Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Shrunk · **#101** by **Shrunk** » Jul 31, 2015 7:14 pm

Another wee error:

What I do see is the science of climate change is treated a tad bit different than regular scientific issues, mainly because it is a political issue. If a certain climate change model or prediction is correct, then it may be offered as necessitating a particular kind of political action.

That's not really true. Just one example I could think of off the top of my head: The theory of gravity is used as justification for the expensive and cumbersome building codes that require skyscrapers be supported by steel girders, as opposed to something less costly, like cooked pasta. I'm sure you can think of others.

Macdoc · **#102** by **Macdoc** » Jul 31, 2015 8:19 pm

42

Yes, and it's also manufactured by the pro-AGW group, which views it as an unassailable truth, that has been conclusively proven and is not open for debate.

Bullshit.....facts and evidence say you are completely wrong. It IS conclusively proven...is the body of knowledge complete?? no .....but you still get on a fucking airplane even tho aerodynamic theory is incomplete.

To overthrow AGW means to overthrow the optical properties of CO2....the fucking principle has been proven and clear for over 100 years.
You are simply repeating utter tripe that you patently do not understand at all.

WHy don't you actually learn some science instead of spewing right wing crap with zero basis in fact or evidence.

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

There are many areas of uncertainty as to the consequences, sea change level for one....is there ANY uncertainty about AGW .....no.
Even something fundamental as evolution remains a theory and is open to a new explanation as is AGW.....all you have to do is come up with an alternative explanation based in known physics that matches the evidence.
Not gonna happen.

When you are talking GHG you are into basic physics, the optical properties of gases. GHG keeps the planet habitable - its role is complex as both a feedback and forcing which many can't get their heads around.

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2 ... te-system/

If you are an honest enquirer we'd be happy to enlighten you as to why your premise of "unproven" is incorrect.
You just have to look at the evidence.

That is not the hard part, the hard part comes with what to do about it.

Sadegh · **#103** by **Sadegh** » Jul 31, 2015 9:14 pm

Macdoc wrote:To overthrow AGW means to overthrow the optical properties of CO2....the fucking principle has been proven and clear for over 100 years.

That's why the more sophisticated denialists tend to rely on negative feedbacks, time series analysis etc.

Not saying I agree with them.

Forty Two · **#104** by **Forty Two** » Aug 03, 2015 4:59 pm

Macdoc wrote:42
Yes, and it's also manufactured by the pro-AGW group, which views it as an unassailable truth, that has been conclusively proven and is not open for debate.

Bullshit.....facts and evidence say you are completely wrong. It IS conclusively proven...is the body of knowledge complete?? no .....but you still get on a fucking airplane even tho aerodynamic theory is incomplete.

To overthrow AGW means to overthrow the optical properties of CO2....the fucking principle has been proven and clear for over 100 years.
You are simply repeating utter tripe that you patently do not understand at all.

WHy don't you actually learn some science instead of spewing right wing crap with zero basis in fact or evidence.

I think you need to calm down. One, nothing is "conclusively" proven, but I have already said, on this thread, that I accept AGW science in general. I'm not ht denier in any way.

The idea that AGW theory is good is not mutually exclusive to the idea that factions exaggerate it or use it to bolster arguments to achieve a certain political or ideological objective.

And, I've been open about the fact that I have a hard time wrapping my arms around the science. What I think I understand, I think supports the notion that the climate is changing and mankind is to some extent responsible for it. I'm not dopey enough, however, to lash out at people, like you do, with stupid comments about "spewing right wing crap." I've said nothing "right wing" in the least -- but, the fact that you seem to think this is some sort of "Left wing political issue" does indicate that you view it as a political issue, and not a scientific one.

Macdoc wrote:

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

There are many areas of uncertainty as to the consequences, sea change level for one....is there ANY uncertainty about AGW .....no.
Even something fundamental as evolution remains a theory and is open to a new explanation as is AGW.....all you have to do is come up with an alternative explanation based in known physics that matches the evidence.
Not gonna happen.

So what? That's not in opposition to anything I said, so I don't know why your bitching at me.

Macdoc wrote:

When you are talking GHG you are into basic physics, the optical properties of gases. GHG keeps the planet habitable - its role is complex as both a feedback and forcing which many can't get their heads around.

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2 ... te-system/

If you are an honest enquirer we'd be happy to enlighten you as to why your premise of "unproven" is incorrect.
You just have to look at the evidence.

That is not the hard part, the hard part comes with what to do about it.

"We?" Oh, I'm always happy to be educated, but as for YOU in particular, the shrill and mean-spirited nature of your address to me, coupled with the fact that you plainly didn't even read what I had typed out, doesn't make me want to discuss anything with you.

