Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Paris Climate Disagreement

The Paris Climate Disagreement (Page 8)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 10:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
This thread is mind numbingly stupid.
Yet here we both are.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2017, 12:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Since an unspecified cabal has bought off the world's climate scientists (which would take a fabulous amount of money) and you must be part of this cabal, it follows that you are obscenely loaded. Buy off your critics here already.
Great example of why we can't have conversations (or more precisely, why they turn into shitshows).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2017, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
This thread is mind numbingly stupid.
Then GTFO?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2017, 02:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm sorry to frustrate you man.

There is just something about the way you post (generally) where you don't make your pivots clear to me, at all.

These threads always have a half dozen of subthreads going on within them, so it's not like there isn't room for multiple discussions, I guess I just feel like you don't really acknowledge my point or do much to segue (especially when you quote me), which makes me feel that you think that your response is in direct response to what you have quoted, and therefore I haven't articulated my points well. There are times too when you drill down into some narrow part of what I have said without acknowledging the larger point. It's kind of like that conversation with somebody where that person needs to make everything about him/her, if you know what I mean?

However, if it's just me that is thrown by this I'll just remember that this is what you do and will try to deal with it better so that neither of us are frustrated. I'm sure you don't mean to blow off what I'm saying and are just trying to fork new conversational threads, for the most part.

I'm also sorry for calling you a horse. Did I call you a horse? I don't remember, but you aren't a horse. I don't think? I mean, you could be a horse, but the chances of that are extremely low.
I'm not sure I agree with all your accusations, but I'm certainly guilty of blowing my cool when we debate (something I always regret afterwards), and I often don't communicate as clearly as I'd like.

That said, unless the idea is I should criticize myself more than I just did, I'm still lacking guidance on where I'm supposed to take this.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2017, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Reminds me of the way feminists count their membership. They accept anyone who will publicly wear the label, no matter how they behave or what they believe.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2017, 02:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Then GTFO?
Believe me, I try. But then you or Chongo will double down with a even-more-ignorant-than-usual statement, and I let myself get dragged back in....
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2017, 10:36 PM
 
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 03:53 AM
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40669449

If there's any conspiracies at work in this they look like they go the other way with countries actively covering up the emissions they are prepared to admit to, from small offenders (Italy) to big whopping liars (China, India).

Perhaps the discussion should move on to survival strategies since we certainly seem to have blown the idea of fixing the issue.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 08:19 AM
 
Meanwhile down under...
Temperatures plunge after BoM orders fix
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...5700ffc7799203
Recorded temperatures at the Bureau­ of Meteorology’s Thredbo Top automatic weather station have dropped below -10C in the past week, after action was taken to make the facility “fit for ­purpose”.

A record of the Thredbo Top station for 3am on Wednesday shows a temperature reading of -10.6C. This compares with the BoM’s monthly highlights for June and July, both showing a low of -9.6C.

The BoM said it had taken immed­iate action to replace the Thredbo station after concerns were raised that very low temperatures were not making it onto the official record. Controversy has dogged the bureau’s automatic weather station network since Goulburn man Lance Pigeon saw a -10.4C reading on the BoM’s website on July 2 automatically adjust to -10C, then disappear.

Later independent monitoring of the Thredbo Top station by scientist Jennifer Marohasy showed a recording of -10.6C ­vanish from the record.

BoM initially claimed the adjustments were part of its quality control procedures. But bureau chief executive Andrew Johnson later told Environment Minister Josh­ Frydenberg that investigations had found a number of cold-weather stations were not “fit for purpose” and would be replaced.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 08:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Meanwhile down under...
Temperatures plunge after BoM orders fix
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...5700ffc7799203

Your arguments are stupid. You clearly don't understand climate change.

It has always been about extreme weather patterns, whether hot or cold, but a generally warming globe. So, plunging temperatures can also be due to global warming.

Wake up.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 08:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40669449

If there's any conspiracies at work in this they look like they go the other way with countries actively covering up the emissions they are prepared to admit to, from small offenders (Italy) to big whopping liars (China, India).

