Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by TroyF

The world we live in now. (especially in the US) You either agree with me 100% or your are an idiot. There is no middle ground in anything anymore. Those days are long gone. I wish they'd come back, but I doubt they will.

I think it's more that those two polar opposites are the ones that get all of the attention, not that the middle ground is gone. The problem with the middle ground is, it's boring and not newsworthy and doesn't generate enough ad revenue.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I think it's more that those two polar opposites are the ones that get all of the attention, not that the middle ground is gone. The problem with the middle ground is, it's boring and not newsworthy and doesn't generate enough ad revenue.

I don't disagree, but the problem is those are the two positions that get the coverage and even some of the "middle ground" people get labeled into one of the other groups by middle ground people. I think it's a combination of a lot of things. First and foremost is media money. Beyond that, I think most people like to talk to people who agree with them all the time.

That takes even a moderate opinion and swings it far enough away we don't bother digging into the other side anymore. How many people actively seek out opinions different than theirs? In my experience, not many.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by TroyF

The world we live in now. (especially in the US) You either agree with me 100% or your are an idiot. There is no middle ground in anything anymore. Those days are long gone. I wish they'd come back, but I doubt they will.

+1

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I don't disagree, but the problem is those are the two positions that get the coverage and even some of the "middle ground" people get labeled into one of the other groups by middle ground people. I think it's a combination of a lot of things. First and foremost is media money. Beyond that, I think most people like to talk to people who agree with them all the time.

That takes even a moderate opinion and swings it far enough away we don't bother digging into the other side anymore. How many people actively seek out opinions different than theirs? In my experience, not many.

I can definitely agree with that. I don't think most people realize that both political parties here in the US are more similar than they are willing to admit to. Other than some social issues, they are pretty much the same. However, it's those few issues that polarize each side against one another and far too many americans are too stupid/lazy to do their own research, so there's way too much confirmation bias going on.

My opinion on climate change: The Little Ice Age ended in the mid 1800's and the earth has been gradually warming since then, more than likely part of a natural cycle. However, human created pollution has started to screw up that cycle and throwing it out of whack (including weather patterns), causing temperatures to rise much much faster than what they normally would be. I've over simplified it a bit, but, that's what it seems like to me.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

For the vast majority of global warming studies/news/discussions, it's one of two things:

1 - Catastrophic global warming is happening, and we're all gonna die.

Speaking of middle ground and polarization....this kind of post (and I'm not picking on you CW) is part of the problem. Characterizing the debate in such a way just shuts it down before it starts. There isn't a scientist out there that's said this. No one has used global warming to talk about the end of the species. Not one.

What they have said is that rising sea levels will cause populace displacement along the coast due to flooding. Changing weather patterns will result in droughts where they aren't currently typical (more displacement). There will be increased conflicts over those resources in those places that are impacted by the drought. Crops and growing patterns will have major changes (the middle US, for example, may not be able to support the level of agriculture it does today) and blah blah blah. These are all significant impacts, but none of them ends the species. In this case, as with most cases of significant environmental disasters, it's the poor, the young, the old and the uneducated that pay much of the cost. But none are fatal to the species. Even if average temperatures increased 10 degrees - beyond the high end of the range on virtually every study - humanity would continue.

My biggest beef with the deniers is that they keep shifting their opinion. First it was "not happening". Then it was "we're not causing it". Now it's "too uncertain to tell". It's not a discussion. It's a delaying tactic and that's infuriating. It's dishonest. It's cowardly. And it's done on purpose. It's the same *exact* tactic that smoking companies used to deny smoking caused cancer for 30 years.

If one side says temperatures are going up and will rise 3 degrees in 10 years, you can't say "since they only rose 2 you're all wrong". But that's what the deniers do, all while failing to acknowledge that the fucking temps went up in the first place. They'll create graphs based of the 1998 El Nino peak to try to claim that it's not happening, while being totally ignorant that the mean continues to rise every year. The deniers try to manipulate the data, claim a vast global conspiracy and then stick their heads in the sand. I have a hard time believing that people are that freaking dense.

When the Earth is round and someone else insists it's flat, there's no room in the middle for compromise.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I wasn't saying anything from a global warming aspect. It is one of those topics in public I generally avoid such as religion and politics since most people I find are very set in their ways on those topics. I merely have been posting in here regarding the posts about this winter was all as I have found this winter very fascinating from how different it was from other winters I have experienced.

You're right I was probably a little cavalier in my stating much of alaska was warmer than the Southeast U.S. Alaska did have a much warmer winter than normal though, but it is so large from a land mass scale that the temperature in the northern part of the state is quite different than the southern part.

Comparisons for Juneau could probably be made with the Southeast U.S though, but just from looking I found reports showing that Anchorage had a warmer January than Philadelphia and New York City. however once again, this was posted more just for the fun of how crazy a winter it has been than anything else.