Shrunk · **#105** by **Shrunk** » Aug 03, 2015 6:07 pm

Some people still don't seem to get it: Nothing wrong with JAQing off. But, please, not in public.

mcgruff · **#106** by **mcgruff** » Aug 03, 2015 6:56 pm

You say you "accept AGW science in general" but then you also say:

Forty Two wrote:the climate is changing and mankind is to some extent responsible for it

That is denial. We know the recent, sudden spike in global temperature (the hockey stick) is anthropogenic. There is a massive anomaly left after accounting for other factors and it is entirely man-made.

Forty Two · **#107** by **Forty Two** » Aug 03, 2015 7:35 pm

mcgruff wrote:You say you "accept AGW science in general" but then you also say:

Forty Two wrote:the climate is changing and mankind is to some extent responsible for it

That is denial. We know the recent, sudden spike in global temperature (the hockey stick) is anthropogenic. There is a massive anomaly left after accounting for other factors and it is entirely man-made.

It's not denial. The IPCC recently announced that human-caused greenhouse gases contributed to 90+ percent of the observed increase in global average temperature over the past 50 years. So, the IPCC does not say "entirely." Mostly, yes. Entirely, no.

There are peer reviewed articles about the contributions of natural sources of greenhouse gas emissions, and other sources of warming that are not man-made.

I'm not arguing that it isn't manmade, or even probably mostly manmade. The science is the science.

However, even the recent meta-studies of various publications reveal a 97% attribution to man-made sources (which is not to say "entirely" man made, but that mankind is mostly or partly to blame in some respect). Even if there only remains 3% of the peer reviewed publications that say it is not man-made, or even happening, that doesn't mean they are irrelevant to the discussion. It's not a democracy. It's what the papers say that is important. So, if we haven't read and understood them, then we can't hand-wave them away entirely, in my opinion. Maybe one of them is spot on?

That's the way I approach scientific issues - like evolution. I am solid my confidence that it happens. However, the drivers of evolution and their relative contributions to the process are, have been, and will continue to be in hot debate for some time to come. And, do we have to be open to the possibility that it can be disproved altogether? Sure. Do I think it will be, no. Were I a bettin' man, I'd lay a big bet on evolution being true. But, we always have to be ready to have our most dearly held or confidently held beliefs proven wrong.

To get all "J'accuse!" about folks who "deny" or are "skeptical" about complex scientific issues is immature. If you care about it, explain it to them. If you don't, ignore them. But, all this "right winger!" and "Denier!" crap is just hand-waving and non-arguments. And, appeals to consensus are not persuasive, especially not in science.

Macdoc · **#108** by **Macdoc** » Aug 03, 2015 7:50 pm

What a load of horsepucky.....so the fuck what there are minor natural drivers....many theories remain incomplete yet we act with confidence on what we DO know. You get on a plane don't you?

The science is NOT complex....it's straight forward... has been for a century .....one more bullshit smoke screen.

You are hiding unwillingness to act behind Hail Mary nonsense about maybe it's not true. Skepticism is not a badge to cover ignorance....especially willful ignorance.

So let's put it out straight so readers understand YOUR stance.

Do you accept that global warming is primarily due to human activities, notably burning of fossil fuels.

Do you accept this is a dangerous risk to the biome and human populations over near term time scales?

Do you accept an urgent need to decarbonize industrial civilization?

:popcorn:

Forty Two · **#109** by **Forty Two** » Aug 03, 2015 8:38 pm

Macdoc wrote:What a load of horsepucky.....so the fuck what there are minor natural drivers.

Just a point of accuracy. Not entirely is not entirely, and there is some debate in the peer reviewed literature as to the extent of influence of natural drivers.

Bleating and blaring about how it's "entirely" man made or exclusively man made is not productive, because it's generally considered inaccurate.

Macdoc wrote:
...many theories remain incomplete yet we act with confidence on what we DO know. You get on a plane don't you?

Yes, and what the fuck are you on about? Of course we act with respect to what we know. Where have I said we don't?

Macdoc wrote:
The science is NOT complex....it's straight forward... has been for a century .....one more bullshit smoke screen.

It absolutely has not been straightforward for a century. Are you claiming that climate science has been settled or known as it is today since 1915?

The science is very complex. It's complex to climate scientists. If you've made it simple and straightward, go collect your Nobel Prize. Otherwise, stop it with the shrill bleating.

Macdoc wrote:

You are hiding unwillingness to act behind Hail Mary nonsense about maybe it's not true. Skepticism is not a badge to cover ignorance....especially willful ignorance.

What do you believe I'm unwilling to do?

Macdoc wrote:

So let's put it out straight so readers understand YOUR stance.

LOL - you're funny.

Macdoc wrote:

Do you accept that global warming is primarily due to human activities, notably burning of fossil fuels.

Climate change, yes, the weight of the evidence seems to be, yes, most probably.