Perhaps the discussion should move on to survival strategies since we certainly seem to have blown the idea of fixing the issue.

That's why I'm very impatient with stupid arguments like Chongo's. Politicians should not be given wiggle-room by science denying hicks.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
That's why I'm very impatient with stupid arguments like Chongo's. Politicians should not be given wiggle-room by science denying hicks.
Let me know when there has been a way developed to control sunspot and volcanic activity. Those are the biggest driver of climate change than anything man has done or can do.

You don't want to give politicians and wiggle room by science denying hicks? Does that include biology, or just climatology?
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Let me know when there has been a way developed to control sunspot and volcanic activity. Those are the biggest driver of climate change than anything man has done or can do.
[citation needed]
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 11:29 AM
 
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 11:34 AM
 
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html
Take into consideration the USGA promotes MM GW.
Many of the GW charts start AFTER Krakatoa explode and lowered global temperatures.
( Last edited by Chongo; Aug 8, 2017 at 11:51 AM. )
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 12:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
If only all those thousands of PHDs, professors and other academics had seen this one simple graph. That would have saved literally tens of thousands of highly intelligent and investigative scientists time and effort.

Seriously don't you think that if climate change was disprovable once and for all with one graph then it would have been so proven about 30 seconds after it became a thing? If you do think that it's so easily disprovable then why hasn't it been, if not then why post the graph?
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As I've said, climate change is one of the subjects I triage. In the interest of more informed participation, someone throw me their fave dire climate model so I can criticize it.
what-a-real-debate-looks-like-in-climate-science/512444/

The "flatline the oceans" scenario looks very probable at the moment. More importantly even if it were unlikely, the effects are dire enough to take it pretty seriously I'd think.


The cliff note version of my favorite dire climate model:

Many Americans know AMOC as the Gulf Stream: the warm, surface-level current in the Atlantic Ocean that hugs the East Coast. It flows up the Carolinas, passes by New England and Nova Scotia, and then veers toward Europe. Eventually it arrives near the British isles and northwestern Europe.

The Gulf Stream is part of a much larger system. As that warm water flows northeast, it gradually cools, and in cooling, compresses and sinks. Eventually, in the Labrador and Greenland Seas, it becomes dense enough that it plunges down thousands of meters into the deep ocean. There it becomes a new current, running back south. It can remain in this deep-ocean current for many years until it eventually upwells at the equator or in the Southern Ocean.

This global conveyor belt of water is AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation), and it is critical to the world’s climate.

When AMOC is strong, it sends millions of cubic meters of ocean water north every day. A strong AMOC seems to shape the entire planet’s climate systems. It moderates the intensity of Atlantic hurricanes, lessens the risk of drought in North America, and assures the health of monsoons in India. AMOC also ferries warm weather from the equator to Western Europe, where it helps bring the region unusually mild winters. (Consider that temperate Berlin is about as far from the equator as the snowy Chilean city of Punta Arenas.)

Crucially, the entire AMOC system depends on cool, dense water “overturning” in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Without cooled water plunging into the deep ocean near Greenland, and turning back south, the entire conveyor belt will stop.

About 30 years ago, climate researchers became concerned that AMOC could suddenly shut down as a result of anthropogenic climate change. The “paleoclimatic record”—that is, what the planet’s geology and fossil record reveal of previous global climates—showed that the AMOC has rapidly collapsed in the past. “Rapidly” here means “within the span of a human lifetime.”


The crumpling of AMOC could potentially cause big problems for the global economy. AMOC’s disappearance would quickly worsen sea-level rise on the U.S. East Coast and subject the Southeast to unusually intense tropical storms. It could upheave agriculture in India, Europe, and the African Sahel.

But as climate models improved, those fears dissipated. “No current comprehensive climate model projects that the AMOC will abruptly weaken or collapse in the 21st century,” wrote a team of NOAA researchers in 2008. “We therefore conclude that such an event is very unlikely.”