Yes. This definitely falls in line with the religious/political argument, which is why I find it so frustrating. I could never join a religion or a political party, and I don't feel the need to take a side on AGW, because I don't have a background in meteorology or climate study (and if I did, I would consider it ethically wrong to take a side).

This item is filled with blank posts, which means the same handful of people (maybe four or five total) I've blocked are all over this. The only reason I put someone in ignore is if he calls you an idiot for having a different religion or a different opinion or even for questioning the status quo. Doesn't have to be directed at me. It's a non-debate style of debate that makes forums rather pointless. Though I'm obviously an idiot about some things (like money) or I wouldn't be doing what I do for a living.

Personally, I blame the world of pseudo-journalism for this. If you turn on MSNBC or Fox or CNN or any of what used to be a new channel, you get a group of people calling each other idiots. If you're not an evangelist for something, you don't get on the air these days. Yelling and idiot-calling sells.

Juneau/Atlanta gets you up to 112-8, by the way. The eight are all in mid-late January. Given the effects of the ocean currents, I'd expect more northern Pacific cities to be warmer than their counterparts in the east. Juneau has an historic January mean temperature of 29, Philadelphia 33. Since the midwest/atlantic was so cold this winter, yeah, that would be a more apt and not that surprising comparison. Even 100 miles or so south, though (like Philadelphia to Washington), makes a huge difference.

I was telling my son the other day (he's 11 now) that he'd always remember this winter, just like I remember the 20-inch snowfall in December 1974, which canceled school for days. He doesn't have any sense of history yet, so he was surprised I told him that even though he's very much into the weather and what causes it. I was a kid in the '70s, so my perception is that every winter is warmer than it used to be. Except this one.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I can definitely agree with that. I don't think most people realize that both political parties here in the US are more similar than they are willing to admit to. Other than some social issues, they are pretty much the same. However, it's those few issues that polarize each side against one another and far too many americans are too stupid/lazy to do their own research, so there's way too much confirmation bias going on.

My opinion on climate change: The Little Ice Age ended in the mid 1800's and the earth has been gradually warming since then, more than likely part of a natural cycle. However, human created pollution has started to screw up that cycle and throwing it out of whack (including weather patterns), causing temperatures to rise much much faster than what they normally would be. I've over simplified it a bit, but, that's what it seems like to me.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Speaking of middle ground and polarization....this kind of post (and I'm not picking on you CW) is part of the problem. Characterizing the debate in such a way just shuts it down before it starts. There isn't a scientist out there that's said this. No one has used global warming to talk about the end of the species. Not one.

What they have said is that rising sea levels will cause populace displacement along the coast due to flooding. Changing weather patterns will result in droughts where they aren't currently typical (more displacement). There will be increased conflicts over those resources in those places that are impacted by the drought. Crops and growing patterns will have major changes (the middle US, for example, may not be able to support the level of agriculture it does today) and blah blah blah. These are all significant impacts, but none of them ends the species. In this case, as with most cases of significant environmental disasters, it's the poor, the young, the old and the uneducated that pay much of the cost. But none are fatal to the species. Even if average temperatures increased 10 degrees - beyond the high end of the range on virtually every study - humanity would continue.

My biggest beef with the deniers is that they keep shifting their opinion. First it was "not happening". Then it was "we're not causing it". Now it's "too uncertain to tell". It's not a discussion. It's a delaying tactic and that's infuriating. It's dishonest. It's cowardly. And it's done on purpose. It's the same *exact* tactic that smoking companies used to deny smoking caused cancer for 30 years.

If one side says temperatures are going up and will rise 3 degrees in 10 years, you can't say "since they only rose 2 you're all wrong". But that's what the deniers do, all while failing to acknowledge that the fucking temps went up in the first place. They'll create graphs based of the 1998 El Nino peak to try to claim that it's not happening, while being totally ignorant that the mean continues to rise every year. The deniers try to manipulate the data, claim a vast global conspiracy and then stick their heads in the sand. I have a hard time believing that people are that freaking dense.

When the Earth is round and someone else insists it's flat, there's no room in the middle for compromise.

+1 on both of these.

[molson]

What is the "middle ground" of the global warming debate?

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

It's kind of happening?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by molson

What is the "middle ground" of the global warming debate?

Hard to say. I guess it lies in being open to new research, trying to wade through the ever-present biases on both sides.

Maybe it's in agreeing that it's getting warmer, but not being convinced man is the primary reason, and not being convinced that cap-and-trade can change anything if man is the primary reason. And it's also acknowledging that there are serious problems with the advocacy position of many climate scientists and that long-term temperature research is very difficult and prone to bias.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Hard to say. I guess it lies in being open to new research, trying to wade through the ever-present biases on both sides.

Maybe it's in agreeing that it's getting warmer, but not being convinced man is the primary reason, and not being convinced that cap-and-trade can change anything if man is the primary reason. And it's also acknowledging that there are serious problems with the advocacy position of many climate scientists and that long-term temperature research is very difficult and prone to bias.

