[olist]

Deny a problem exists (it's "junk science").

Deny humans are the cause ("the climate has always changed, it's not because of industrial activity" - never mind the rate of change and the source of change).

Deny it's a problem ("global warming will benefit humanity").

Deny we can solve it ("renewable energy is not practical on a large scale", "carbon taxes don't do anything for the climate, plus they hurt the poor", etc.)

It's too late anyway...(so lets just keep going with business as usual...)[/olist]
The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

Quote:

Climate contrarians appear to be running damage control in the media before the next IPCC report is published

More at the link.

Saw that one.

Guessing what the argument will be about and labeling it doesn't prove it wrong.
Making assumptions and generalizations does not get to the core of the issue nor does it prove it wrong.

Take it easy.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

Saw that one. Guessing what the argument will be about and labeling it doesn't prove it wrong. Making assumptions and generalizations does not get to the core of the issue nor does it prove it wrong. Take it easy.

Correct. Everything must be put to the test, however, you do tend to see a lot of recycled old arguments. 

This is quite a good article on how science works in practice. It's worth reading it through. The alarm bells should go off when you see some of the fallacies in Section 3.

http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm

Then, there are the basics. If you want to show that a premise is invalid, at least represent the premise correctly.  Most run of the mill denialists fail to do this. I don't know how often I've seen the claim that a runaway greenhouse effect is highly unlikely, when in fact nobody is claiming that it's remotely possible.

The other issue is jumping on anything that non experts say in defence of climatology. People often get things wrong if they are describing something outside their field.  That doesn't invalidate anything.

If you are a genuine sceptic (we should all be sceptics) then you should be just as concerned about the false scepticism as I am. After all, it's just noise. Too much of that false scepticism has an unwanted consequence.

The danger is that everything will be tarred with the same brush because there is just so much of this false scepticism to wade through.

muso wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 19th, 2013 at 4:22pm: Saw that one. Guessing what the argument will be about and labeling it doesn't prove it wrong. Making assumptions and generalizations does not get to the core of the issue nor does it prove it wrong. Take it easy. Correct. Everything must be put to the test, however, you do tend to see a lot of recycled old arguments.  This is quite a good article on how science works in principle. It's worth reading it through. The alarm bells should go off when you see some of the fallacies in Section 3. http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm Then, there are the basics. If you want to show that a premise is invalid, at least represent the premise correctly.  Most run of the mill denialists fail to do this. I don't know how often I've seen the claim that a runaway greenhouse effect is highly unlikely, when in fact nobody is claiming that it's remotely possible. The other issue is jumping on anything that non experts say in defence of climatology. People often get things wrong if they are describing something outside their field.  That doesn't invalidate anything.

Great article so far I got to 3.3

It's interesting that those fallacies listed in 3.2 are used on both sides.
My summary of the whole climate change debate would be; thousands of scientists studying many factors of our world, many individual minor factors and effects. Then you have a group that gathers this together, gives us all an interpretation of these papers.

We then have people debating over the interpretation of the evidence, with both sides tossing around fallacies left and right.

Which is why besides a minor discussion, come the next report, I'm going to refrain from pointless debate that leads to absolutely no understanding with some people.

# wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

[olist] Deny a problem exists (it's "junk science"). Deny humans are the cause ("the climate has always changed, it's not because of industrial activity" - never mind the rate of change and the source of change). Deny it's a problem ("global warming will benefit humanity"). Deny we can solve it ("renewable energy is not practical on a large scale", "carbon taxes don't do anything for the climate, plus they hurt the poor", etc.) It's too late anyway...(so lets just keep going with business as usual...)[/olist] The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report Quote: Climate contrarians appear to be running damage control in the media before the next IPCC report is published More at the link.

The funny thing is when the deniers straddle several of those stages at the same time.

How many times have you heard some "genius" on here obediently parrot the Daily Mail's columnists silly idea that there has been "no warming for 17 years" - and then in the next post tell us that the warming is due to the sun, or cosmic rays or some other mysterious "natural" forcing.

I recall one moron recently claim that observed sea level rise is not due global warming, because it isn't melting ice causing it - it is thermal expansion.  When asked why the oceans are thermally expanding when he claims that there has been  "no warming for 17 years" - well, he just ran away - as he normally does.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:49pm:

Great article so far I got to 3.3 It's interesting that those fallacies listed in 3.2 are used on both sides. My summary of the whole climate change debate would be; thousands of scientists studying many factors of our world, many individual minor factors and effects. Then you have a group that gathers this together, gives us all an interpretation of these papers. We then have people debating over the interpretation of the evidence, with both sides tossing around fallacies left and right. Which is why besides a minor discussion, come the next report, I'm going to refrain from pointless debate that leads to absolutely no understanding with some people.