Delworth is a researcher at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and a professor of atmospheric and oceanic science at Princeton University. He says that scientists are now re-examining those old conclusions.

“Some recent work is challenging that consensus. It suggests that the real climate system may be less stable than [the models] think,” Delworth told me.

The most attention-getting of this work: a paper last year by James Hansen and 18 other scientists that argued the AMOC’s collapse could threaten global civilization this century. The paper built on older work showing that huge injections of freshwater have historically destabilized AMOC, essentially by flooding the Atlantic with cold water and screwing up its finely tuned density cycle. Hansen and his colleagues argued that as the Greenland ice sheet melts, it would be able to provide exactly such a pulse—and that, crucially, climate models failed to account for this physical process.


This week, the consensus on AMOC was challenged again. A team of researchers have showed in Science Advances that a popularly used climate model may significantly overestimate the stability of AMOC. Once you account for this bias, AMOC proves much more likely to collapse, they argue. And this collapse could happen without any freshwater injection from Greenland.

In other words, they show that the stress of global warming can push AMOC into collapse all by itself in at least one model. Freshwater doesn’t need to pour in from Greenland for AMOC to fall apart; simply increasing the temperature of the ocean can do it.

..... That’s because climate models make AMOC more stable than it actually is in nature, said Wei Liu, an oceanography researcher at Yale University. “In a stable routine, if you increase the CO2, then AMOC only weakens. But in an unstable routine, if you add global warming, then AMOC will collapse by itself,” he told me.

He argues that field observations of the Atlantic Ocean suggest that AMOC is in fact unstable. Between mid-2009 and mid-2010, AMOC appeared to weaken, with the current carrying only two-thirds of its usual volume of water. At the same time, sea-level rise on the East Coast accelerated and Europe experienced an unusually frigid winter.


In their study, Liu and his colleagues tried to make their model more unstable. Most models, they say, do a bad job of representing AMOC. They don’t have enough salty water entering the Atlantic at the equator, and they also don’t have enough freshwater leaving it in the deep ocean.

In their experiment, they fixed this extremely crudely. Instead of fixing the underlying physics, they told the model to add much more saltwater and freshwater to the simulation. Then they doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the simulated atmosphere, stepped back, and watched to see what would happen.

What happened is that, between year 200 and 300 of their adjusted model, AMOC rapidly collapsed.

“It’s a very interesting and provocative work,” he told me. “I think they are opening up this topic and saying our models may be too stable.”

“In this new study, they’ve just put a band-aid on [this stability]. They’ve said, if we alter these characteristics, the model is much less stable. But sometimes it’s really good to have these simple ad hoc techniques to address, ‘What’s the sensitivity of our models?’” he said.

The paper alone didn’t overthrow the consensus, he added, but it did suggest it should be re-examined.

Hansen, on the other hand, was more dismissive of the study’s approach. “You can’t fix the climate model simulation via ‘bias removal’—you should fix what is wrong with the model physics,” he said in an email. “They are doubling CO2, letting that change the temperature, rainfall, etc. and seeing what that does to the AMOC in their model. It’s been more than 35 million years since we had that much CO2 in the air, and sea level was more than 200 feet higher then. If we (humanity) are so stupid as to double CO2, you can count on the AMOC to shut down much faster than 300 years.”
There must be somebody who can come up with a capitalist solution for this problem. That is our only hope.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
There must be somebody who can come up with a capitalist solution for this problem. That is our only hope.
Interesting thought. People would pay for cooler summer days, but how much would they pay? It could be done with orbital mirrors - but you'd need a bunch. They'd have to switch on as the shadow of each passed across the target area. There'd be a lot of up-front costs.

