Yes, if your point is to change my mind in face of evidence, I will, just be sure to actually provide good evidence (you haven't so far).
General / Off-Topic Is man made climate change real or not? Prove your belief here.
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
Yes, if your point is to change my mind in face of evidence, I will, just be sure to actually provide good evidence (you haven't so far).
Western birth rates are below replacement, suicide rates are sky rocketing. Should we ask why that is?
No, I don't care. If you take a good look you might decide to change your mind in the face of hypocrisy?
Hypocrisy? I have provided papers, there hardly is better a source lol.
True, it is telling the only people to respond to that post are those that ALREADY UNDERSTAND exactly what AGW is and is not. Sadly the truth does not fit into the 'denial' world view so they will ignore it. We can hope some spark of comprehension happens, but looking at the low-brow efforts so far in 'proving' their belief that AGW is false, i don't expect a miracle!
And thanks for those links i will add then to the OP as you suggest.
Your essay was way beyond what we needed so i shorted it for those that might care to ponder on it, although it is in danger of being hi-jacked to be used as 'proof' that reality (of AGW) is not real (even when it is!) etc
It's a philosophical quandary, and that is fine, as planes (mostly) fly and computers (mostly) work as expected, and in these examples we see the very real power of science, and it is the same re AGW (where the vast body of evidence finds over and over that scientific study into the topic finds AGW 'real'). Yes. The CEO's and few making personal fortunes from fossil fuel burning care little for humanities future it would seem? This is also a known phenomenon around the psychology of most of the rich and powerful in our societies. To be what they are they HAVE TO stop caring about the rest of us and even their very own children. It's a grand psychosis of the modern era and one we need to understand and move away from if we want a future at all imho.
1) I dont think anything that happens on these forums is 'highly problematic for society'.
2) There is no issue with 'the left' 'hunting you down' in 'scientific discussions'. The issue seems more that you struggle to differentiate between 'scientific discussion' and 'random arguments on internet forums', and mask that with delusions of persecution.
As a general rule for those who are similarly puzzled: if you dont have a scientific background, you simply aren't part of the scientific discussion because you have nothing relevant to add. You are still able to to 'discuss' things with random other people who are also not part of the scientific discussion on facebook, but whatever outcome that battle of ignorance results in is, again, of zero relevance to scientific discussion. That isn't unfair either. If you really do want to join a scientific discussion then put down your HOTAS and invest years of your life in getting an appropriate education. If that takes too much effort that is fine too, just know that you won't be 'hunted down' but instead you'll be simply ignored.
Gotta love all the self proclaimed "scientists" on this thread. Ian, gonna need to see some official creds before I'm swallowing that load of swill you're trying to pass off.
Climate change is always real, it would be static otherwise, clearly that has not been the case for about 4 Billion years.
I watched a programme the other evening about how dreadfully treated the scientists (especially Jones) were by the media and how the falsification and manipulation of the temperature records, especially to smooth cooler periods, was "misunderstood".
I've been around for a reasonable amount of time, fortunately I have a good memory and remember the cold periods in the 60's, 70's 80's, 90's 00's and the 10's as well as the hot summers. Its cyclical, one of the best indicators I've found is the amount of salt etc used to treat icy roads. It varies on a 5 and 11 year cycle from highs to lows and its been varying since they started the treatments.
I see nothing out of the ordinary (that hasn't been statistically "bent) going on with the climate that hasn't happened for millenia other than the ramping up fear and loathing, its almost like McCarthyism is back in vogue.
Any scientist who tells you the theory is undeniable, is not a scientist.
I watched a programme the other evening about how dreadfully treated the scientists (especially Jones) were by the media and how the falsification and manipulation of the temperature records, especially to smooth cooler periods, was "misunderstood".
I've been around for a reasonable amount of time, fortunately I have a good memory and remember the cold periods in the 60's, 70's 80's, 90's 00's and the 10's as well as the hot summers. Its cyclical, one of the best indicators I've found is the amount of salt etc used to treat icy roads. It varies on a 5 and 11 year cycle from highs to lows and its been varying since they started the treatments.
I see nothing out of the ordinary (that hasn't been statistically "bent) going on with the climate that hasn't happened for millenia other than the ramping up fear and loathing, its almost like McCarthyism is back in vogue.
Any scientist who tells you the theory is undeniable, is not a scientist.
There are people who will never understand. They will continue to wear undies until the end of their life.
Sure:
I successfully defended my PhD bio-psychology in public last June, which kinda is the opposite of 'self proclaimed'. This is the 'temporary document' you get immediately after, the formal English documents will come in a few months or whatever. Mind you, in English my degree is 'PhD in psychology', we don't have what in the US is called a 'doctor of psychology' over here. Btw, it is of course rather ironic to ask for credentials after what I said, but fine.
