Google Calls Climate Change Science Deniers Liars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Krenum said:
Is that, the Earth this "rock" you call it does not need our intervention. Climate change will occur regardless of our activities. Its the way the Earth cleanses itself. It has its cycles. Everything we produce comes from the Earth and in time will be given back to the Earth. For as long as we are here. However long that may be. And if we somehow disappear, you can be sure that something else will take our place. Until the core goes cold and the planets atmosphere dissipates (see Mars).
Click to expand...
It's hard to understand someone that doesn't care about human survival. You lost me. You're so confident in the Earth but you at the least 50% want humanity to go fail.

Hate to break it to you but humans may just outlive this planet, when it's dead. Cheers.
 
JaiWebb said:
Hate to break it to you but humans may just outlive this planet, when it's dead. Cheers.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it. Modern man has only been here for around two hundred thousand years compared to the 4.5 or so billons of years the Earth has been here. For us to reach those kinds of numbers in existence, something radical will need to happen in our evolution.

I'd like to think we will do great things and be around to explore the universe but as of late its not looking too good for the home team. We can't even feed people that are hungry. How are we supposed to explore the stars?
 
fdiaz78 said:
So what are you doing to reduce your carbon footprint?
Click to expand...

Not a whole lot can be done.

I have alWays believed that the earth can not sustain more than a few hundred million middle class human beings.

But I don't deny facts.
 
Krenum said:
Humans cannot destroy the Earth! Cmon guys! Use some common sense.

If asteroids haven't done it yet (and the Earth has been hit by ALOT of them) then there's not a snowballs chance in hell we can do it.

That being said, we CAN destroy us. But the Earth will remain and it will rebuild over our bones.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure we could turn Earth into Mars if we intentionally dispersed all available enriched uranium into the atmosphere. Sure we'd have a nice shiny rock with radioactive oceans, but we've effectively destroyed any value it has as a planet.
 
So lets take one last look at the anti-science crowd uses as 'evidence'

1) There is little to no consensus on climate science - there is
2) There are repeated doomsday predictions in recent history - there aren't
3) There is a financial incentive to promote renewable energy - there is more to resist it
4) Lifelong underpaid scientists who have dedicated their lives are untrustworthy advocates - billionaire CEO's aren't
5) Described liberal hippy bunny loving democrats are trying to control you - because as history has demonstrated tree huggers rule the world with an iron fist
6) Climate change happens all the time - context is irrelevant in this matter

The very definition of propaganda
 
Yeah really. Using junk science as a political bludgeon. It's "popular and politically correct" to believe in global warming, even though the numbers have been tampered with over and over and the whole thing used as a political football for years.
 
Advil said:
Yeah really. Using junk science as a political bludgeon. It's "popular and politically correct" to believe in global warming, even though the numbers have been tampered with over and over and the whole thing used as a political football for years.
Click to expand...

Political football it may be....but the numbers are legit and the science is sound. You could search for the next 10 fucking years and you won't find a reputable source that backs up your claim. ALL the money is on the global warming denial side of the argument (aka big oil and the like), don't you think if scientific consensus among climate scientists really could be bought out then it would have already...by THE FUCKING FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES??? They only managed to buy out the politicians, you know...the ones without brains. Apparently you are just stupid for free.

At least we know what the people who fought against the widespread usage of lead in fuel. It took decades (after initial discovery) of political bullshit to finally get rid of that ridiculous health hazard. You know why? Because the money was on the denial side. Strange how history repeats itself.
 
^^^ fixed

*At least we know what the people who fought against the widespread usage of lead in fuel felt like.*
 
The concept of 'scientific consensus' is incredibly anti-science. You don't get to vote on science. Through history, the majority of 'experts' have been dead wrong on science. The only thing democratic about it is that you're suppose to be open with your data and open and public with your methods. The promoters have been open with neither. In fact they have destroyed data (supposedly not enough storage space). Every time I hear "consensus = proof", I hear either and incredible misunderstanding of science or a huckster.
 
McFry said:
4) Lifelong underpaid scientists who have dedicated their lives are untrustworthy advocates - billionaire CEO's aren't
Click to expand...

Billionaires? Like the guys that run Google?