Or build a large mirror slightly sunward of Earth's L1 point - slightly sunward to account for the photon pressure and solar wind. Again, very high up-front costs.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 03:26 PM
 
Might be easier to live somewhere cold and heat it up on demand?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 03:33 PM
 
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Interesting thought. People would pay for cooler summer days, but how much would they pay?
I wish I knew of a way to host images, now that photobuckets gone. I'd just post a pic of this page. Just type some Houston zip code like 77006.
http://www.powertochoose.com/en-us
This is a site for comparing electric providers in TX. What you see is people pay twice as much if they use 5oo kwh or less, than if they use 1000kwh. If saving energy is really a thing, how is this even remotely legal? How does something like this get past our government? Our government that spends so much on treaties to make a dog & pony show? Last year when I checked the 1000kwh bracket read 1 cent/kwh. In other words, if you saw you had only used 450 kwh and your bill cycle was coming up, you better turn all your lights on, open the windows with the AC turned up, because your total bill was going to be more if you used 500 than if you used 1000. So as it is now, people are paying more if they want to use less energy.

If peeps want to help with climate change, forget the treaty, just make a law that reverses the bracketing in all subjects energy so people save money by saving energy.
c
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
I wish I knew of a way to host images, now that photobuckets gone. I'd just post a pic of this page. Just type some Houston zip code like 77006.
http://www.powertochoose.com/en-us
This is a site for comparing electric providers in TX. What you see is people pay twice as much if they use 5oo kwh or less, than if they use 1000kwh. If saving energy is really a thing, how is this even remotely legal? How does something like this get past our government? Our government that spends so much on treaties to make a dog & pony show? Last year when I checked the 1000kwh bracket read 1 cent/kwh. In other words, if you saw you had only used 450 kwh and your bill cycle was coming up, you better turn all your lights on, open the windows with the AC turned up, because your total bill was going to be more if you used 500 than if you used 1000. So as it is now, people are paying more if they want to use less energy.

If peeps want to help with climate change, forget the treaty, just make a law that reverses the bracketing in all subjects energy so people save money by saving energy.
My guess is they designed the grid for customers to use 1,000 kWh. If customers use less it's not really going to change their emissions/operating expenses.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
what-a-real-debate-looks-like-in-climate-science/512444/

The "flatline the oceans" scenario looks very probable at the moment. More importantly even if it were unlikely, the effects are dire enough to take it pretty seriously I'd think.


The cliff note version of my favorite dire climate model:



There must be somebody who can come up with a capitalist solution for this problem. That is our only hope.
AMOC collapse would be a drag, but it's not the end of the world.

What I mean by flatline the ocean is wiping out the bottom of the food chain. If the phytoplankton goes, we go.



This is one of the reasons I found Interstellar to be a load of horseshit. Why weren't people eating seaweed?

Or algae?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html
Take into consideration the USGA promotes MM GW.
Many of the GW charts start AFTER Krakatoa explode and lowered global temperatures.

Why do you so badly want to believe this shit? What will it take for you to change your mind? My Wikipedia article says 60,000 peer reviewed articles. Subego finds the number possibly dubious, so to avoid that squabble let's say it is 30,000 instead.

Is that enough? Let's say it is 100,000 instead. Will that be enough, or sun spots? How about 500,000? Your pope has already acknowledged global warming, so maybe 500,000 plus Jesus Christ riding a hippo through the streets of Las Vegas?

Has anybody called your stubborn before? Let it go. Embrace science, it's good for you.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 06:45 PM
 
BTW that Funny or Die video you posted which you no doubt thought was clever... There is no real disagreement among actual scientists over the core principles of climate change in aggregate, you know that, right?

I could toss that same video right back at you guys. I've read your arguments about sun spots, global conspiracy to manipulate data, I think some shit about the rotation of the Earth, maybe lava flows and the dinosaurs (I dunno, I try to forget), and of course the Russian weather balloons from the 70s. This reeks of desperation and throwing spaghetti at the wall, like your FoD video. And for what?

