What will it take to convince you of climate change?

[plumber]

What's the problem with humans affecting global climate anyway? The absolute worse thing we can do is wreak complete havoc and wipe ourselves out. That may not be a bad thing really.

Sure, may may also take out a couple million other species with us. But in the long-run, the Earth will survive and continue on and other species will rise up in our place.

You go first.

 

[Gabe]

You asked if people would believe it now; I pointed out the problems with the argument you presented. Namely, through the recorded history of the US and the Colonies that preceded it, that has happened quite a few times.

Some of them before the Industrial Revolution, so obviously, a hurricane can arrive that far north without 'climate change' being a significant factor. Therefore, the fact that it happened proves no more than the years it didn't happen.

Irene is just the tip of the iceberg world-wide: melting glaciers and icecaps, deserts growing, water shortages, and other extreme weather events, way more than in years and centuries past. Plus the last decade has been the hottest on record.

But you've made it clear--it doesn't matter how much evidence there is for you and Ernie--you don't know and you don't care.

As for the insurance study, well, what's the job function of an actuary?

From Insurance Workforce.com:

"An Actuary is responsible for analyzing the possible outcomes of the types of events that could potentially cause policyholders to make claims against their insurance policies. They study the overall likelihood that different events will occur, and they evaluate the potential risks each event poses. Their goal is to try and assess the costs associated with the event should it actually occur."

And they have to be realistic, right? These are free-market actors we're talking about.

 

[afm199]

No war was ever fought over philosophical disagreement alone. That's like saying WWI was caused by the assination of Archduke Ferdinand. As for experts coaching the president, I think the experts know wha they're taking about...but problems are complicated and sometimes there is no real solution but to wait things out. How it's "workin' out for me" (I can just hear Sarah Palin saying that) is actually pretty good. If you're posting on BARF, you're probably middle class and college educated, in which case the unemployment rate is 4.3%.

I figured you would say something like that. I agree that problems can be complicated and waiting is what is sometimes needed.

Nice that you tied me to Sarah Palin, a woman I consider a nitwit, but you apparently don't get what is happening today goes far beyond middle class employment; in which case the 4.3% figure may apply to part time temp workers. If you think the economy is good for middle class workers I got a for you. We're rapidly moving into have/have not territory, if you think that's gonna be "working out well" for you, keep listening to whatever purveyor of pap you find convenient.

One thing you are consistent in. You defend your views with a firm belief in your personal rectitude and a knowledge that you can't possibly be wrong. i like that in a demagogue.

 

[Marlowe]

From Insurance Workforce.com:

"An Actuary is responsible for analyzing the possible outcomes of the types of events that could potentially cause policyholders to make claims against their insurance policies. They study the overall likelihood that different events will occur, and they evaluate the potential risks each event poses. Their goal is to try and assess the costs associated with the event should it actually occur."

And they have to be realistic, right? These are free-market actors we're talking about.

And why do they have to do that?

To ensure that their employer makes money. As much money as possible, please.

Their job, like the rest of us, is to ensure someone turns a profit.

And their bosses?

Inveterate gamblers. Insurance is nothing but legalized gambling. The actuary is their odds maker.

Someone like Lloyds will take either side of ANY bet -- and sometimes both sides -- for the right price. They are nothing but bookmakers. If it's in their interests to plead poverty, they will do so.

 

[Owensdad]

"It can only be explained by global warming," he added."

The Munich RE statement may be entirely true. So what? The climate is always changing, no? You intend to cite this report from "free market actors" as evidence that humans must be the cause. You are linking two facts with an assumption. A logical no-no.

So I can't have an opinion on something if I don't have a full understanding of how it works?

You can have all the opinions you want... just don't expect others to take your view as a cold hard fact.

...it's actually very clear to 80-97 percent of the scientists who study the issue. And it has been for a long time.

I love the precision... somewhere between 80 and 97%.

Lastly, I posit this to the OP: "What would it take to convince you that climate change is *not* anthropogenic?"

I suspect no amount of evidence would do so.

 

[Gabe]

The Munich RE statement may be entirely true. So what? The climate is always changing, no? You intend to cite this report from "free market actors" as evidence that humans must be the cause. You are linking two facts with an assumption. A logical no-no.

Well, the point of the story was that global warming triggered climate change. And yes, the climate changes, but it's changing faster than it should.