Good. I started a thread for real scepticism.  I also added another important point to my original post on this thread. I have a feeling that you'll agree with me.  We all have a duty to highlight something that is patently false regardless of who is making it, in order to sift the signal from the noise.

muso wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

Correct. Everything must be put to the test, however, you do tend to see a lot of recycled old arguments.

I agree this also includes the science coming out of the IPCC........???????

Now yesterday the IPCC where saying that the missing heat was in the deep layers of the ocean 3000m plus.

Which muso defended vehemently......!!!!!

AR5 is saying that most of the heat in the oceans is in the top 700 metres......!!!!

They seem to change their science like the wind changes direction......!!!!!

What is the excuse for this 180 degree back flip......!!!

# wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

[olist] Deny a problem exists (it's "junk science"). 1. Denial and Isolation Deny humans are the cause ("the climate has always changed, it's not because of industrial activity" - never mind the rate of change and the source of change). 2. Anger Deny it's a problem ("global warming will benefit humanity"). 3. Bargaining Deny we can solve it ("renewable energy is not practical on a large scale", "carbon taxes don't do anything for the climate, plus they hurt the poor", etc.) 4. Depression It's too late anyway...(so lets just keep going with business as usual...) 5. Acceptance [/olist] The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report The 5 Stages of Loss and Grief Quote: Climate contrarians appear to be running damage control in the media before the next IPCC report is published More at the link.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

Saw that one. Guessing what the argument will be about and labeling it doesn't prove it wrong. Making assumptions and generalizations does not get to the core of the issue nor does it prove it wrong. Take it easy.

What is a commercial and why do they exist??

Wow, for someone who pretends to believe in the power of free markets you don't really understand the most basic of tricks as to how brand loyalty is achieved do ya buddy?

T a K e i t e A sy as i am ful l y s i c K b r o- ya want some ice w/ that yo  ::)

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2013 at 7:49pm:

muso wrote on Sep 19th, 2013 at 7:16pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 19th, 2013 at 4:22pm: Saw that one. Guessing what the argument will be about and labeling it doesn't prove it wrong. Making assumptions and generalizations does not get to the core of the issue nor does it prove it wrong. Take it easy. Correct. Everything must be put to the test, however, you do tend to see a lot of recycled old arguments.  This is quite a good article on how science works in principle. It's worth reading it through. The alarm bells should go off when you see some of the fallacies in Section 3. http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm Then, there are the basics. If you want to show that a premise is invalid, at least represent the premise correctly.  Most run of the mill denialists fail to do this. I don't know how often I've seen the claim that a runaway greenhouse effect is highly unlikely, when in fact nobody is claiming that it's remotely possible. The other issue is jumping on anything that non experts say in defence of climatology. People often get things wrong if they are describing something outside their field.  That doesn't invalidate anything. Great article so far I got to 3.3 It's interesting that those fallacies listed in 3.2 are used on both sides. My summary of the whole climate change debate would be; thousands of scientists studying many factors of our world, many individual minor factors and effects. Then you have a group that gathers this together, gives us all an interpretation of these papers. We then have people debating over the interpretation of the evidence, with both sides tossing around fallacies left and right. Which is why besides a minor discussion, come the next report, I'm going to refrain from pointless debate that leads to absolutely no understanding with some people.

meaning???  :-? :-?

Ajax wrote on Sep 20^th, 2013 at 2:25pm:

muso wrote on Sep 19th, 2013 at 7:16pm: Correct. Everything must be put to the test, however, you do tend to see a lot of recycled old arguments.  I agree this also includes the science coming out of the IPCC........??????? Now yesterday the IPCC where saying that the missing heat was in the deep layers of the ocean 3000m plus. Which muso defended vehemently......!!!!! AR5 is saying that most of the heat in the oceans is in the top 700 metres......!!!! They seem to change their science like the wind changes direction......!!!!! What is the excuse for this 180 degree back flip......!!!

Dood, MORE CRACK IS THE ONLY ANSWER EVER!

gawd, don't ya know anything??.... let me show you how to light that  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

DRAH - can you just ease off with the crack?  It's not nice to accuse somebody of being a crack smoker.

