"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"

mytwhyt

mytwhyt

Well-Known Member
The science doesn't really matter to anyone reading this thread, one way or the other... We're too damned short lived to be personally affected by any long term climate change.......
Now about holding public office, of course they shouldn't be allowed, and i'm sure it would be a better world if only atheists and agnostics applied for public office.....
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
mytwhyt said:
The science doesn't really matter to anyone reading this thread, one way or the other... We're too damned short lived to be personally affected by any long term climate change.......
Now about holding public office, of course they shouldn't be allowed, and i'm sure it would be a better world if only atheists and agnostics applied for public office.....
Click to expand...
I have children and their kids will see the end of this century. In any case, AGW related flooding, effects on agriculture and extreme storm events are already happening. Shellfish are threatened by ocean acidification. It's going to get worse, not better. I'm going to be OK but that's a ridiculous way to slough off accountability.

All life will not die off, nor will humankind die out unless we go nuclear. That said, effects of rapid AGW are nasty and brutal on populations. It's already happening.
 
mytwhyt

mytwhyt

Well-Known Member
Not quite sure where you're placing the mantle of accountability... But wherever it is, be assured that i'll be sloughing it off....
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
visajoe1 said:
I'm not saying man has zero effect on the earth. I never said that, because I dont believe that.
What I dont believe is the scale and severity to which it is being sold to us. We can do better, absolutely. But, selling this end of the world idea and the only answers to prevent it being eat tree bark, live off grid, and make your own clothes is nonsense. exaggerating of course, but you get it.
Click to expand...
visajoe1 said:
Here is my problem with the rest of your argument though, based on previous era's in earths' life. Is that scientific enough? It happened, we measured it, and reported it. The evidence is still sitting there in fact.

Currently, co2 ppm globally is about 400ppmv. In the jurassic and cretaceous era's, co2 ppm was 2000-4000 ppmv. Life did not die, it thrived. the oceans did not bury the mountains. people werent around then, fortunately.

so, how can everything you say happen now, that didnt happen before, caused by the same elevated element? co2 cant have different properties then as it does now, just like any other element.
Click to expand...
I pulled these quotes from @visajoe1 as an example of the kind of psuedo-science that the denial lobby uses to seed doubt and delay mitigation of climate change caused by burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. Joe made an honest (I think) effort at debating the topic and I'm not picking on joe. I'm just taking a stab at using his arguments as an example of psuedo science and how it is used by the climate change denial lobbyists.

The argument laid out by joe is:
  • The scale and severity of climate change is not as large as we are told
  • Mitigation would require mankind to retreat into the pre industrial age - admits that he's exaggerating to make the point that curtailing and eventually ending burning fossil fuels would force mankind to retreat to primitive life.
  • Carbon dioxide levels in the earth's atmosphere have been as much as 10 times higher than the elevated levels today and earth's life did just fine.
  • What's so special about Carbon dioxide. Isn't is just like any other element?
I'm not mocking joe. He's not alone in asking these and other questions. He seemed earnest in discussing the subject and I'd be glad to resume it with him.

Why do I call Joe's list of argument psuedoscience? First, a definition:
Pseudoscience includes beliefs, theories, or practices that have been or are considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact. This could mean they were disproved scientifically, can’t be tested or lack evidence to support them.
Read more at http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-pseudoscience.html#KqaFatRqGyCQOrfg.99

If you read Joe's posts, they are pretty much free of data or information to back up his arguments. For example, his statement that mankind cannot live a modern life without fossil fuels is not justified with real information. It is just a statement. Also not true. An example of how replacing fossil fuels can be accomplished is covered in this TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables

Then there are the claims that are completely false. For example, the claim that life prospered during the Jurassic era when atmosphere was richer in CO2 than today. Simply not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic–Jurassic_extinction_event .

Life evolved and eco-systems stabilized after the early Jurassic die-off but entire branches of plants and animals disappeared. Recovery also took thousands or millions of years after the climate stabilized. This is what happens when the climate changes faster than evolution. Joe's claim sounded plausible because he picked out one piece of information that is true (4000 ppm(v) CO2), then stated something that was false. I don't think he made it up by himself, I think he got that bit of misinformation from a science denial website. Regardless, this is an example of how to seed doubt by cherry picking data to back up a false conclusion.

Joe caps his last reply with the question of why we are so concerned with just CO2, "isn't it just another element?" Actually CO2 is a molecule but that's a minor error. Finally, we get to the nut of why science denial is so pervasive. Science denial is crafted to be simple and easy to read and repeat. No need to understand the science behind climate change and greenhouse gasses. Just simple neat little factoids, like, "what about the Jurassic era, animals did just fine then?" Joe made clear in his question about carbon dioxide that he did not bother to read or understand what scientists say regarding global warming.

Carbon dioxide absorbs heat in the form of infra-red radiation. When the earth is warmed by the sun, it radiates some of the suns energy in the form of IR. Absent heat absorbing gas molecules, IR radiation would leave the earth. Carbon dioxide and other IR absorbing gasses trap that heat in the lower atmosphere. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat is captured. The rest of the story is complicated but the end effect is increased surface temperatures on the earth.