What is the actionable compromise position? Or is there any action that should be taken at this time? Is the action to just study the matter for another 10 years?

SI

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Hard to say. I guess it lies in being open to new research, trying to wade through the ever-present biases on both sides.

Maybe it's in agreeing that it's getting warmer, but not being convinced man is the primary reason, and not being convinced that cap-and-trade can change anything if man is the primary reason. And it's also acknowledging that there are serious problems with the advocacy position of many climate scientists and that long-term temperature research is very difficult and prone to bias.

Here's how I see it...

You have:
1. Climatologists
2. Climate Activists
3. Climate Change Deniers
4. Politicians
5. Corporations
6. Local/State/Country wide governments

5 out of the 6 on that list I could see having some sort of bias for various reasons. The one group on that list that I don't see having much of a bias or would stand to gain anything, especially monetarily, are the climatologists (who are coincidentally the ones doing the research). I can't for the life of me, name one rich climatologist. And I bring up money because that seems to be the unnamed bias that a lot of people seem to be alluding to. As for the politicians and governments, it's money and power.

Are there some unscrupulous climatologists? I'm sure there are. For example, a stem cell researcher in Japan just got busted for falsifying her data a few days ago. However, they caught her discrepancies due to the peer review process, the same kind of peer review process climatologists' research goes through. Is the peer review process flawless? Absolutely not, look at what one fraudulent research paper did for the anti-vaxer movement, which has a lot of the same tropes as the climate change deniers...a lot of conjecture and tales of conspiracies, but, nothing to support their claims. Or when their claims do get disproved, it becomes a game of Whack-a-Mole and they just move the goal posts.

At this point, the middle ground would be coming to a consensus on the most common sense way to help try and reduce our affects on earth's climate, so things don't get worse than what they are getting.

[Warhammer]

Again, as I've stated before, climatologists have every reason to push it for money. If there is no need to research, there is no need for any government grants. That is how most of the get their money, and rich is a relative term as well. A university research professor makes good money and many have side businesses associated with the research so they can make extra dollars.

[JediKooter]

Do you have the data/evidence to back that claim up though?

[Warhammer]

lol, I have to back up mine, where's the backup for yours?

It's a big enough issue that it's a specific issue outlined here as a possible conflict of interest (there are ways around this as well Conflict of Interest - SBIR STTR Example

I can name several past and present professors at U of Illinois that have side companies. I don't have issues with this, it's no different than a history professor writing a book. However, to think they do not have a financial stake in their research is naive.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Again, as I've stated before, climatologists have every reason to push it for money. If there is no need to research, there is no need for any government grants. That is how most of the get their money, and rich is a relative term as well. A university research professor makes good money and many have side businesses associated with the research so they can make extra dollars.

And who gives most of the grant money? The government. And why exactly do you think our government is interested in promoting studies that show climate change is real and is man-made? Did I miss something in the steady shift rightward over the last 30+ years that made an exception for climate change?

Yeah, I'm sure the government has had an inherent bias in promoting studies that show climate change is real. And not just a bias, but a huge one that counteracts the money that oil companies and the rest have been pouring in to try to counter that line of thinking.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

lol, I have to back up mine, where's the backup for yours?

It's a big enough issue that it's a specific issue outlined here as a possible conflict of interest (there are ways around this as well Conflict of Interest - SBIR STTR Example

I can name several past and present professors at U of Illinois that have side companies. I don't have issues with this, it's no different than a history professor writing a book. However, to think they do not have a financial stake in their research is naive.

I apologize, my wires were crossed, it should have been, "Where would you...". My fault for not checking what I wrote. The tl;dr version of what I was trying to ask for is: where did you get the information that made you form your opinion about this?

Conflict of Interest - SBIR STTR Example Your link seems to only outline general conflicts of interest for small businesses and the university when partnering on a project. It seems like that would be pretty standard fare for research projects? I could be wrong though, since I've never worked on a college or university research project.

Lots of professors and scientists in lots of different fields write books, give seminars, etc...to make extra money. Now, I can see competition where one group would like to make/announce a discovery before another group in hopes of getting monetary awards or something like a Nobel Prize type thing and the 'atta boys' that come along with winning things like that.

Here's a random sampling of wages (it looks like most are in the US):

The Average Salary of a Climatologist | eHow
Climatologist Salary | Averages, Ranges, and Starting
Climatologist Salary in 2013, 2014 in New York - Salary History and Expected Salary Range in 2010-2014
Climatologist Salary
Atmospheric Scientists, Including Meteorologists : Occupational Outlook Handbook : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The range seems to be (from those links): $54,160 - $165,600
And that all seems dependent on what part of the country they are in. The low figure is for someone in North Dakota and the highest didn't say where, but, I'm pretty sure a salary that high is not the norm. None of those salaries throw up a red flag that should make someone suspicious that a large segment of climatologists are skewing the data in order to get more money, since they seem to be well paid already.

