."
Just a few such facts you have posted:
the earth is cooling.
rick sumner Jul 2, 2014 - 09:23pm PT
Ahh yes TGT, you're onto the fact that global cooling is already underway.
Soon feedbacks such as albedo change from increased cloudtop reflectivity and huge up ticks in global sea ice will quicken the pace of cooling as we slide into uncharted territory of reduced TSI in the prolonged mimima of solar cycle 24/25.
CO2 is not a problem
rick sumner Sep 14, 2013 - 12:42pm PT
CO2 is cycled out of the atmosphere by the biota, ocean uptake, and chemical weathering much faster than the hundreds of years the IPCC claims in parts of it's documents.
rick sumner Aug 6, 2013 - 01:11pm PT
It is generally agreed that the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is 3-6% percent of the atmospheric content. So, where is the other 94-97% percent coming from?
science has backtracked and is now predicting little warming
rick sumner May 14, 2014 - 01:12am PT
The equillibrium climate sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 is steadily trending downwards as legitamate ( non CAGW industry) scientists, in increasing numbers, look at real data in realistic ways.
The ECS is accepted to be 1.3C, or less by these scientists, as the much ballyhooed feedbacks are weighted to the negative side of the ledger.
polar ice is increasing.
rick sumner Jul 17, 2014 - 09:39pm PT
Other noteworthy anomalies are: the arctic sea ice extant seems set to finish the melt season at its highest level in a decade,
rick sumner May 18, 2014 - 04:28pm PT
Give it a few years BK. That recession, of a relative few studied glaciers, doesn't stop on a dime. The worm of warming turned anywhere from 10 to 15 years ago. Globally, the cryosphere is expanding; the Antarctic is at record levels, the Arctic recovering lots of multi year ice, hell even the great northern lakes of the NH are freezing earlier, longer and deeper than a decade ago, likewise is the increase and duration of snow cover. We are at the beginning of a natural phase of global cooling
warming is natural, past events can explain the future
rick sumner Aug 6, 2013 - 01:11pm PT
There has been a fair amount of work done on samplings from ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, tree rings, etc etc. That work has revealed a lag between CO2 increase and temp increase. One of those nagging problems of the CAGW camp. Despite their best efforts, the mainstream science still shows temp increases first followed by CO2 increase.
Science has failed to account for the temperature influence of cosmic rays
rick sumner May 30, 2013 - 09:35pm PT
Upthread i struggled to ask a stupid science question. The phrasing should have been what are the effects of various variable values in the solar spectrum on atmospheric chemistry. Anyway, i don't wonder why nobody
answered since the question was asked incorrectly. I found a new study addressing this and it is fascinating-scientists thinking outside of the CO2 religion box.see below.Of course, i don't understand a lot of the language so pointing out my ignorance is appreciated.The svensmark Aarhus paper i already saw. CLOUD experiment is expected to generate a new
paper interpreting results in July, i believe.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf
Here is a good overall summary of all the time that has been wasted on RS.
FortMentälJan 17, 2014 - 01:57pm PT
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2322414#msg2322414
At best, About all that can be concluded from these "facts" from RS
is that they are indeed voluminous.
I have not bothered to research your equally voluminous and valuable absurd insults.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 01:08am PT
|
"We're telling you the Apocalypse will be caused by the black hearts of men. Your telling us the Apocalypse will be caused by black smoke."
The black hearts of men are those who refuse to admit that humans have the power to upset the world environment.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 09:09am PT
|
Mine is a reasoned response built upon the totality of the facts Ive been able to ascertain from voluminous materiels that I am able to access as a layman.
it just happens that you're "reasoned response" is demonstrably wrong.
you shouldn't feel bad about that, it's how science progresses. The key at this point, however, is to abandon your pet hypothesis that have shown to be inconsistent with observation and data and move on.
I suspect you're not going to do that.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 09:23am PT
|
from the Green & Bensen Bugaboo Rock; A Climber's Guide
Pigeon Spire (p. 121)
West Ridge
Ascend upper Vowall Glacier to Pigeon-Howser Col.