Macdoc wrote:

Do you accept this is a dangerous risk to the biome and human populations over near term time scales?

You'll have to clarify what you mean by near term time scales, and what level of risk is dangerous.

At this point, I have to answer "I don't know," and I have not seen reliable climate models that demonstrate that risk. I can say that the predictions of 25 years ago as to what would be taking place in the then subsequent decades, do not seem to have come to fruition.

Macdoc wrote:

Do you accept an urgent need to decarbonize industrial civilization?

Yes, I think there is a need and a benefit to doing so, and most of the First World is doing that.

mcgruff · **#110** by **mcgruff** » Aug 03, 2015 9:32 pm

Forty Two wrote:It's not denial. The IPCC recently announced that human-caused greenhouse gases contributed to 90+ percent of the observed increase in global average temperature over the past 50 years. So, the IPCC does not say "entirely." Mostly, yes. Entirely, no.

We're not interested in natural climate processes and natural rates of change. That's not a problem. We're only really interested in the massive fucking anomaly - and that is 100% anthropogenic. Any attempt to fudge the issue is just another form of denial.

Even if there only remains 3% of the peer reviewed publications that say it is not man-made, or even happening, that doesn't mean they are irrelevant to the discussion. It's not a democracy. It's what the papers say that is important. So, if we haven't read and understood them, then we can't hand-wave them away entirely, in my opinion. Maybe one of them is spot on?

Claiming that anthropogenic explanations for the anomaly have been refuted in the literature or that valid, alternative, non-anthropogenic explanations exist is also denial. Neither is true.

mcgruff · **#111** by **mcgruff** » Aug 03, 2015 9:39 pm

Forty Two wrote:I can say that the predictions of 25 years ago as to what would be taking place in the then subsequent decades, do not seem to have come to fruition.

More denial. Twenty-five years is too short a period to say anything for certain about a global climate trend which is easily swamped by short-term variation.

Thomas Eshuis · **#112** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 03, 2015 9:58 pm

Shrunk wrote:Some people still don't seem to get it: Nothing wrong with JAQing off. But, please, not in public.

Macdoc · **#113** by **Macdoc** » Aug 03, 2015 11:10 pm

Forty Two wrote:
I can say that the predictions of 25 years ago as to what would be taking place in the then subsequent decades, do not seem to have come to fruition.

Wrong....you don't know anything, you are pulling nonsense out of thin air....you claim a science base and you just spout opinions without a shred of documented support from science sources....your approach is becoming a laughing matter.

The first 31 years of this projection are thus relatively well-defined and can now be compared to the observations. We used the GISS Land-Ocean Index that uses SST over the oceans (the original one interpolated from island stations) and overlaid the graph from the KNMI Climate Explorer on the lower left-hand corner of their Fig.6.

Given the many uncertainties at the time, notably the role of aerosols, the agreement is very good indeed. They only underestimated the observed trend by about 30%, similar or better in magnitude than the CMIP5 models over the same period (although these tend to overestimate the trend, still mainly due to problems related to aerosols).

To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... rQRvO.dpuf

Near term is within the century....

You have the entire fucking body of science warning about this and you are waffling...you are not to beleived.....you are being a wilful denier not a skeptic.

Your view is pathetic....as is your attempt at framing it in science terms.....and you claim others are "immature" ????!!...yeah right :roll:

OlivierK · **#114** by **OlivierK** » Aug 04, 2015 5:51 am

mcgruff wrote:
Forty Two wrote:I can say that the predictions of 25 years ago as to what would be taking place in the then subsequent decades, do not seem to have come to fruition.

More denial. Twenty-five years is too short a period to say anything for certain about a global climate trend which is easily swamped by short-term variation.

Regardless of that, if we look at 2014's global average temperature, we find that it's 0.46C higher than 25 years prior in 1989. Lest you think that's a cherry pick, the last 5 years (2010-2014) have been, on average, 0.4C warmer than the corresponding period 25 years earlier (1985-1989). Sea level rise has been as predicted in the first IPCC report. Given the difficulties of modelling such a complex system, and given that short term white noise hasn't swamped the signal, I'm not sure what 42 thinks hasn't come to fruition from 1990 forecasts?

Yeah, we can't model climate exactly, but the forecasts of climate science beat the crap out of forecasts made using other hypotheses. It's telling that those who have been bleating loudest about how much of a stitch-up climate science is, so rarely come up with testable predictions of their own based on what they claim is their superior understanding of climate. That's all t would take to undermine the IPCC - take what you think climate scientists are getting wrong (magnitudes of forcings, magnitude of solar effects, magnitude of albedo effects, whatever it is you think would give a more accurate model) and publish a dissenting report similar to those of the IPCC, explaining the model, and using it to make predictions. If over time your methodology has a better track record than that of the scientists whose work is collated by the IPCC, then the alternate theory would gain credibility.