There is this for a visual: File:Climate science opinion2.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

And finally this : Climate Change: Consensus

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Again, as I've stated before, climatologists have every reason to push it for money. If there is no need to research, there is no need for any government grants. That is how most of the get their money, and rich is a relative term as well. A university research professor makes good money and many have side businesses associated with the research so they can make extra dollars.

This bears reposting:

Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

— Scott Westerfeld (@ScottWesterfeld) March 21, 2014

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

This bears reposting:

Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

— Scott Westerfeld (@ScottWesterfeld) March 21, 2014

[miked]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

lol, I have to back up mine, where's the backup for yours?

It's a big enough issue that it's a specific issue outlined here as a possible conflict of interest (there are ways around this as well Conflict of Interest - SBIR STTR Example

I can name several past and present professors at U of Illinois that have side companies. I don't have issues with this, it's no different than a history professor writing a book. However, to think they do not have a financial stake in their research is naive.

This is extremely regulated by both the funding bodies and Universities. It's not like every professor has a company on the side, I'm willing to bet the percentage is fairly low. Also, this is pushed by the Universities who spend large amounts of money on patents and things like that. Many also do not have a company to make money, but rather help get their treatment to the clinic. A clinical trial is insanely expensive (even to get to Phase I) and the NIH will rarely fund the kind of studies needed.

Any way, it's highly regulated so much so that faculty have to declare it on everything. Grants, papers, talks, even as little as a few hundred dollars. I wish our politicians had to declare their conflicts every time they cast a vote. It would be great to watch Chuck Grassley or some other self-righteous dude stand up and announce that Monsanto gave his PAC a $500,000 contribution right before he votes to reduce environmental regulation. But the evil scientists are just doing it to stuff their pockets...

[Qwikshot]

HULKSMASH

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I apologize, my wires were crossed, it should have been, "Where would you...". My fault for not checking what I wrote. The tl;dr version of what I was trying to ask for is: where did you get the information that made you form your opinion about this?

Conflict of Interest - SBIR STTR Example Your link seems to only outline general conflicts of interest for small businesses and the university when partnering on a project. It seems like that would be pretty standard fare for research projects? I could be wrong though, since I've never worked on a college or university research project.

Lots of professors and scientists in lots of different fields write books, give seminars, etc...to make extra money. Now, I can see competition where one group would like to make/announce a discovery before another group in hopes of getting monetary awards or something like a Nobel Prize type thing and the 'atta boys' that come along with winning things like that.

Here's a random sampling of wages (it looks like most are in the US):

The Average Salary of a Climatologist | eHow
Climatologist Salary | Averages, Ranges, and Starting
Climatologist Salary in 2013, 2014 in New York - Salary History and Expected Salary Range in 2010-2014
Climatologist Salary
Atmospheric Scientists, Including Meteorologists : Occupational Outlook Handbook : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The range seems to be (from those links): $54,160 - $165,600
And that all seems dependent on what part of the country they are in. The low figure is for someone in North Dakota and the highest didn't say where, but, I'm pretty sure a salary that high is not the norm. None of those salaries throw up a red flag that should make someone suspicious that a large segment of climatologists are skewing the data in order to get more money, since they seem to be well paid already.

There is this for a visual: File:Climate science opinion2.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

And finally this : Climate Change: Consensus

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by miked

I wish our politicians had to declare their conflicts every time they cast a vote. It would be great to watch Chuck Grassley or some other self-righteous dude stand up and announce that Monsanto gave his PAC a $500,000 contribution right before he votes to reduce environmental regulation. But the evil scientists are just doing it to stuff their pockets...

This would be great but our corporate overlords would never allow it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by miked

I wish our politicians had to declare their conflicts every time they cast a vote. It would be great to watch Chuck Grassley or some other self-righteous dude stand up and announce that Monsanto gave his PAC a $500,000 contribution right before he votes to reduce environmental regulation.

The fact that this isn't required is a fucking shame.

[Blackadar]

And March was the 349th straight month the temperature was above the average for the 20th century. 4th hottest March on record. Incidentally, the USA was the only place it was colder. Most of Europe and much of Asia was 4+ degrees warmer than the average temp.

March global warming: The 349th straight month of above-average temperatures.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

And March was the 349th straight month the temperature was above the average for the 20th century. 4th hottest March on record. Incidentally, the USA was the only place it was colder. Most of Europe and much of Asia was 4+ degrees warmer than the average temp.
[/url]

It was cold this winter. Al Gore!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Anyone going to miss Miami?

West Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse Means - Business Insider

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Anyone going to miss Miami?

West Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse Means - Business Insider

Cool, my new house gets much closer to being oceanfront property. Go Global Warming!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So are we dying or not dying this time?