You can have all the opinions you want... just don't expect others to take your view as a cold hard fact.

They aren't my opinions alone. They are the opinions of somewhere between 80 and 97% of the scientists who study the problem.

Lastly, I posit this to the OP: "What would it take to convince you that climate change is *not* anthropogenic?"

I suspect no amount of evidence would do so.

If more than half the climate scientists (who aren't being paid by right-wing think tanks or the fossil-fuel industry) agree it isn't. And Florida isn't under water.

 

[RRR70]

Gabe, for a smart guy you are pretty gullible.
P.S. Say HI to Doc Elson.

 

[Owensdad]

1 Well, the point of the story was that global warming triggered climate change. And yes, the climate changes, but it's changing faster than it should.

2 They aren't my opinions alone. They are the opinions of somewhere between 80 and 97% of the scientists who study the problem.

3 If more than half the climate scientists (who aren't being paid by right-wing think tanks or the fossil-fuel industry) agree it isn't. And Florida isn't under water.

1 How the heck do we know how fast the climate *should* change? There's a baseline? Whoa, climate science is alot easier than I thought!

2 Excluding opinions of scientists paid by left wing think tanks and the "green energy" insustry, right?

3 Wait 10 years for the concensus to change. And PS Florida isn't underwater.

My point is simply that there is such a profound lack of evidence with respect to whether the climate is changing outside of normal geological ranges, the *cause* if so, whether that is good or bad, whether we could change it if we wanted to, and whether it would be worth the cost to do so, that this debate is 100% idealogical.

 

[nakedape]

Hopefully all the alleged melting can give us some more water. Jeez Gabe, look around you. Massive infrastructure meltdown, dwindling fresh water for ag and industry, polluted drinking aquifers from ag and industry, dead zones in major food producing waters, defunding DFG and other "good" government protectors, I could go on and on.

ANY "global" consensus you want to refer to is made up of paid players. I know because I've met them. Recovering metals for industry drives recycling policies. You know how I know that? I dated the compliance officer for Agilent technologies and she was privy to govt. moves regarding "greening" YEARS ahead of popular press. Don't kid yourself that PC makers want to relieve Southeast Asia of their staggering e-waste burdens, they want to recover and reuse precious metals in all those circuit boards.

As a journalist, you should know to follow the money. There is ZERO altruism and concern for greater humanity behind global warming, I mean climate change, legislation and policies. That is only the feel good/bad front being put up by the players. In schools the one-sided presentations and textbook pollution with half-assed opinions is blatant. Watch how climate change pushes US students away from the truth and facts as insidiously as the more obviously stupid creationist forces. Forget basic sciences, let's endlessly speculate about possible mega-changes!

If you want to sequester carbon look to polyculture and permaculture in place of monoculture. If you have a concern about the future of humanity, work to secure clean water and turn back soil destruction. That's the only environmental catastrophe Americans need to be concerned with.

 

[nebulous]

The earth has been both hotter and colder w/o any help from homo sapiens.

I think environmentalism is just another form of totalitarianism. Do you think it is a coincidence that Earth day is also Lenin's birthday?

 

[sliverstorm]

Trouble is, the non-believers would like to wait until Florida is underwater.

Then once Florida is underwater, they will make a big stink about how we should have seen this coming, what on earth are we paying scientists for, etc etc

 

[afm199]

Trouble is, the non-believers would like to wait until Florida is underwater.

Then once Florida is underwater, they will make a big stink about how we should have seen this coming, what on earth are we paying scientists for, etc etc

I suspect global warming is taking place. I suspect humans have something to do with it. I don't know that it's good, bad or even possible to change. I don't believe, at all, that short term changes in weather of the last five or ten years are due to human only causes, or that the change is long term. Experts told us, forty years ago, that long term cooling was taking place.

You want a solution? Too fuckng many people.

 

[juha_teuvonnen]

The climate changes, alright. Anyone who has basic knowledge on history knows that. In fact it changed drastically back when humas did not exist, and it changed severely when humans were still savages living in caves.