Underpaid scientists' - are somehow saints? A scientist gotta eat like the rest of us and will do and say just about anything to get and keep a paycheck. Some more than others. The ones that push forward what is wanted get more money next time. Scientist paychecks come from either 'billionaires' (see Google example above) or the government.
 
Al Gore, the high priest of global warming, predicted the arctic would be melted by 2014.
 
mope54 said:
I don't know if Gore actually claimed this, but your comment indicates you haven't been watching any recent documentaries about the topic.
Click to expand...

If it was science, it would be predictable, and they wouldn't need to change their predictions every year, and I wouldn't need to keep up.
 
BladeVenom said:
If it was science, it would be predictable, and they wouldn't need to change their predictions every year, and I wouldn't need to keep up.
Click to expand...
when you hear this claim that the models are revised it probably makes you think that their calculations are fluctuating all over the place--like up one year and down another. That's the crap that earlier posters were spewing about changing the conversation from cooling to warming as if there was some kind of error that made us all think things were going one way and then to our surprise they swung the other. But in fact, there was no "shift" but rather a concern about different phenomenon.

In any case, those differences in prediction aren't due to error like you seem to be thinking.

You have scientists stating it could be X if this happens or Y if that happens.
All this ignores the fact that science is *not* predictable like your premise states--that's why we use confidence intervals, for example.


But I'm going to answer your underlying question anyway, despite those problems with the way you framed the question in your mind.

At one point in time we thought there was some kind of relationship between our pollutants and our weather patterns. We made some predictions, we tested the results, and it turns out the models were wildly inaccurate--in so far as the situation was worse than the worse case scenarios. The models became more complex. Again, the predictions for worst case scenarios were inaccurate--but again in the wrong direction...things were worse than we expected.

Why was this happening?

There's some kind of relationship between pollutants and climate. We're trying to figure it out. Meanwhile, pollutants are getting worse, and forests are being cut down, and forest fires are occurring more often and more severely.

Soot is blowing over to what used to be pristine white ice. Now you notice in that video that the ice is all blackened. Next time you go outside on a hot day, touch the backtop street. Then touch the white concrete. Notice anything different between the two?

The ice caps are shrinking. The amount of white surface area that used to reflect some of the sun's heat back up is becoming smaller. This is a different impact than the fact that the ice itself is actually retaining more heat because of what's embedded in it.

So all those things needed to be accounted for in the newest models.

Then something happened that no one was expecting: the caps started to crumble and melt from the inside. You know, we tend to conceptualize an ice cube sitting on the counter melting away at some finite rate. But we don't generally think that our ice cube is going to have debris embedded in it that will make it looser and easier to crumble. We don't think the darkness of the cube is going to retain more heat and make it melt faster. So we had to revise how quickly this process occurs yet again.

As the ice melted, all those streams in that video (you did watch it right? you can take 4 minutes out of your day and watch a video so at the very least you know what you're arguing against. be a responsible consumer of information at least) started eating away at the caps from underneath. And when they started calving (that's what it's called when large sheets of ice simply shear off the from the mother) those huge amounts of ice started creating agitation along the edges thereby breaking them faster.

Something they didn't quite predict adequately was that the warmer ocean temperature (the ocean itself has become warmer, you get it? this isn't like the ocean has always been this temperature and these scientists were incompetent who couldn't model this--the thing they were measuring changed more rapidly than the model predicted because of various loops) created a pressure differential when the cold ice began hitting it so rapidly.

So you have kind of a giant washing machine action going on. And if you've ever played with slushies or something, you'd know that when you agitate melting ice with warmer fluid it breaks the ice down faster...and faster...and faster...because as it breaks down it creates more surface area to interact with the elements that are eroding it in the first place.

If you take an ice cube and put it on your counter it will melt at a known rate. If you break it in half, it will melt at an accelerated rate. If you smash it into little bits it won't even last a full minute because you have like a hundred tiny ice cubes with all that surface area exposed to warmth melting away.


Science is iterative.
So unless you are arguing for a static way of looking at the world, your statement makes no rational sense. We should never update our understanding of how the world works because science is predictable and no one should have to keep up with the science?

None of us here in the forums from the scientific community believe that. We all have to read respective journals in our fields of expertise for the latest and greatest development. Otherwise, when we go to a conference and speak about an issue and use some old, debunked or stale explanation we'll look like we didn't do our research and that we're idiots.