Antarctic Glacier Melt Due To Volcanoes, Not Global Warming | The Daily Caller

[nol]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So are we dying or not dying this time?

Antarctic Glacier Melt Due To Volcanoes, Not Global Warming | The Daily Caller

I'm told the death thing is non-negotiable.

[sabotai]

Dusty Schroeder, the lead author of the study The Daily Caller is referencing, disagrees with how that article summarizes his work.

No, Volcanoes Are Not the Primary Cause For the Melting Ice Caps | VICE News

According to Schroeder, Rignot’s paper, and another that came out in May, show that warm oceans are currently the main cause of glacier loss at the edge of the ice.

“The fastest glacial changes are happening where the ocean is warmer,” Schroeder said. “Geothermal heating is not enough by itself to have caused the observed changes.”

In response to those who are using his study to deny climate change, Schroeder confirmed that volcanic activity is not the dominant force of ice loss and rising sea levels.

“If you want to understand how the glaciers are changing, you can’t just look at the ice, you can’t just look at the climate system, you can’t just look at the geology, you have to look at the whole picture,” he said.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Dusty Schroeder, the lead author of the study The Daily Caller is referencing, disagrees with how that article summarizes his work.

No, Volcanoes Are Not the Primary Cause For the Melting Ice Caps | VICE News

That's ridiculous. I see nothing to clarify whether we're dying or not.

[flere-imsaho]

You are seriously referencing The Daily Caller, Tucker "Bowtie" Carlson's little vanity project, for serious science? That's a new low, even for you.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You are seriously referencing The Daily Caller, Tucker "Bowtie" Carlson's little vanity project, for serious science? That's a new low, even for you.

I did? I apologize. Somehow mocking both sides of this ridiculous topic has become serious science evidently.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I did? I apologize. Somehow mocking both sides of this ridiculous topic has become serious science evidently.

Your false equivalence and then slipping in fake claims like "this ridiculous topic" are a tribute to whatever silly cause you are trying to obfuscate or do a snowjob for.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I did? I apologize. Somehow mocking both sides of this ridiculous topic has become serious science evidently.

As serious as your questioning of poll methodology, it would appear.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I did? I apologize. Somehow mocking both sides of this ridiculous topic has become serious science evidently.

Could you break down and explain your running joke over the last few years about "everybody dying", and "we're all going to die", and such? Because it comes off like you're mocking any article about global warming on the premise that the whole thing is a scare tactic, or something that goes too far in predicting our imminent death. None of the articles you cite ever actually predict our imminent death of course, but you make that same joke every time. But then when called on it you always claim you're mocking "both sides". You've never really broke down how both the 99% of that recognize global warming, and the 1% that doesn't, are both "full of it." You only ever make that "we're all going to die!" joke, and nobody knows what you mean or what your point is.

From the things you cite, at best, I'd say you're in this interesting "middle ground", where that 99% who acknowledge global warming all corrupt and biased because of money, and that the other 1% is pure and only cares about real science, and therefore we need to wait longer and have more data before anyone can have an opinion on this, or god forbid, act. Now, like with the other "middle ground" people, I don't know what kind of additional data or research or opinions would possibly matter, since you've already declared that all scientific research is corrupt and bias (just when it comes to global warming though, interestingly, I don't see you or the other "middle ground" people having tirades like this when it comes to ANY OTHER SCIENTIFIC TOPIC). So you've declared that no additional information will help, because they're all "full of it", so, that's it I guess. The middle ground!

[flere-imsaho]

MBBF: Hey, btw your position on X is categorically wrong due to this article.
Anyone else: That article actually says the exact opposite. For instance....
MBBF: LOL I can't believe you all take this so seriously. Such a stupid topic for discussion.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by molson

From the things you cite, at best, I'd say you're in this interesting "middle ground", where that 99% who acknowledge global warming all corrupt and biased because of money, and that the other 1% is pure and only cares about real science, and therefore we need to wait longer and have more data before anyone can have an opinion on this, or god forbid, act. Now, like with the other "middle ground" people, I don't know what kind of additional data or research or opinions would possibly matter, since you've already declared that all scientific research is corrupt and bias (just when it comes to global warming though, interestingly, I don't see you or the other "middle ground" people having tirades like this when it comes to ANY OTHER SCIENTIFIC TOPIC). So you've declared that no additional information will help, because they're all "full of it", so, that's it I guess. The middle ground!

I think that there is another 'middle ground' position. I'm not of the opinion that all climate change research is corrupt or biased (some is I'm sure, just like some of any other topic will be, on all sides). But I am of the opinion that many of the conclusions and forecasts need to be taken with big grains of salt. I still don't believe that we have enough data, nor enough understanding of climate and weather, to make accurate predictions on how we as humans and a society specifically are impacting the climate change (vs natural changes that have occurred for the lifetime of the earth) as well as what future impact these ongoing changes will have. There are just so many variables and unknowns that I find it hard to hear people draw conclusions where "A will cause B which will drive C to hurt D leading to E impacting F and G". The problem here is that some other side effect of A's change to B will impact H and I, which could modify how C or D change, etc.