It's the concept that human activity has something to do with climate change that we're having a problem with. So far, no convincing evidence of that was presented. In fact, we have seen cooling rather than warming for the last few years. Which is why the proponents of the "global warming" promptly renamed their scam to "global climate change"

 

[mlm]

I suspect global warming is taking place. I suspect humans have something to do with it. I don't know that it's good, bad or even possible to change. I don't believe, at all, that short term changes in weather of the last five or ten years are due to human only causes, or that the change is long term. Experts told us, forty years ago, that long term cooling was taking place.

You want a solution? Too fuckng many people.

Definitely agree with the bolded part, although I'm not so sure some of the recent changes aren't related.

Climate change imposes outcome risks, but so do methods of mitigating those risks. Those need to be evaluated with a cost benefit approach, not doomsaying or denying.

 

[afm199]

Definitely agree with the bolded part, although I'm not so sure some of the recent changes aren't related.

Climate change imposes outcome risks, but so do methods of mitigating those risks. Those need to be evaluated with a cost benefit approach, not doomsaying or denying.

The problem here is complex. The global variations ( Macro climate) impact micro climates ( regional US, Africa, etc.). The micro climate changes can be sudden and violent, but they are micro climate changes. CERN says cosmic rays have a HUGE impact on global warming and humans much less, and this a LARGE number of scientists from CERN, and very new info from new research. We're talking state of the art research here.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...hines-some-light-on-global-warming-orthodoxy/

Now whether it is true or not or partially or whatever, it points out that global warming/cooling is a phenomena that is extremely complex, and one that we know much less than we think about. It's is BIG stuff, and we don't have the tools to do BIG research. We don't have the minds or knowledge to encompass all the data, much less integrate it.

But when the witch doctors, errh I mean experts, say the sky is falling, you better believe it is falling.

 

[jhawksteele]

My attention span is too short to read the 12 previous pages...

Have any of you seen a documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

 

[macadamizer]

Not going to jump into the argument, just thought I would post a link to a relevant article from Reason: http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/01/the-conservative-reversal-on-s

Cliff notes: I think it leans more towards Gabe's position than the other way.

 

[Marlowe]

Not going to jump into the argument, just thought I would post a link to a relevant article from Reason: http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/01/the-conservative-reversal-on-s

Cliff notes: I think it leans more towards Gabe's position than the other way.

A survey of climate scientists who have published research in the field found that 97 to 98 percent believe people are causing the planet to heat up.

Translation:

A survey of folks who make their living talking about 'climate change' agree it exists.



This is a nice rhetorical trick, though:

There are, of course, some scientists who express doubts about global warming. But what would environmental skeptics say if 97 percent of scientists solemnly announced that climate change is a massive pile of horsefeathers?

Notice how it goes from "97% of scientists that make their living talking about it" to "97% of scientists?"

It's a cheap trick, and the author should be ashamed.

And going from "people agree this exists" to "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!" when we can't quantify anything, well that's another leap entirely.

Note that I agree it probably /exists/

But nobody has been able to tell me to what extent.

 

[macadamizer]

Translation:

A survey of folks who make their living talking about 'climate change' agree it exists.



This is a nice rhetorical trick, though:



Notice how it goes from "97% of scientists that make their living talking about it" to "97% of scientists?"

It's a cheap trick, and the author should be ashamed.

And going from "people agree this exists" to "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!" when we can't quantify anything, well that's another leap entirely.

Note that I agree it probably /exists/

But nobody has been able to tell me to what extent.

Maybe the point of my posting the article wasn't clear -- I posted the article not for the truth of the matter (it's not a scientific article, and doesn't pretend to be one) but more as speaking to the original (old, now) theme of the thread, which is what would sort of level of information would it take to sway one's thoughts on the matter.

 

[sliverstorm]

I suspect global warming is taking place. I suspect humans have something to do with it. I don't know that it's good, bad or even possible to change. I don't believe, at all, that short term changes in weather of the last five or ten years are due to human only causes, or that the change is long term. Experts told us, forty years ago, that long term cooling was taking place.

You want a solution? Too fuckng many people.

I generally agree with you in everything you have stated here. However, I do feel like the direction we're told we should be going to save the planet from destruction (fewer emissions, more forest, less energy consumption, better energy sources) is a good direction, whether or not we're on our way to cooking ourselves. If we are heating the place up, great, we save the planet before it becomes a problem (and if we wait until we're sure it's a problem, it'll be too late for sure) and if not, oh no, we have cleaner air, more energy and more natural resources. Oh the humanity