Ajax - Don't you read my posts at all? By insisting that the IPCC have ever claimed that most ocean heat is in the lower ocean levels is just making you look very stupid. Even Gizmo disowned you. 

muso wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 1:04pm:

DRAH - can you just ease off with the crack?  It's not nice to accuse somebody of being a crack smoker. Ajax - Don't you read my posts at all?

yeh, fair enough: it's not nice knowing my kids kids kids will be inheriting an inherently unstable future with resource wars that could be avoided with a little more effort to call out the deniers but I suppose you are the arbiter of what is fair and what is not fair play so is suppose the children savers must again perish!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 12:58pm:

meaning???  :-? :-?

Meaning I'm willing to participate in a conversation about climate change until it devolves into personal attacks and pointless assumptions/accusations.

Vuk - I have reserved a thread for that purpose, and I agree with you.  Any personal attacks will be removed (including my own if you call it). I would much prefer just to talk about the science.

Funny thing, I read sometime ago now that the second point (basically it is just natural and has happened for eons) is quite easily dismissed because the actual science about climate coined the term climate change to directly articulate or describe effects on climate based solely on human interaction with the environment. Whereas the naturally occurring climate fluctuations are described as climate variation.

This may be a small point, but it is IMHO at least, an important one. The definitions are important to have a reasonable debate.

By the way, just those two terms would seemingly suggest that the scientific community already acknowledge that climate naturally has some variance, however, what seems to have been the trend has been systemic changes occurring specifically since we (human's) became industrialised.

Whether it is proved or not is beyond my knowledge base and skill set to understand, but, it is concerning that the language used is not accurate at times.

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:

Funny thing, I read sometime ago now that the second point (basically it is just natural and has happened for eons) is quite easily dismissed because the actual science about climate coined the term climate change to directly articulate or describe effects on climate based solely on human interaction with the environment. Whereas the naturally occurring climate fluctuations are described as climate variation. This may be a small point, but it is IMHO at least, an important one. The definitions are important to have a reasonable debate. By the way, just those two terms would seemingly suggest that the scientific community already acknowledge that climate naturally has some variance, however, what seems to have been the trend has been systemic changes occurring specifically since we (human's) became industrialised. Whether it is proved or not is beyond my knowledge base and skill set to understand, but, it is concerning that the language used is not accurate at times.

ONLY THE IGNORANT HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THE TERM, "NOMENCLATURE".

Methinks Phemanderac votes Liberal and actually has heard of the term "nomenclature" but simply pretends he hasn't.  :-? :-?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:05pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 2:48pm: Funny thing, I read sometime ago now that the second point (basically it is just natural and has happened for eons) is quite easily dismissed because the actual science about climate coined the term climate change to directly articulate or describe effects on climate based solely on human interaction with the environment. Whereas the naturally occurring climate fluctuations are described as climate variation. This may be a small point, but it is IMHO at least, an important one. The definitions are important to have a reasonable debate. By the way, just those two terms would seemingly suggest that the scientific community already acknowledge that climate naturally has some variance, however, what seems to have been the trend has been systemic changes occurring specifically since we (human's) became industrialised. Whether it is proved or not is beyond my knowledge base and skill set to understand, but, it is concerning that the language used is not accurate at times. ONLY THE IGNORANT HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THE TERM, "NOMENCLATURE". Methinks Phemanderac votes Liberal and actually has heard of the term "nomenclature" but simply pretends he hasn't.  :-? :-?

Well then you would be in part totally wrong mate. Since I have heard of nomenclature, guess which bit you're wrong about - not that it would actually add anything to the debate.

So apart from my voting choices - you're pretty much off the mark.

You're not fooling no one buddy!  ;) ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

You're not fooling no one buddy!  ;) ;)

Neither are you I suspect

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

You're not fooling no one buddy!  ;) ;)

I do however like your sense of irony after pointing out something about language used and then framing this comment....

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:08pm: You're not fooling no one buddy!  ;) ;) Neither are you I suspect

I'm not trying to, but you are!  :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 7:10pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:08pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:08pm: You're not fooling no one buddy!  ;) ;) Neither are you I suspect I'm not trying to, but you are!  :D :D

Actually mate, you are. You have made an assertion based on your own assumption with absolutely no evidence in support of your assertion and, you then compound that after my denial by carrying it on.

In short, that is actually trying to fool people.

I have stated clearly that I do not vote Liberal. Further I pointed out that it is none of your business or anyone elses who I vote for unless I choose to share it with them.

You clearly base your assumption on one post. I would suggest further reading and see if your assertion still holds up. I realise you won't like my suggestion but, at the end of the day, I don't give a poo about that.

You are mostly wrong in what you posted. I hope that is not a common thing for you.

Now, regarding the environment? Anything to offer?