I liken it to the various research on health and foods. Every few years studies are released stating that "food X is harmful!" or "food Y is a super food!". Then everyone starts reducing food X intake and increasing food Y intake. And then 10 years later some new study finds that the combination of lower X and higher Y creates a bad side effect so we should really go back to eating more of X and less of Y, or maybe we need to have some Z to level it off instead.

Ultimately most of this science is 'good' science. And over time we move in the general direction of better understanding and more knowledge. But just like I avoid being the guy that flies between fad diets every 5 years (Atkins! Paleo! etc) I also like to lean on the side of moderation in reaction to climate change. Let's not do nothing, but lets not panic either. Lets look for low hanging fruit and lets make smart, targeted decisions. Which I think for the most part we (as a society) do. So that's good.

So can that be a fair appraisal of 'middle ground'?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I think that there is another 'middle ground' position. I'm not of the opinion that all climate change research is corrupt or biased (some is I'm sure, just like some of any other topic will be, on all sides). But I am of the opinion that many of the conclusions and forecasts need to be taken with big grains of salt. I still don't believe that we have enough data, nor enough understanding of climate and weather, to make accurate predictions on how we as humans and a society specifically are impacting the climate change (vs natural changes that have occurred for the lifetime of the earth) as well as what future impact these ongoing changes will have. There are just so many variables and unknowns that I find it hard to hear people draw conclusions where "A will cause B which will drive C to hurt D leading to E impacting F and G". The problem here is that some other side effect of A's change to B will impact H and I, which could modify how C or D change, etc.

I liken it to the various research on health and foods. Every few years studies are released stating that "food X is harmful!" or "food Y is a super food!". Then everyone starts reducing food X intake and increasing food Y intake. And then 10 years later some new study finds that the combination of lower X and higher Y creates a bad side effect so we should really go back to eating more of X and less of Y, or maybe we need to have some Z to level it off instead.

Ultimately most of this science is 'good' science. And over time we move in the general direction of better understanding and more knowledge. But just like I avoid being the guy that flies between fad diets every 5 years (Atkins! Paleo! etc) I also like to lean on the side of moderation in reaction to climate change. Let's not do nothing, but lets not panic either. Lets look for low hanging fruit and lets make smart, targeted decisions. Which I think for the most part we (as a society) do. So that's good.

So can that be a fair appraisal of 'middle ground'?

What would have to happen to change your mind? How much more overwhelming would the consensus have to be? I feel like "wait and see" is just something you can say any time, no matter what. What would the tipping point be for you?

And are there any other scientific consensuses that you take a "wake and see" approach on? You mentioned "fad diets", but I don't think that's really similar, there's all kinds of diets, and both Atkins and Paleo are a lot better than the average American diet. We've never had a near-unanimous scientific consensus that one of those diets is superior to all others. At any time, you could find all kinds of research praising or damning all kinds of different diets. Has any global consensus about Atkins and Paleo been conclusively disproven? I'd say the "fad" part of those diets is referring more to their popularity at any moment in the mainstream. Atkins isn't as "hot" as it was 10 years ago, but if you follow it, you'll still lose weight. It's not perfect health-wise, but it's an improvement for a lot of people. I don't think that really lines up with a overwhelming scientific consensus about a specific topic. You just never see that kind of consensus attacked like this one is.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I think that there is another 'middle ground' position. I'm not of the opinion that all climate change research is corrupt or biased (some is I'm sure, just like some of any other topic will be, on all sides). But I am of the opinion that many of the conclusions and forecasts need to be taken with big grains of salt. I still don't believe that we have enough data, nor enough understanding of climate and weather, to make accurate predictions on how we as humans and a society specifically are impacting the climate change (vs natural changes that have occurred for the lifetime of the earth) as well as what future impact these ongoing changes will have. There are just so many variables and unknowns that I find it hard to hear people draw conclusions where "A will cause B which will drive C to hurt D leading to E impacting F and G". The problem here is that some other side effect of A's change to B will impact H and I, which could modify how C or D change, etc.

I liken it to the various research on health and foods. Every few years studies are released stating that "food X is harmful!" or "food Y is a super food!". Then everyone starts reducing food X intake and increasing food Y intake. And then 10 years later some new study finds that the combination of lower X and higher Y creates a bad side effect so we should really go back to eating more of X and less of Y, or maybe we need to have some Z to level it off instead.

Ultimately most of this science is 'good' science. And over time we move in the general direction of better understanding and more knowledge. But just like I avoid being the guy that flies between fad diets every 5 years (Atkins! Paleo! etc) I also like to lean on the side of moderation in reaction to climate change. Let's not do nothing, but lets not panic either. Lets look for low hanging fruit and lets make smart, targeted decisions. Which I think for the most part we (as a society) do. So that's good.