Go with the flow that is the mountain and mountains of agreement. You know you want to. Facts are addictive but not harmful to your health. They are like crack but without the problems. So good! Jesus loves facts. Don't you love Jesus? Jesus wants you to not make me sad.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 07:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
If only all those thousands of PHDs, professors and other academics had seen this one simple graph. That would have saved literally tens of thousands of highly intelligent and investigative scientists time and effort.
They'd be out of work w/o the grant $$. Climate change is an impressive industry, numerous unis even offer degrees focused on it. I'll put it this way, if anthropogenic climate change was revealed as a hoax (or even just mere imbellishment) tomorrow, it would cause chaos and an utter loss of faith in the scientific community. That will not be allowed to happen. Trillions and trillions of $$ are at stake.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 08:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
They'd be out of work w/o the grant $$. Climate change is an impressive industry, numerous unis even offer degrees focused on it. I'll put it this way, if anthropogenic climate change was revealed as a hoax (or even just mere imbellishment) tomorrow, it would cause chaos and an utter loss of faith in the scientific community. That will not be allowed to happen. Trillions and trillions of $$ are at stake.
Next up: oncology is revealed to be a hoax to keep by oncologists to keep themselves in employ. Billions and billions of dollars are at stake here! When will the public open their eyes to the truth of this global conspiracy! Even if doing so would cause chaos and utter loss of faith in the medical community.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 08:03 PM
 
You don't trust the United States Geological Survey?
The Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere in the twentieth century, though probably smaller than the disturbances from eruptions of Krakatau in 1883 and Tambora in 1815. Consequently, it was a standout in its climate impact and cooled the Earth's surface for three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees F at the height of the impact.
Eruptions also have a nasty habit of producing acid rain.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Next up: oncology is revealed to be a hoax to keep by oncologists to keep themselves in employ. Billions and billions of dollars are at stake here! When will the public open their eyes to the truth of this global conspiracy! Even if doing so would cause chaos and utter loss of faith in the medical community.
Awful comparison, since I'm not denying climate change itself, and an excellent example of why the conversation has broken down surrounding this. People who have doubts only see needlessly sarcastic, self-righteous garbage like yours and it makes them act negatively towards you. Then you act surprised when people like Trump gain power and suddenly stop laughing.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Awful comparison, since I'm not denying climate change itself, and an excellent example of why the conversation has broken down surrounding this. People who have doubts only see needlessly sarcastic, self-righteous garbage like yours and it makes them act negatively towards you. Then you act surprised when people like Trump gain power and suddenly stop laughing.

People who have doubts should have had their feelings treated with respect 5-10 years ago or so. At this point, I'm sorry, their feelings don't deserve respect. They should be respected as people, but their feelings? Why? Seriously...

Same goes with people who believe the earth is 6000 years old (Ken Ham, etc.), that vaccinations are a hoax (e.g. some Hollywood types, I'm not sure why this is so), etc.

It's 2017.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 11:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
It's easy to get cross and wonder WHY humans only really respond when forced to.
300 years of rational science vs 20,000 years of basic monkey.

Whenever human behaviour doesn't make any sense I just remember... monkeys.
I wish more people would think like this. Then people would understand human nature better and stop believing in political solutions dependent upon so much faith in the rationality & goodness of others. Despite the frontal cortex being capable of achieving amazing things, it's lazy. The monkey cortex while shallow, is much more motivated for its desires.

This is why on an individual level we can find a thoughtful person here and there. But on the sociological level the ambitions of the monkey cortex will always take precedence. These ambitions primarily revolve around 2 things, ego feeding & sexual desires. Government solutions that are too complex will be tainted by the monkey cortex. We need to come up with some sort of system that motivates the frontal cortex to achieve great things by offering to feed the monkey cortex in return - some kind of fame based reward or payment that the monkey cortex can spend on flashy status symbol shoes, purses, clothing, cars, houses, fame, vip seats, & prostitutes.