I'm one of the leading experts in my field, and even I have to read what other people have to say about my field of expertise. (I'm not a climatologist nor am I a glaciologist. I'm simply explaining to you how science actually works. It's not static.)
 
you don't have to believe me, but for sanity's sake quit regurgitating Rush Limbaugh talking points basically verbatim:

polar bear and global cooling scare raised in this thread nearly word for word lifted from this transcript:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2...ove_algore_s_melting_ice_cap_prediction_wrong

I don't know if you listen to the guy's rants. but if you didn't know, you should know that people making those claims either heard them from him or from someone who did. he's not exactly someone I'd like to depend upon as a reliable source of scientific information if you get my drift

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...th-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/
 
http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.
Click to expand...

Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.
 
pigster said:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565



Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.
Click to expand...
next time you decide to go off on a google hunt to find something to refute a position, read the article before posting it

The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, "How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?"
Click to expand...
 
might also be noteworthy to add to Koonin's vitae that he was also BP's chief scientist
 
hey all you tree hugger hippies, if we can cause "global warming" which is now "climate change" then inherent in your position is the belief that we can well, change the climate so what is the problem? hur durrr
 
mope54 said:
might also be noteworthy to add to Koonin's vitae that he was also BP's chief scientist
Click to expand...

Oh, the horror!! Everyone knows that the moment you take ONE DOLLAR from industry that your scientific credibility is shot and you're now a shill for the oil barons.

In all seriousness, I'm puzzled as to why taking money from a NGO that is a strong advocate for a position presents no conflict, yet taking money from industry makes you unreliable.
 
We need to stop the "Man-Bear-Pig", who farts horrible amounts of CO2 into the air.
MANBEARPIG_by_Helwan.png

And march against these polluting Volcanoes, maybe a carbon tax will stop them. :rolleyes:
 
pigster said:
Oh, the horror!! Everyone knows that the moment you take ONE DOLLAR from industry that your scientific credibility is shot and you're now a shill for the oil barons.

In all seriousness, I'm puzzled as to why taking money from a NGO that is a strong advocate for a position presents no conflict, yet taking money from industry makes you unreliable.
Click to expand...
you posted his links to the Obama administration
I simply filled in that you left out he was the chief scientist for BP

one might wonder why you left that out if you think that position one's background is relevant
and one might wonder why you're now making an issue out of pointing out his links to the oil industry

in fact, one might go so far as to just laugh out loud at the feigned surprise you are experiencing about anyone being skeptical of claims about climate change from one of the largest oil company's chief scientist
 
cptnjarhead said:
We need to stop the "Man-Bear-Pig", who farts horrible amounts of CO2 into the air.
MANBEARPIG_by_Helwan.png

And march against these polluting Volcanoes, maybe a carbon tax will stop them. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

^this, cows farting pose a serious threat to our climate, they are bringing global warming upon us! we need to ban all cows immediately.
 
mope54 said:
in fact, one might go so far as to just laugh out loud at the feigned surprise you are experiencing about anyone being skeptical of claims about climate change from one of the largest oil company's chief scientist
Click to expand...

So anything he says is to be dismissed, he's not a "real" scientist?
 
pigster said:
So anything he says is to be dismissed, he's not a "real" scientist?
Click to expand...
I'm sure he's a real scientist.

I'm confused on your position here...are you having trouble connecting why some people might wonder if BP has something to gain by having their chief scientist publicly state that there isn't any scientific consensus about whether human activity is primarily responsible for climate changes?
 
mope54 said:
I'm sure he's a real scientist.

I'm confused on your position here...are you having trouble connecting why some people might wonder if BP has something to gain by having their chief scientist publicly state that there isn't any scientific consensus about whether human activity is primarily responsible for climate changes?
Click to expand...

First off, I don't think he's taking that position.

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.
Click to expand...

I'm just amused by the assumption that the moment you work for industry, you lose credibility. While I'm sure there are scientists that will say whatever their boss tells them, I would expect most would be concerned about their reputation and integrity.
 
pigster said:
So anything he says is to be dismissed, he's not a "real" scientist?
Click to expand...

I don't understand your posts? Shouldn't you want what he says to be dismissed? You posted his article in an attempt to refute the idea that the science behind climate change is settled .... the problem is you didn't actually read the article because he states that there is no doubt that humans are contributing to climate change and that co2 is indeed a huge factor.
 
pigster said:
First off, I don't think he's taking that position.