So can that be a fair appraisal of 'middle ground'?

This. It's a ridiculous discussion of absolutes on either end IMO. People need to chill out. There's plenty of research happening on this topic. We'll find out better answers as we go along. The fad diet comparison is a very appropriate one.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by molson

What would have to happen to change your mind?

Appearing to be on the same side as MBBF is certainly causing me serious pause...

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This. It's a ridiculous discussion of absolutes on either end IMO. People need to chill out. There's plenty of research happening on this topic. We'll find out better answers as we go along. The fad diet comparison is a very appropriate one.

This doesn't even make any sense. Your "middle ground" is rejecting the scientific consensus. Which is what you're doing. You're trying to characterize that as "wait and see" and moderate. But that doesn't make you middle ground, that make you far right, just like rejecting the scientific consensus that smoking causes cancer, and instead claiming that's an "absolutist" position and we needed to "wait and see."

And none of the articles you cite say we're going to "die tomorrow". Almost all of them discuss ranges of things that could happen and overall trends, the positions aren't "absolute". That's why your view on this is so confusing. You say that joke every time, but you haven't read, or don't understand, the content of the topic or any of the articles you cite. And what does fad diets have to do with anything? Whether Atkins is good or bad objectively or relatively is a matter of opinion. There's no scientific global consensus about Atkins or any particular kind of diet, except in terms of specific facts like a high sugar diet increases your risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. (Or is that something else we should "wait and see" on?)

It's so strange. If some guy tells you Missouri is going to hire a certain coach, you take it as absolute gospel, even though you are almost always wrong. But you still do it. You believe anything people tell you as long as you think they're an "insider", and you love to brag about all your contacts who are always wrong. You believe anything Fox News or far right outlets tell you about being skeptical of global warming, and post it here as gospel. But when it comes to scientific consensus, well, that's all bullshit, we have to wait and see.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by molson

What would have to happen to change your mind? How much more overwhelming would the consensus have to be? I feel like "wait and see" is just something you can say any time, no matter what. What would the tipping point be for you?

And are there any other scientific consensuses that you take a "wake and see" approach on? You mentioned "fad diets", but I don't think that's really similar, there's all kinds of diets, and both Atkins and Paleo are a lot better than the average American diet. We've never had a near-unanimous scientific consensus that one of those diets is superior to all others. At any time, you could find all kinds of research praising or damning all kinds of different diets. Has any global consensus about Atkins and Paleo been conclusively disproven? I'd say the "fad" part of those diets is referring more to their popularity at any moment in the mainstream. Atkins isn't as "hot" as it was 10 years ago, but if you follow it, you'll still lose weight. It's not perfect health-wise, but it's an improvement for a lot of people. I don't think that really lines up with a overwhelming scientific consensus about a specific topic. You just never see that kind of consensus attacked like this one is.

More seriously, I suppose it depends on what you are referring to in terms of consensus. If we are simply saying "climate change exists" then I've long since come around on that. If we are saying "climate change is a problem" then yep, I'm on board with that one now as well.

If the consensus is that "climate change is man-made"... well, I'm not sure what it would take for me to change my mind on that. I agree that we are part of it, but I don't know that I will live long enough to be convinced that we are all of it. It's just such a macro issue. It's like saying "do you believe that the Big Bang happened?". I'm no creationist, and it certainly seems more logical than some God entity doing it, but it also seems like there is still a lot of space out there to explore that could turn that theory on it's ear at some point.

I guess I just feel that certain topics present challenges for us to properly fully grasp at our current level of societal understanding. It doesn't mean people aren't making logical advances, it just means that we shouldn't take their conclusions as gospel. The world was once flat, and that shaped all kinds of understandings and a lot of those things probably made a lot of sense... until someone discovered it wasn't. The universe exploded and is always expanding and that makes a lot of sense and forms a lot of our understandings... until someone discovers that maybe that's not what happened. The earth is warming because we are polluting and driving cars and destroying the ozone and it's causing crazy weather patterns and that's why I froze my ass off like never before this winter and that all makes a lot of sense... until someone discovers that maybe there are other pieces of the ecological puzzle also impacting things, or that when the crazy weather patterns start increasing they also start causing other stuff to happen that significantly lowers the odds of our predicted future actually coming to pass.

I'd like to reiterate though that I'm not calling for people to do nothing, nor to stick their head in the sand and pretend its not happening. I don't believe that Atkins or Paleo are necessarily great ideas but that doesn't mean that I think everyone should just eat cheeseburgers and drink coke and lie around watching American Idol all day either. Moderation. Moderation. Moderation.

So how does that apply to climate change? Lets continue to invest in things like solar, but lets not pretend they solve every problem. Lets invest in smaller green initiatives that can bring about positive changes over time (better urban planning, green spaces, bike lanes, etc) rather than giant political ones that have dubious benefits or unknown consequences (mandatory ethanol fuel or carbon tax credit systems).