BTW "basic monkey" is probably at least a million years. It's really hard wired and theres no way around it.
c
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 11:55 PM
 
But making allowances for the monkey cortex is creating an environment where it continues to thrive and reproduce. If you want rid of it you have to create environments where it will die out while the rational brain thrives in its place.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 12:05 AM
 
The next 4-year report required by the Global Change Research Act is coming due. It's completed, and as grim as you'd expect. It shows assorted climate and economic impacts on the US (fishing, farming zones, and energy use I assume) with most years since 2000 being record years. Each passing the previous one for title of hottest.

But while the report is complete and peer-reviewed, it has been submitted to the administration for approval. Until they approve it, it's officially still a draft. The Bush administration had to be sued to release their version of the report. The current suspicion is that the Trump administration may sit on it and/or water it down to nothing with administrative edits.

So ... someone leaked the report to the New York Times. They're hosting it for anyone interested.

NYT coverage (beware constant begging for subscriptions)
Ars coverage

The administration has declined to comment on a draft document. But since we have the original, it will be easy to see what edits they do. Final release seems to be due in 2018, but they could release it promptly. Or stall, and release after losing the lawsuit.

My money is on edits to protect fossil fuel production. And before anyone complains, those edits will be peer reviewed as well. The science side was peer-reviewed by scientists. The administrative edits will be reviewed by others in the administration.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 12:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Awful comparison, since I'm not denying climate change itself, and an excellent example of why the conversation has broken down surrounding this. People who have doubts only see needlessly sarcastic, self-righteous garbage like yours and it makes them act negatively towards you. Then you act surprised when people like Trump gain power and suddenly stop laughing.
You set this up as a global conspiracy theory (the climate scientists are only doing it for the money!!), and doing so is very offensive to others (e. g. to scientists). And if pointing out how ridiculous such a belief is if the same attitude is transferred to another branch of science is offensive, that's ok, I don't mind if SuJWs take offense, I don't need to be PC. (And I don't mind being offended either, that's part of life.) I think it is dumb to think that you can “disprove” the work of thousands of scientists working independently on that topic with the power of Google. (Hint: scientists use Google every day!) The way that people like Chongo come up with completely obvious ideas that he seems to think scientists have failed to consider. What about volcanoes? Yes, climate scientists took those into account. What about sun spots? Yes. And what about hot spots? Yes.

Only in the US is global climate change a partisan issue, all other parts of the world do not see it that way. You are right that trillions of dollars are at stake. People have already started migrating because certain regions have become uninhabitable by humans. The rising sea levels will have a lasting impact on coastal cities, many will disappear. And so forth. Instead of wasting our time on conspiracy theories, we should expend our energy trying to find ways to solve this problem. In other countries, this is where partisan ideology comes into play.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 12:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
I wish more people would think like this. Then people would understand human nature better and stop believing in political solutions dependent upon so much faith in the rationality & goodness of others. Despite the frontal cortex being capable of achieving amazing things, it's lazy. The monkey cortex while shallow, is much more motivated for its desires.
Humans have trouble thinking about problems that far exceed their life span, and those things break the pain-reward feedback cycle. Why do I have to suffer so that my great-grand children live in a better world? That's important for designing solutions as well, since also many of the effects will happen on a time scale that is longer than the life span of most companies.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
There must be somebody who can come up with a capitalist solution for this problem. That is our only hope.
What ideas do you have?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You set this up as a global conspiracy theory (the climate scientists are only doing it for the money!!), and doing so is very offensive to others (e. g. to scientists).
Oh dear, it's my fault you acted like a sarcastic jerk? Well, I'm sure those scientists are so glad you're defending them. Take responsibility for yourself, eh?