I'm just amused by the assumption that the moment you work for industry, you lose credibility. While I'm sure there are scientists that will say whatever their boss tells them, I would expect most would be concerned about their reputation and integrity.
Click to expand...
Well apparently you should read the article since you posted it and that's exactly what he's arguing.

Well, you seem hell bent on defending his credibility without evaluating his claims.

The first thing I did was actually read the article. So that's number 1.

Then I thought about his claims. that's number 2.

I considered two of his main claims: that humans *only* account for roughly 1-2% of climate variation and that a couple hundred years ago our oceans were warming up despite much less human activity.

Now we both know, well or at least I know, that both of those claims are dubious (at best).

A 1-2% shift in your body temperature can indicate a serious problem.
A 2% loss of water can lead to dehydration.
A 2% shift in water parameters in a fish tank will wipe the entire tank out.

So a closed system, like our Earth, can experience significant disruption from a "mere" 1-2% shift. So when someone implies that it's not a big deal because the number is small it raises my antennae.

When you couple that with the fact he makes the claim we humans weren't having a significant impact on the planet a couple hundred years ago, seemingly banking on people going along with that reasoning since presumably there were a lot less humans on the planet, but educated people know that he's talking about the period of the industrial revolution. So there's that.

So he's not lying. He's just making claims, implying that certain impacts were less significant than the data indicates, and emphasizing numbers in a manner intended to mislead.

So I basically took your emphasis of his credentials at face value. I was kinda sitting there thinking, wow that's weird. Those claims don't seem to square with, well you know, kinda wha I think I know about the subject. What could explain what he thinks and what I think...

I wonder what his background is. I googled it. So yeah, when evaluating anyone's claims about data we should always think about the source. That's the entire thrust of credibility. Do you just believe people because they tell you they ought to be believed? That's a very dangerous and gullible position to put yourself in.
 
Draax said:
I don't understand your posts? Shouldn't you want what he says to be dismissed? You posted his article in an attempt to refute the idea that the science behind climate change is settled .... the problem is you didn't actually read the article because he states that there is no doubt that humans are contributing to climate change and that co2 is indeed a huge factor.
Click to expand...
exactly.

and I don't understand why the article is making some kind of linkage between Koonin and the Obama administration. His background is either relevant or not. This cherry-picking is sorta bizarre in my opinion.

presumably his background with the Obama administration becomes relevant in so far as it implies he might share some kind of political leanings with the President. Saying something controversial like there's not enough evidence to stop or reduce the way we're behaving (even after admitting full force that it's indisputable that carbon emissions have a significant impact on the climate) is obviously going to look more credible coming from the President's "inside" man.

But if his background is relevant, why leave out the fact that he was the chief scientist for one of the globe's largest oil companies?

Why leave out that he was only brought into the administrations council because Chu thought that having BP's lead man would facilitate a working relationship with the company during the spills?

It was a strategic hire...politics. The fact that the backstory on him is completely missing from the narrative should be a major red flag about who or what he stands for.
 
mope54 said:
what I say to this is that you sure have accepted a lot of propaganda as fact and should go do your own primary research (secondary, to be precise).
Click to expand...

Research? Why would I do research. That is exactly what we have been told for decades now. The point is that every time you claim the world is going to end/we have reached a point of no return/we have to change something now or we are fucked. If you tell me that and back it up with fact I will likely adjust my course. However if you tell me that every year and keep adjusting the "point of no return" date so that we never quite reach it yet its still close enough to scare people. Yea I am going to call bullshit on that.
 
m heisty said:
Research? Why would I do research. That is exactly what we have been told for decades now. The point is that every time you claim the world is going to end/we have reached a point of no return/we have to change something now or we are fucked. If you tell me that and back it up with fact I will likely adjust my course. However if you tell me that every year and keep adjusting the "point of no return" date so that we never quite reach it yet its still close enough to scare people. Yea I am going to call bullshit on that.
Click to expand...
I suggested you do research because you claimed that you've been warned repeatedly that things are going to get bad and then concluded that things aren't bad so those warnings were false.

"as far as I can tell the world isn't burning up and life isn't dying off at an uncontrollable rate"
you need to do some research because your perspective on this is wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top