Follow easy snow gully to notch on ridge proper near west end. Scramble up to SW Summit (false) via easy friction slabs. Down climb to notch and climb up to second false summit. Step right and down-climb a narrow chimney or jam crack to sloping ledges on northeast side. Alternatively, step left, follow ledge system that descends to same sloping ledges on northwest side. Traverse east and follow line of least resistance until it is possible to follow hand and finger cracks to summit gully. Scramble gully/ledge system to summit blocks.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 10:19am PT
|
i don't consciously take anything on faith, and consider that most of what we think we know is just glimpses of reality
i have more trust in the sciences than in most other known philosophies, with the caveat that physical sciences tend to be biased towards demonstrably limited world views
the community of physicists/cosmologists/astronomers/space explorers/computer scientists/genetic engineers/materials scientists/etc is having great fun expanding human understanding of the universe
i have the greatest respect for all that exploration and discovery process
global climate modeling and ecosystems modeling are some of the more challenging domains to understand, which doesn't change the easily observable facts that humans are clearly effecting them dramatically
i quoted Gifford Pinchot III above...he is one of my best friends and most trusted advisers, a skilled rock climber/alpinist/skier/outdoorsman...and wishing he would actively participate in our discussions here
Science claims to have an evidence based way of knowing, but it claims to know things with equal certainty whether they are based on evidence or on scientifically orthodox beliefs that are not supported by evidence
i anticipated that would get a rise out of some people here, as i probably have not been quite so diplomatic about expressing this opinion
having said all that, i'll re-empathize my opinion that the portion of what we know relative to what we don't know is miniscule, hence advising massive doses of humility regarding what we think we know
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 11:19am PT
|
Bravo Tom. How true it is that the portion we know is miniscule. Certainly, the 95% certainty of consensus CC science lacks the same percentage of verification by observational fact. The theory of anthro produced CO2 as the primary control knob has failed, but Ed will never unambiguously acknowledge that.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 11:31am PT
|
consider that most of what we think we know is just glimpses of reality
What an unbelievably specious argument. You state a general truth but then infer that therefore we cannot possibly know the truth of this circumstance. By the same logic of course we can't know the truth of anything and should have never attempted to land on the moon, transplant a heart or create the internet. People used to navigate the ocean using a sextent and stars. Talk about a glimpse of reality. And yet they were capable of creating global trade networks.
Dingus posted Why not 39? 41? 152? Why forty? Why did I hear we had ten years to act... ten years ago? That NOW is too late, back then? Huh? I'll tell you why - its made up bullshit that's why. And this made up hyperbole gives fuel to the deniers.
Wow if only there was some way to know the answers to your question. And why is it that perceived hyperbole on the part of climate advocates is so awful and your hyperbole is so justified?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 11:35am PT
|
Fortmental posted Dude. Get off the crack pipe. WHAT glaciers?
If you don't know that there are glaciers in Mexico then maybe you shouldn't be posting.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 11:40am PT
|
it's nice to know that some people have it all figured out...
i am reminded of a local bumper sticker:
"Quick, hire a teenager while they still know everything!"
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 11:49am PT
|
http://news.yahoo.com/melting-antarctic-ice-threatens-worlds-megacities-162902537.html
Melting Antarctic Ice Threatens the World's Megacities
By Kristine Wong | 2 hours ago
A first-of-its-kind study finds that global sea levels could rise 20 percent higher by 2100 than previously estimated due to melting ice in Antarctica.
“A 20 percent higher sea level makes a bad situation worse,” said Robert Bindschadler, a glaciologist and co-author of the study published in the journal Earth Systems Dynamics.
“Right now nine of the 10 largest cities—Mexico City being the only exception—are coastal cities,” said Bindschadler, an emeritus researcher at NASA Goddard Space Center who collaborated with Anders Levermann at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “Nearly half of the world’s population, almost 3 billion people, live at or near the coast. We are placing ourselves in harm’s way.”
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 12:04pm PT
|
Read these two sentences closely and watch how the author, Kristine Wong, twists the words.
In what way were those words twisted?
It is also kind of strange to say that the author of the note twisted those words when one of the sentences were a quote.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 12:13pm PT
|
Fortmental. FYI. Granted, this was produced in 2002. Glaciers in Mexico, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1386–J–3
The abstract of this paper states that the total area of the 24 glaciers is 11.44 square kilometers, or approximately 4.4 square miles....and shrinking.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 12:15pm PT
|
What's the fun in pointing it out. Its a considerable error though...
Are you sure about that? My only guess for a significant error is that you think that the error is in the "A 20 percent higher sea level" but that make no sense if you take it literally so it should be clear what he meant.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 12:31pm PT
|
Ya know, I've thought occasionally that this thread might be cooler if participants took time out now and then to show pictures of whatever they had recently climbed. Like finding common ground on a climbing forum. The last few pages have been unkind to my theory that would be a good thing.
Interesting new studies on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Comparing new CryoSat-2 measurements (2011-2014) with earlier ICEsat data (2003-2009), a team of European researchers find that West Antarctic volume loss increased by a factor of 3, while Greenland volume loss increased 2.5x.
Paper is here, BBC summary here.
The change in height of Greenland's ice sheet between January 2011 and January 2014
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 12:33pm PT
|
You're right it makes no sense! But it sure sounds worse!!!!1111!!!!1111!!!
I disagree. I don't think that it sounds worse and I think that the meaning were clear from the context. I also think that it is something that the scientist could have said so I am not going to blame the journalist.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 20, 2014 - 04:23pm PT
|
Read these two sentences closely and watch how the author, Kristine Wong, twists the words.
I'm looking at the quote and I don't see the author twisting words, just quoting a bit out of context. But then again, the quotes themselves were taken out of the context of the article. Read a little farther into the article, and you can see the context:
Bindschadler’s team found that Antarctica’s ice melt will contribute seven to 28 centimeters in additional sea level rise by the end of the century. That would boost the IPCC assessment of total global sea level rise to as much as 111 centimeters, said Bindschadler.
It's still poorly written (she is still not specifically clear on the "additional seal level rise"), but if you read a little between the lines, it is very clear. The next sentence says, "That would boost the IPCC assessment ..." This gives the first sentence context. But it could certainly use a little wordsmithing to exact the meaning.
But twisting the words? Nah.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!