Only in the US is global climate change a partisan issue, all other parts of the world do not see it that way. You are right that trillions of dollars are at stake. People have already started migrating because certain regions have become uninhabitable by humans. The rising sea levels will have a lasting impact on coastal cities, many will disappear. And so forth. Instead of wasting our time on conspiracy theories, we should expend our energy trying to find ways to solve this problem. In other countries, this is where partisan ideology comes into play.
Again, since you seem to become morally outraged over disagreement, you apparently aren't paying attention. I'm not denying climate change. Geez, this is worse than arguing about abortion with Catholics.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Again, since you seem to become morally outraged over disagreement, you apparently aren't paying attention. I'm not denying climate change.
I'm not morally outraged, I'm calmly criticizing your position without carefully reading what I write. You are peddling unscientific conspiracy theories and perpetuate myths, examples from just this thread are that climate models are unreliable and “nearly every climate predictions false”, you claim we can't do anything to change it, you claim the climate change lobby controls the media and you do put your arguments into partisan “us-vs.-them” terms. And, of course, my favorite, that climate scientists are in it just for the grant money. (Unfortunately, for us folks, grant money ≠ grand money.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I'm not morally outraged, I'm calmly criticizing your position without carefully reading what I write. You are peddling unscientific conspiracy theories and perpetuate myths, examples from just this thread are that climate models are unreliable and “nearly every climate predictions false”, you claim we can't do anything to change it, you claim the climate change lobby controls the media and you do put your arguments into partisan “us-vs.-them” terms. And, of course, my favorite, that climate scientists are in it just for the grant money. (Unfortunately, for us folks, grant money ≠ grand money.)

I've been thrown by his peddling conspiracy theories while claiming that climate change is real too. Perhaps this is just his playing devil's advocate?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 04:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I'm not morally outraged, I'm calmly criticizing your position without carefully reading what I write.
It's fortunate you weren't upset, I don't think the forum could handle it if you were angry, given how you react when you're "calm".

You are peddling unscientific conspiracy theories and perpetuate myths, examples from just this thread are that climate models are unreliable and “nearly every climate predictions false”, you claim we can't do anything to change it, you claim the climate change lobby controls the media and you do put your arguments into partisan “us-vs.-them” terms. And, of course, my favorite, that climate scientists are in it just for the grant money. (Unfortunately, for us folks, grant money ≠ grand money.)
Oh my goodness, I had the temerity to openly question anthropogenic climate change? I mistook this place for a discussion forum, I guess. Maybe it's best they DO close these forums, if certain people can't stop trying to shut-down conversations when a sacred cow gets targetted? I wasn't kidding when I said Catholics aren't as bad as you when I debate them on abortion, and they believe people are actually being murdered, en masse.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 04:59 AM
 
@Cap'n Tightpants
Nobody prevents you from bringing up conspiracy theories here on MacNN, but then you will also have to accept that others will call you out on them. And you can't expect that others will take you seriously when those form the basis of your “skepticism”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 05:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@Cap'n Tightpants
Nobody prevents you from bringing up conspiracy theories here on MacNN, but then you will also have to accept that others will call you out on them. And you can't expect that others will take you seriously when those form the basis of your “skepticism”.
The fact you believe you're merely "calling someone out", and not purposely shutting down a POV you disagree with, says it all. If this makes you so unhinged that the only way you can reply is with sarcasm and outright derision, maybe you shouldn't be part of it? Take a good look around, why do you think this place is a 9:1 leftist echo chamber, when once (years ago) it was reasonably balanced? Huh? Because almost all the prolific conservative posters grew tired of the "call outs" and endless snark while they were trying to communicate.

How about this, why don't you present counters instead of just posting snarky crap, yelling "conspiracy theory!", and waving your arms around? Otherwise, just ignore the comments that trigger you entirely. Trust me, right now I'd rather just place you on ignore, but I can't, so how about being a little more constructive?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 06:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Take a good look around, why do you think this place is a 9:1 leftist echo chamber, when once (years ago) it was reasonably balanced? Huh? Because almost all the prolific conservative posters grew tired of the "call outs" and endless snark while they were trying to communicate.
Again, I'm not American, this is not a partisan issue for me and doesn't serve as a yardstick where non-Americans are located on the political spectrum. This is a scientific question, not a question of political ideology.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
How about this, why don't you present counters instead of just posting snarky crap, yelling "conspiracy theory!", and waving your arms around? Otherwise, just ignore the comments that trigger you entirely. Trust me, right now I'd rather just place you on ignore, but I can't, so how about being a little more constructive?
I'm not blindly yelling “conspiracy theory” and end the discussion there, because of ignorance on my part. If you make extraordinary scientific claims, you need to provide extraordinary evidence — that's the scientific way to go about this. And finding single scientists who committed fraud or taking quotes by famous (or not so famous) researchers on that subject is not sufficient evidence for such a grand, ginormous conspiracy theory. The onus is not on me to refute them for otherwise I would play a sisyphusian whack-a-mole. Such conspiracy theories are exceedingly less realistic than ones of the sort that “9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration”.

