• In total there are 5 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 5 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

The Great Barrier Reef - Climate Change Alarmists "poster child"

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The Great Barrier Reef - Climate Change Alarmists "poster child"

Unread post

ant wrote:This is a language game that the IPCC is playing. It's motivated by politics and money.
The only language game being played is on behalf of the denialists. The scientists who overwhelmingly agree on climate change are doing science. The denialists are paid by oil, coal, and automobile manufacturers and/or are pushing their free market ideologies to resist potential regulation.

This is such an obviously false projection.
ant wrote:Actually the IPCC has backed off (however slight and begrudgingly) on anthropogenic factors being the dominate/ primary cause of climate change in the 20th and early 21st century.
One of the summary bulletin points of the AR5:

"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report."
ant wrote:My understanding is that one reason the IPCC's models are inaccurate is because the variability of internal forces (ie volcanic activity, plate tectonics, solar, cloud cover, ocean sediments, etc etc) that are variables which effect weather. Long term climate forecast is made that much more difficult.
I read that as well. The climate variability from internal forcing is the prime suspect for the "pause". The heat is being absorbed by the oceans. The problem with this is that being internal, the variability will inevitably swing the other way.
ant wrote:Remember, you've chosen sides simply because there's a consensus (which history demonstrates means nothing)not because you understand the science.
I've been digging into the science recently, in large part due to your echoing of denialist claims. Where before I was ambivalent and merely trusting in the consensus, I'm increasingly certain that the consensus was reached on solid ground, from decades of painstaking research. All the "gotcha" questions you ask(solar warming/internal forcing/coral reefs/historical climate changes/etc.) are all gone into pedantic detail by scientists. Your questions are all answered. The weakness of predictions is due to the system being contingent. The science is settled despite how difficult it is to make predictions. You're not being a 'true skeptic' by repeating denialist claims, you're merely cognitively captured by sources with political and monetary motivations.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... s-accurate
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The Great Barrier Reef - Climate Change Alarmists "poster child"

Unread post

Raging out of the gate again with ad populums, eh?
"SCientists overwhelmingly agree!"

Here's something that might help interest you:

The objective of science is to advance knowledge, primarily in two interlinked ways: circulating ideas, and defending or criticizing the ideas of others. Peer review acts as the gatekeeper to these mechanisms. Given the increasing concern surrounding the reproducibility of much published research1, it is critical to understand whether peer review is intrinsically susceptible to failure, or whether other extrinsic factors are responsible that distort scientists’ decisions. Here we show that even when scientists are motivated to promote the truth, their behaviour may be influenced, and even dominated, by information gleaned from their peers’ behaviour, rather than by their personal dispositions."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... 12786.html

Oreskes' opinion piece is largely the origin of the claim of climate change alarmist consensus.

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

The Nature mag study I linked indicates that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers. Oreskes even admits consensus science may very well be wrong (as it has been many times before) but she quickly zaps the reader with a fallacy of an appeal to emotion which is always an attempt to win over your audience by other means:
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it."
Orleske did not mention the amount of scientists that dispute anthropogenic warming and a calling to sound an alarm because doomsday is just around the corner:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... al_warming

Orleske added implicit agreement to her "overwhelming" consensus numbers and acknowledged that some believed climate change MIGHT be natural:
75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
Wiki

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys ... ate_change

When considering Orlanski and other surveys of scientists that seek to determine or verify a consensus the phenomena of "herding" as mentioned in the Nature mag link I provided must be considered a primary factor in the construction of a sought after consensus.
Science wasnt designed for the creation of consensus.
That is for the shenanigans of politics which you use most often when discussing climate change.

It's interesting how cheap people's reasoning has become: If you disagree with mainstream climate change you must also deny that the climate is changing. Hence you are a "denier"

Or how about this reasoning: if you do not agree that man is strictly responsible for the warming of the planet then you must also deny that the climate is changing. Hence, you are a denier.

And this last gem: if you dont agree with green policies and their solutions, then you must be a climate change denier.
This line of reasoning is the reasoning of a herd mentality.
It's blatantly illogical.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The Great Barrier Reef - Climate Change Alarmists "poster child"

Unread post

pH levels and balance sensitivity and buffering effects is a relatively new field of study.
It seems enormously complicated. Quite frankly this entire issue is enormously comlicated.
While I'm making my way through the book Climate Change - The Facts, im trying to cross check stuff that I can follow as best as the layman that I am can.
Googling all this takes a ton of effort. There are all sorts of reports and counter reports. Its a task that can keep you busy all damn day.