So basically your argument is:
1) Things change, so change is normal.
2) All the massive piles of evidence to the contrary is fraudulent by thousands upon thousands of evil scientists.
3) I remember warm days in the past, and this anecdote clearly trumps the massive amounts of scientific evidence that disagrees with my folksy feelies.
4) Dont listen to anyone who claims otherwise because they aren't real scientist.
With the greatest of respect; this is exactly the kind of non-arguments that may convince people on random internet forums, but will get you laughed out of any even remotely serious scientific discussion. For anyone who is interested: nobody says 'the theory is undeniable'. First of all, there is no such thing as 'the theory'. There are many theories, and all of them are probabilistic. These theories deal with many different fields of science, use very different methodologies, are performed by huge numbers of different research teams across multiple generations. Combined, the odds that man-made global warming doesn't exists are very, very, very low. If you want to contribute to this very complex discussion, based on quite literally hundreds of thousands of pages of scientific literature, you really have to bring more than 'I remember it was hot in the past too, and any scientists that disagrees with me is evil and corrupt.' If you like those kind of arguments you might want to go over to the Fox News forums instead.
Ok, that's a little better...though I'm struggling to see how this makes you an expert in the climate field. Your psychology degree while impressive is no more relevant to the topic at hand than my own expertise in building and hanging seamless raingutters.Sure:
I successfully defended my PhD bio-psychology in public last June, which kinda is the opposite of 'self proclaimed'. This is the 'temporary document' you get immediately after, the formal English documents will come in a few months or whatever. Mind you, in English my degree is 'PhD in psychology', we don't have what in the US is called a 'doctor of psychology' over here. Btw, it is of course rather ironic to ask for credentials after what I said, but fine.
That was my very point:
Saying someone is 'a scientist' as some kind of claim-to-authority is rarely meaningful, as the odds that person is an expert on that specific field is incredibly small (note that nobody writes a doctoral thesis on 'global warming', it is always way more specific and niche than that!). And any 'general skills' a scientist might claim to have should then be self-evident as it is basically just a working understanding of the scientific method, the ability to build a coherent argument and the willingness to provide and acknowledge valid sources of information. And you can do that just fine with or without any title or degree. So when someone says 'I dont believe in man-made global warming because I remember hot summers from my youth and scientists are corrupt and evil anyhow' I can simply point out why that is not a valid line of reasoning in a scientific discussion. And that would be true whether or not I have a degree in anything or not.
If taken at face value that seems like a healthy position. So why do you insist on patronizing other non-experts such as yourself? Take a look at how you treated True Phoenix a few posts above; you present like you're an expert who's take on matters at hand is somehow more valid than his "non-expert" opinion. As far as I can tell we're all scientifically ignorant using your metric from post #544.
Edit: oh, and asking you as a psychiatrist: do you know what's better than flowers on your piano?
Last edited:
With other words: You have no clue.
Let me explain for a third time. If it is still unclear, maybe someone else can explain it a bit better. I never claimed I was good at explaining stuff.
First of all, as Heather says, everyone is allowed of course to have and give their opinion. But not every opinion is equally correct or valid, and not every claim should be left unopposed. You have two kinds of relevant knowledge here:1) Specialized knowledge. For example the various possible ways polar ice samples can be contaminated and how to control for that.
2) General knowledge about how arguments are formed, what is a coherent and consistent use of logic, how to find relevant literature and how to phrase points and counterpoints.
Now when someone says "I dont believe in man made global warming because I remember that when I was young there were hot summers too." he immediately disqualifies himself from any serious discussion about this topic. And to give just two reasons for that:
1) You cant brush hundreds of thousands of pages of scientific literature and billions of data points aside with some anecdotal 'evidence'. This is one of the very simple foundations of how science works. If someone doesn't know that that is fine, but then that person should at least acknowledge they are so far out of their depth their opinion caries little to no scientific weight.
2) 'Global warming' is, and it is somewhat disappointing this must constantly be pointed out, global and taking place over a extended time period. Anyone taking a stance for or against the idea of man-made global warming based on how warm they think their backyard was decades ago is completely clueless about even the most basic ideas and concepts of what is being discussed. I swear, every single year when the polar caps melt in the spring the media go ape about global warming, and then when it gains mass in the following winter they are relieved it was all not true. Guys, that is not how any of this works.