Plus, when I thought that you weren't basing your arguments on conspiracy non-sense, I have taken you seriously in this thread (see discussion on H2-based vs. battery-based mobility). When you are, though, I think it is proper to call you out on that.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 08:38 AM
 
Besson, do you even KNOW any astronomers, planetary scientists or climate experts? I will NOT divulge the names of the ones I know here at NASA HQ. I used to get to sit in on the AGW discussions where the planetary scientists (One in particular) would hand the Global warming guys their butts in these 'discussions' and data review panels, by correcting their sloppy formulas or showing them they are using the wrong formulas or data. NASA has unfortunately too many political appointees who are NOT scientists driving the policies here. Thats all I will say on this.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Again, I'm not American
So what? That means you aren't capable of reasonable conversation w/o call-outs? While I freely admit I've allowed myself to get irate and counter in-kind all the sarcasm, I'm working to try and remedy that. Perhaps you should too? Otherwise this place is useless (except as a left-wing, Trump-commiseration shelter). Maybe it is too late to fix what's wrong around here.

I'm not blindly yelling “conspiracy theory” and end the discussion there, because of ignorance on my part.
Yes you are, and what's more, you do it every time the anthropogenic climate change subject comes up; you make an appeal to authority, unleash the self-righteous indignation, and then act appalled when people continue to try and talk despite you being visibly annoyed. I can practically set my watch by it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
you do it every time the anthropogenic climate change subject comes up; you make an appeal to authority
When it's thousands of the world's top scientists vs. Chongo's limited Googling skills, I think the appeal to authority is valid.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 09:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Besson, do you even KNOW any astronomers, planetary scientists or climate experts? I will NOT divulge the names of the ones I know here at NASA HQ. I used to get to sit in on the AGW discussions where the planetary scientists (One in particular) would hand the Global warming guys their butts in these 'discussions' and data review panels, by correcting their sloppy formulas or showing them they are using the wrong formulas or data. NASA has unfortunately too many political appointees who are NOT scientists driving the policies here. Thats all I will say on this.

Do you understand the principles of sample size?

NASA does: https://climate.nasa.gov/

I'm also still waiting for info on how we can all be as smart as you?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
When it's thousands of the world's top scientists vs. Chongo's limited Googling skills, I think the appeal to authority is valid.
But sun spots!!
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Do you understand the principles of sample size?

NASA does: https://climate.nasa.gov/

I'm also still waiting for info on how we can all be as smart as you?
YOU will never be, your emotions keep you the way you are. Sorry Besson, but the scientists at NASA are always going over data, studies etc and the AGW guys keep being shown how sloppy they are. Calling some of these folks scientists who are actually political appointees doesn't help. A majority of people believed the earth was flat in the past, but so much for the majority being correct because they were a majority. The Australians got caught playing with the data to match a narrative have tainted all the southern hemisphere temp measurements going back 10 years or so, Its garbage in gospel out? Changing the data but still getting the same results is not science. Shame you don't know how scientists in other fields work.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 11:42 AM
 
Damned sneaky kangaroos.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
YOU will never be, your emotions keep you the way you are. Sorry Besson, but the scientists at NASA are always going over data, studies etc and the AGW guys keep being shown how sloppy they are.
To clarify - you're saying that NASA doesn't believe that climate change is caused by humans?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:36 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,