Science is easy - to overthrow an hypothesis all it takes is to come up with a better one. But, as everyone well knows, that's easy to say, and a bit harder to do. But given denialists claims that climate science is pure junk based not on facts but simply a scam to get funding, then doing better should be a relatively straightforward matter. They ought to get to it. Until they produce a better model, the current ones are going to stand, because if there's nothing better on offer, then by definition the current models are the best available.

Greyman · **#115** by **Greyman** » Aug 04, 2015 6:53 am

OlivierK wrote:Yeah, we can't model climate exactly, but the forecasts of climate science beat the crap out of forecasts made using other hypotheses. It's telling that those who have been bleating loudest about how much of a stitch-up climate science is, so rarely come up with testable predictions of their own based on what they claim is their superior understanding of climate.

Quoted

for being worthy of repeating.

Rumraket · **#116** by **Rumraket** » Aug 04, 2015 9:00 am

Macdoc wrote:Near term is within the century....

You have the entire fucking body of science warning about this and you are waffling...you are not to beleived.....you are being a wilful denier not a skeptic.

Your view is pathetic....as is your attempt at framing it in science terms.....and you claim others are "immature" ????!!...yeah right

What the fuck is going on here? From where I'm sitting basically anything Forty Two has written has been measured and reasonable. You do realize that he might just be mistaken on the comment about modeling predictions, not actually engaging in deliberate denial? He basically answered yes to every question he was aked about whether he thinks human beings are the main cause of AGW. He even answered it in the correct way: By saying that is the most probable scenario given what we know.

Several of you nuts are suddenly sounding like raging lunatics. What has transpired here that has earned him these kinds of responses?

Rumraket · **#117** by **Rumraket** » Aug 04, 2015 9:05 am

mcgruff wrote:
Forty Two wrote:It's not denial. The IPCC recently announced that human-caused greenhouse gases contributed to 90+ percent of the observed increase in global average temperature over the past 50 years. So, the IPCC does not say "entirely." Mostly, yes. Entirely, no.

We're not interested in natural climate processes and natural rates of change. That's not a problem. We're only really interested in the massive fucking anomaly - and that is 100% anthropogenic. Any attempt to fudge the issue is just another form of denial.

Horseshit. Take a chill-pill.

Could you provide some sort of citation to back up the claim that the "massive fucking anomaly"(whatever the fuck you mean by that, bring a citation for that too please), is "100% anthropogenic". I'm no climate expert, but in my experience from reading the literature no climate expert makes the claim that late 20th and early 21st century warming trends are fully, entirely and unambigously due to anthropogenic forcings.

AGW and the obligation that it comes with to do something about it, does not hinge on the anthropogenic forcing having to constitute 100% of the contribution. It can be 90, 70 or even as low as 40%(to pick a number out of a hat) and even then I think we have an obligation to do something about it.

The fact that Forty Two correctly states that the anthropogenic factors aren't thought to constitute 100% of forcings doesn't somehow mean he's in denial.

Calm the fuck down.

Rumraket · **#118** by **Rumraket** » Aug 04, 2015 9:16 am

Forty Two wrote:
mcgruff wrote:There are no unassailable scientific truths. It's a bit like a night club with a strict but fair door policy. There is no guest list and the doorman will let anybody in if they can present him with a proper, formal argument. Everyone else can fuck off.

Right, which is why when people say that the debate over climate change is settled, they are wrong.

This is a common misconception. You need to distinguish between two aspect of the science:
A. Predicting and modeling future climate.
vs
B. Understanding the relative contributions to the climate trends.

We can pretty unambigously say that we have extraordinary evidence that anthropogenic sources are the main drivers of climate change(to such an extend that this is settled), without simultaneously claiming that the science of modeling and predicting future climate responses is settled.

When we say the science is settled, it is meant in the context of knowing that global warming is mainly anthropogenic. It is and that question is settled. The exact effect this will have on the climate well into the future isn't settled.

WayOfTheDodo · **#119** by **WayOfTheDodo** » Aug 04, 2015 12:20 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Just because people are often utterly wrong to uphold such attitudes in the face of insurmountable evidence doesn't mean their attitude isn't rightly described as skeptical and them as skeptics.

Yes it does. Denial is the exact opposite of skepticism. Even if it's outside of a scientific context.

WayOfTheDodo · **#120** by **WayOfTheDodo** » Aug 04, 2015 12:25 pm

Forty Two wrote:I've no problem with climate change deniers. Their arguments can be debunked, and should be debunked.

I have a major problem with them. They are lying scumbags who are actively trying to destroy science in order to replace it with their religion or ideology. That's fucking scary shit!

Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Re: Stop calling climate change deniers skeptics - Bill Nye

Who is online