To recap, what the science denial lobby industry is seeding is doubt. They don't exactly deny the science, they publish disinformation to cause people to question the results of exhaustive research amd real science behind conclusions of the causes of today's changes in climate. The science denial lobby uses lies, cherry picking of data and a growing distrust in today's technology to serve their masters which are the corporations that profit from selling, distributing and using fossil fuels. More on that can be found here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-april-2016#.WKIcIvkrIdU
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I pulled these quotes from @visajoe1 as an example of the kind of psuedo-science that the denial lobby uses to seed doubt and delay mitigation of climate change caused by burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. Joe made an honest (I think) effort at debating the topic and I'm not picking on joe. I'm just taking a stab at using his arguments as an example of psuedo science and how it is used by the climate change denial lobbyists.

The argument laid out by joe is:
  • The scale and severity of climate change is not as large as we are told
  • Mitigation would require mankind to retreat into the pre industrial age - admits that he's exaggerating to make the point that curtailing and eventually ending burning fossil fuels would force mankind to retreat to primitive life.
  • Carbon dioxide levels in the earth's atmosphere have been as much as 10 times higher than the elevated levels today and earth's life did just fine.
  • What's so special about Carbon dioxide. Isn't is just like any other element?
I'm not mocking joe. He's not alone in asking these and other questions. He seemed earnest in discussing the subject and I'd be glad to resume it with him.

Why do I call Joe's list of argument psuedoscience? First, a definition:
Pseudoscience includes beliefs, theories, or practices that have been or are considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact. This could mean they were disproved scientifically, can’t be tested or lack evidence to support them.
Read more at http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-pseudoscience.html#KqaFatRqGyCQOrfg.99

If you read Joe's posts, they are pretty much free of data or information to back up his arguments. For example, his statement that mankind cannot live a modern life without fossil fuels is not justified with real information. It is just a statement. Also not true. An example of how replacing fossil fuels can be accomplished is covered in this TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables

Then there are the claims that are completely false. For example, the claim that life prospered during the Jurassic era when atmosphere was richer in CO2 than today. Simply not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic–Jurassic_extinction_event .

Life evolved and eco-systems stabilized after the early Jurassic die-off but entire branches of plants and animals disappeared. Recovery also took thousands or millions of years after the climate stabilized. This is what happens when the climate changes faster than evolution. Joe's claim sounded plausible because he picked out one piece of information that is true (4000 ppm(v) CO2), then stated something that was false. I don't think he made it up by himself, I think he got that bit of misinformation from a science denial website. Regardless, this is an example of how to seed doubt by cherry picking data to back up a false conclusion.

Joe caps his last reply with the question of why we are so concerned with just CO2, "isn't it just another element?" Actually CO2 is a molecule but that's a minor error. Finally, we get to the nut of why science denial is so pervasive. Science denial is crafted to be simple and easy to read and repeat. No need to understand the science behind climate change and greenhouse gasses. Just simple neat little factoids, like, "what about the Jurassic era, animals did just fine then?" Joe made clear in his question about carbon dioxide that he did not bother to read or understand what scientists say regarding global warming.

Carbon dioxide absorbs heat in the form of infra-red radiation. When the earth is warmed by the sun, it radiates some of the suns energy. Absent heat absorbing gas molecules, IR radiation would leave the earth. Carbon dioxide and other IR absorbing gasses trap that heat in the lower atmosphere. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat is captured. The rest of the story is complicated but the end effect is increased surface temperatures on the earth.

To recap, what the science denial lobby industry is seeding is doubt. They don't exactly deny the science, they publish disinformation to cause people to question the results of exhaustive research amd real science behind conclusions of the causes of today's changes in climate. The science denial lobby uses lies, cherry picking of data and a growing distrust in today's technology to serve their masters which are the corporations that profit from selling, distributing and using fossil fuels. More on that can be found here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-april-2016#.WKIcIvkrIdU
Click to expand...
:clap::hump:

So now how do we get through to people who've just read all the 'science' they care to on the subject?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
:clap::hump:

So now how do we get through to people who've just read all the 'science' they care to on the subject?
Click to expand...
I think something I have little of, but wish I had more, would go a long way towards bridging the communication gap, that being patience with those that have trouble deciphering science-based topics. Putting out the same message and spend time to explain.

For another, the purveyors of lies have been caught red-handed, that being Exxon and other players in the fossil fuel industry. They most definitely knew the harm created by fossil fuels and even considered what to do about their harmful product in the early 1980's. Corporate leaders decided then to quash this effort. Since then, they funded an entire disinformation industry. Personally, I'd advocate clawing back all profits made for the last 20 years and putting those company to death. Apply every bit of profit to the cost of the damage they wrought. Same goes for other players in the fossil fuel industry. We need to hold industry to a standard of truth in what they say. With death penalties.

Of course, we need to deal with Trump and his ilk first.
 
potroastV2

potroastV2

Well-Known Member
Trump and his ilk are beyond help! People like that do not listen to reason, or people who have intelligent ideas, because it's just too hard to understand. So they in effect cover their ears and chant La La La La, because that is the easy thing for them to do.

:mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top