You dont need to be an expert to understand the above. This are the absolute basics of discussing climate change. There are plenty of legit debates about all kinds of topics related to climate change within the scientific communities. And when you read about them in the literature you'll see that the various perspectives are all coherent, consistent, logical and well-sourced. With my generalized knowledge I can't determine who is right in those discussions, because I lack the specialized expertise needed to analyze the perspectives on such a granular level. But we're a far cry from getting to the point where you need this expert level knowledge.
By the way, how would you feel if I claimed all roofers are conmen trying to rip people off? You'd probably claim I was ignorant about the industry, and that while of course any given occupation has their fair share of bad apples, making a claim that all tens of thousands of them are bad folks is not just factually wrong but also morally wrong. But somehow some feel it is okay to point at the life work of thousands of scientist over multiple generations and broadly label it as fraudulent and corrupt. That is something I definitely do take issue with.
As for the discussion itself, this is basically what is happening: somebody has been independently examined by thousands of doctors, in countless ways. They write a long report and say they are more than 99% certain you are slowly dying, you have ten years to life, and it is 95% certain it is at least partly caused by your own lifestyle choices. Then the patient comes with the following counter points:
1) Ah its nothing, I've been a bit under the weather in the past too. Health comes and goes, dont worry too much.
2) So 9997 doctors came to that conclusion? Well, three did not so I am going to believe them.
3) Okay, I'll admit I might be dying but it definitely can't be me, its the height of arrogance to pretend we influence our own health. So lets do nothing and let me die.
Notice how none of the arguments counters any arguments made in the report. All studies, methods and analyses are ignored, and instead very generic claims are made about the final conclusion. These arguments dont arise from an open mind and a structured approach on how to find out what is what. Instead, these arguments are the results of backwards-reasoning: start with the desired conclusion and then try to float as many arguments as you can think of in support to see what sticks. Now I am not a medical doctor, and when we get to the nitty-gritty of certain imaging techniques I cant add to the discussion of whether a given modelling approach is valid in this specific context. But I can tell you the above three counter points are rather silly.
Also, many people who are not from academia misunderstand how the profession works on a practical level. Unlike with politics, you dont make a career by 'following the leader'. No physics scholar can get anywhere today by simply agreeing to something already considered to be quite likely true. You cant publish a paper about how the earth is indeed not flat. We know that already, thanks but no thanks. So what scientist set out to do is prove others wrong. The more 'true' a theory is thought to be, the more prestige you can earn by proving its wrong. If you could prove the earth was flat you'd get a Nobel prize for that and you can pick any position in any university you want. But by now it is so clearly 'proven to be true' (not absolutely, but practically) that there is not much to gain from investing resources in testing that idea yet again. Academia rewards strategically using your resources to test theories that you suspect might actually be wrong, as cheaply and efficiently as possible. It does result in a lot of rather irrelevant 'knowledge' (random theory nobody really cared much about turns out to be wrong, and people still dont care much about it), but it doesnt result in scientists secretly huddling together by the thousands of fake some theory.
Currently there is a fair bit of funding available for studies in the field of climate change. The prestige, however, is not in agreeing with it, but in proving (parts of) it is wrong. So when a stupidly huge pile of data, collected by so many different people, all points to the same conclusion that is because the majority of scholars show integrity in their work. If they really were corrupt they would go for the prestige of proving climate change wrong, and get the absolutely sweet 'sell-out cash' the fossil industry for example offers to those willing to prostitute their degree to the highest bidder.
Finally, dont confuse scientific literature with reports in the media. Scientists are conservative in their claims. The average conclusion by a scientist is "given the [insert findings] we can conclude there is sufficient evidence to reject this bit of that sub-theory given the context used in the study. Given the limitations discussed above, generalizations to effects outside the studied context can only be cautiously and tentatively provided.". Unfortunately, nobody wants to read this with their morning cup of coffee, so it inevitably gets dumbed-down to whether we're all gonna die or not. Its why I consistently refused to work with our PR department, who were at times very interested in my work (automated systems to classify human emotions based on physiological measurements). But while the actual results are interesting to a tiny group of scholars, the layman wants to hear the sexed-up version about how in a few years your microwave can tell your lying or some nonsense. Don't blame us, we're trying to be humble in our reports but people don't want the nuanced version. :/
I do, although I didn't learn that during the (mind you, clinical neuropsych aint psychiatry!) lectures, and given the family friendly nature of these forums I'll just point at my organ for you.
Last edited:
@jason: this is a good example of what I mean with statements that so obviously have no place in a serious discussion that you dont need much expert knowledge to notice it.
Ian.... you are no expert in any of this. Just stop pretending to be.@jason: this is a good example of what I mean with statements that so obviously have no place in a serious discussion that you dont need much expert knowledge to notice it.
- Status