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I don't know that I will live long enough to be convinced that we are all of it.

On that point, I don't think anybody claims that man alone controls climate, or the current global warming trend. That's one of those "absolute" positions that MBBF rails against that doesn't really exist.

Edit: It's frustrating because a few years ago, the debate was just whether the earth was warming or not. Despite a clear scientific consensus that it was, there was a large group of people who just didn't believe it. Eventually, even most of them came around. But they still didn't like the political implications, so the opposition evolved somewhat. It will always evolve, no matter what. None of the science matters really, because there always will be two sides, people who want to change things, and people who want things to stay the way they are. The characterization of the arguments behind those goals will change and evolve, but those general positions will always be in place.

But I really don't think you need to worry about drastic changes. If our society says, "hey, I'm not saying do nothing, but let's be sensible, let's wait and see, let's collect more data", then nothing will change, nothing will ever happen. When you have moderate, sensible positions v. the extreme desire not to change anything, the middle ground there is basically negligible movement. The only way to actually get moderate, sensible change, is to pretty aggressively take this on as a real global issue. And maybe if we can get past this "wait and see" approach, we can someday get real, sustainable moderate changes that you say you want anyway.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by molson

On that point, I don't think anybody claims that man alone controls climate, or the current global warming trend. That's one of those "absolute" positions that MBBF rails against that doesn't really exist.

Fair enough, but then I must ask: what is the consensus to which you refer? For all I know maybe I'm fully on board at this point.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Appearing to be on the same side as MBBF is certainly causing me serious pause...

It's alright. We all have our bad days.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Fair enough, but then I must ask: what is the consensus to which you refer? For all I know maybe I'm fully on board at this point.

Human activity can impact global climate, and has contributed to the current global warming trend.

Specifically: greenhouse gasses warm planets, humans create and expel a lot of greenhouses gases, recorded emissions of greenhouse gasses has rapidly increased, the planet has warmed as a result.

There are natural systems of global warming and cooling too. There's probably one or the other going on right now that is either complementing or mitigating the human activity.

To me it comes down to, (and this goes beyond global warming), whether or not humans can fuck up the planet. And I can't believe there's so many people that think they can't, and that there's so many people like MBBF who so strongly feel that this isn't something we should take seriously, to the point he mocks others that care about this stuff. The globe really isn't that big. We've already fucked up Los Angeles, China and other places just from a smog standpoint. We've caused the extinction of species. But it's just so impossible to believe that drastically increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has anything to do with a warming of a planet, or that humans could negatively impact the planet in other ways. I'm not an extremist or an absolutist. I drive a car. I sometimes throw a bottle away in the trash instead of carrying it around until I find a way to recycle it. But I also think the long-term stakes of global warming, preservation, bio-diversity, pollution, etc, are very high. And I've never entirely figured out exactly what any of it has to do with politics, as in, why this goes so far down party lines.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

To me it comes down to, (and this goes beyond global warming), whether or not humans can fuck up the planet. And I can't believe there's so many people that think they can't, and that there's people like MBBF so strongly feel that this isn't something we shouldn't take seriously, to the point they mock others that care about this stuff. The globe really isn't that big. We've already fucked up Los Angeles, China and other places just from a smog standpoint. We've caused the extinction of species. But it's just so impossible to believe that drastically increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has anything to do with a warming of a planet, or that humans could negatively impact the planet in other ways.

I don't mock anyone who believes that we should clean up our act in any way. I think we should. I've stated that several times in this thread. Not sure what it takes to get that across.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't mock anyone who believes that we should clean up our act in any way. I think we should. I've stated that several times in this thread. Not sure what it takes to get that across.

You respond to every article about global warming with your sarcastic, "we're all going to die!" schtick. You mock the whole concept. When called on it, you say we should "clean up our act", when two posts ago you said we need to "chill out" and that "we'll find out better answers as we go along." More than once in this thread, you've used a cold regional temperature on a particular day, or in a particular season, as proof that the global warming thing is nonsense, displaying that you don't understand the difference between weather and climate. (And also displaying you believe the earth isn't even warming.) But then when anyone responds to you, you say something completely different. People have tried to decipher what you're talking about in this thread, but nobody has yet.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

This doesn't even make any sense. Your "middle ground" is rejecting the scientific consensus. Which is what you're doing. You're trying to characterize that as "wait and see" and moderate. But that doesn't make you middle ground, that make you far right, just like rejecting the scientific consensus that smoking causes cancer, and instead claiming that's an "absolutist" position and we needed to "wait and see."

It's funny you make this connection. As you may (or may not) know, the same folks that fought the idea that smoking can cause cancer are the same folks that have led the fight against the idea of human-caused climate change (as well as coal smoke leading to acid rain, CFCs leading to depletion of the ozone layer, etc.)