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 7:21pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:10pm: Phemanderac wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:08pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:08pm: You're not fooling no one buddy!  ;) ;) Neither are you I suspect I'm not trying to, but you are!  :D :D Actually mate, you are. You have made an assertion based on your own assumption with absolutely no evidence in support of your assertion and, you then compound that after my denial by carrying it on. In short, that is actually trying to fool people. I have stated clearly that I do not vote Liberal. Further I pointed out that it is none of your business or anyone elses who I vote for unless I choose to share it with them. You clearly base your assumption on one post. I would suggest further reading and see if your assertion still holds up. I realise you won't like my suggestion but, at the end of the day, I don't give a poo about that. You are mostly wrong in what you posted. I hope that is not a common thing for you. Now, regarding the environment? Anything to offer?

He's a nut, he only comes on here to get attention. It could have been any forum, it just happened to be this one. Don't respond to him, like many posters on this forum, he is a black hole.

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:

Funny thing, I read sometime ago now that the second point (basically it is just natural and has happened for eons) is quite easily dismissed because the actual science about climate coined the term climate change to directly articulate or describe effects on climate based solely on human interaction with the environment. Whereas the naturally occurring climate fluctuations are described as climate variation. This may be a small point, but it is IMHO at least, an important one. The definitions are important to have a reasonable debate. By the way, just those two terms would seemingly suggest that the scientific community already acknowledge that climate naturally has some variance, however, what seems to have been the trend has been systemic changes occurring specifically since we (human's) became industrialised. Whether it is proved or not is beyond my knowledge base and skill set to understand, but, it is concerning that the language used is not accurate at times.

You are correct.  The carbon signal really only became dominant during the last 50-60  years.

There is a strong correlation (coeff. 0.86)  for CO2 against temperature for that period.

The problem is that those who read the blogs seem incapable of thinking for themselves and just recite the  mantra that climate change is natural as it was in the beginning, both now, and always, world without end. Amen.

(or something similar)

Dead horse - Please behave. 

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Dead horse - Please behave.
<<

i i cap'n!!  :D

http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/1_5StagesofClimateDenieal.png
2b seems particularly prevalent here. Come to think of it, shouldn't that be:
2b(i)   deny there's a consensus;
2b(ii)  deny that it matters?

Winston Smith wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:21pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:10pm: Phemanderac wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:08pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:08pm: You're not fooling no one buddy!  ;) ;) Neither are you I suspect I'm not trying to, but you are!  :D :D Actually mate, you are. You have made an assertion based on your own assumption with absolutely no evidence in support of your assertion and, you then compound that after my denial by carrying it on. In short, that is actually trying to fool people. I have stated clearly that I do not vote Liberal. Further I pointed out that it is none of your business or anyone elses who I vote for unless I choose to share it with them. You clearly base your assumption on one post. I would suggest further reading and see if your assertion still holds up. I realise you won't like my suggestion but, at the end of the day, I don't give a poo about that. You are mostly wrong in what you posted. I hope that is not a common thing for you. Now, regarding the environment? Anything to offer? He's a nut, he only comes on here to get attention. It could have been any forum, it just happened to be this one. Don't respond to him, like many posters on this forum, he is a black hole.

Voyeurism is bad mmmmK!

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 8:56pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 2:48pm: Funny thing, I read sometime ago now that the second point (basically it is just natural and has happened for eons) is quite easily dismissed because the actual science about climate coined the term climate change to directly articulate or describe effects on climate based solely on human interaction with the environment. Whereas the naturally occurring climate fluctuations are described as climate variation. This may be a small point, but it is IMHO at least, an important one. The definitions are important to have a reasonable debate. By the way, just those two terms would seemingly suggest that the scientific community already acknowledge that climate naturally has some variance, however, what seems to have been the trend has been systemic changes occurring specifically since we (human's) became industrialised. Whether it is proved or not is beyond my knowledge base and skill set to understand, but, it is concerning that the language used is not accurate at times. You are correct.  The carbon signal really only became dominant during the last 50-60  years. There is a strong correlation (coeff. 0.86)  for CO2 against temperature for that period. The problem is that those who read the blogs seem incapable of thinking for themselves and just recite the  mantra that climate change is natural as it was in the beginning, both now, and always, world without end. Amen. (or something similar) Dead horse - Please behave.

I've nailed this a few times but I will have to nail it again.

In the last 15 years from the 1998 more than one third of ALL that's ALL human emissions of CO2 have gone up into the atmosphere that's (440 giga tonnes).

And temperatures remain flat............?????

There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature, for those interested look at our history and you will find that CO2 and temperature have never correlated.