But I tell you, this consensus argument that is the favorite choice of alarmists is the easiest of all to hurdle.
Science simply is not in the business in declaring a consensus.
I cant find the article in Nature mag, but long ago, when this entire issue was just strarting up, Nature mag cautioned the scientific community and those involved in the language selected to keep the public and political bodies informed .
Its way past that now
Lets hope the reputation of science is not damaged too much by the climate change arena. My guess is that it already has been harmed.
science is clearly playing handmaiden to politics and money here.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: The Great Barrier Reef - Climate Change Alarmists "poster child"

Unread post

A key tactic from Heritage Foundation useful idiots is to equate climate science with errors such as the moon landing hoax claims in order to sow false public doubt. The more accurate comparison is between the malevolent activities of climate denialists and the well documented work of the tobacco industry to conceal the facts of the health damage of smoking. Exactly the same methods, and even some of the same people, have worked to shift the political debate away from science in the interest of short term foolish commercial motives for both tobacco and fossil fuels.

These tobacco denialist public relations astroturfing methods are well documented at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_c ... al#History
As one tobacco company memo noted: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."[54]
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The Great Barrier Reef - Climate Change Alarmists "poster child"

Unread post

ant wrote:Climate Change - The Facts, im trying to cross check stuff that I can follow as best as the layman that I am can.
You go out and buy the most biased book you can? I thought you wanted to be objective? Another name for that book is 'Climate - Change the facts".
ant wrote:Lets hope the reputation of science is not damaged too much by the climate change arena. My guess is that it already has been harmed.
You are living evidence that science has been badly damaged. When there's so much misinformation that you can't even see through the smoke and mirrors to the real science, how will we restore trust?
science is clearly playing handmaiden to politics and money here.
Right, yeah. A worldwide conspiracy where almost every independent climatologist is fabricating results for peer review pressure and politics.

Look at the cover of the book you're reading and look at the people's interests. Ian Plimer who has financial interest in coal. The Author Alan Moran and some of the others working for the IPA in Australia - a "think tank" against green energy and all about deregulation. Patrick Michaels from the Cato Institute, a think tank founded by one of the Koch brothers who has large interests in oil(Koch Carbon). The list goes on.

There isn't a more obvious handmaiden to politics and money than the book in your hand ant.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The Great Barrier Reef - Climate Change Alarmists "poster child"

Unread post

Youve given up pretending to know what youre talking about.

Ps

Here's a little reading for you:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Last edited by ant on Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The Great Barrier Reef - Climate Change Alarmists "poster child"

Unread post

ant wrote:Here's a little reading for you:
Ian Plimer and company aren't wrong regarding the climate because of their ties to carbon and politics. If that were my argument, then it would be an ad hominem. My point was to show that you're a pot calling the kettle black when you claim it's all for politics and money on the side of the alarmists. The denialists are far worse in this respect.

Referencing David Legates and his agnotology study is another excellent example. David Legates is a member of the Cornwall Alliance, and is religiously motivated to argue against man's ability to affect the climate. His "counter-study" has been shown faulty by statisticians, based on the words he's chosen for examination. He is a fellow at Institutes that regularly receive funding from Exxon Mobil. He's a signatory of an evangelical denialist declaration that states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

So again, if you want to know who is the most politically and financially motivated, look at the people you're quoting, and who's books you're reading. You're sinking deeper into the wrong side ant, and you can't even see it.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The Great Barrier Reef - Climate Change Alarmists "poster child"

Unread post

The basis for your belief in anthropogenic climate change was and always has been because a "consensus" exists.

Long before i began to offer counter studies that you have no answer for and have chosen to systematically ignore, I utterly destroyed your fallacious ad populum rationale by pointing to historical examples (of consensus) and current scientific studies that explain why claims and goals of consensus science poison the institution of science and are pernicious to public policy and open dialogue.

Actually, to give you one example of your blatant ignorance some of the issues of climate change, you werent even aware that just the act of fishing alone for years has been damaging corals greatly, before c02 was assigned all the blame.
Thats how ill informed you are.

Despite my saying that I actually support action (reasonable action) to lower emissions but nevertheless remain skeptical of some of the alarmists claims, you continue to fixate on labeling me a denier - WHEN NO ONE HAS DENIED THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING.

Your reactions here are totally immoral.

Try addressing some of my questions instead of resorting to name calling.
As Ive said, youve apparently given up on pretending to understand the science enough to dismiss what Ive set on the table for inquiry.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The Great Barrier Reef - Climate Change Alarmists "poster child"

Unread post

ant wrote:Actually, to give you one example of your blatant ignorance some of the issues of climate change, you werent even aware that just the act of fishing alone for years has been damaging corals greatly, before c02 was assigned all the blame.
I wasn't aware of something I was aware of? :clap2:

As I said before, acidification isn't assigned all the blame. There are many impacts, like oil spills, tourism, storms, fishing, and shipping. Not that the countless hours of research scientists have spent on the reefs would have uncovered these variables, let alone give them weightings. Who needs a million man-hours of scientific research when we have ant to debunk them in a single week of googlesearch?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”