Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Environment >> How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1389781317
Message started by # on Jan 15th, 2014 at 8:21pm

Title: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
Post by # on Jan 15th, 2014 at 8:21pm
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming


Quote:
Below is a complete listing of the articles in “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:[list bull-blackball]
  • Stages of Denial,
  • Scientific Topics,
  • Types of Argument, and
  • Levels of Sophistication.Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.
    ...
    • Reveals greggerypeccary as mundane.

    Of course, there's always the award-winning Skeptical Science.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by muso on Jan 15th, 2014 at 8:33pm
    To call them sceptics is an insult to true sceptics. Theirs is an anti-science position.

    They are denialists or confusionists. They fall into two categories.

    1. Those who know that they are propagating lies.
    2. The gullible multitude.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by lee on Jan 15th, 2014 at 9:13pm
    Skeptical Science got an award from UNSW Climate Research. Those same people who featured in "Trapped in the Antarctic Ice", when they didn't return to the ship as quickly as possible, due to the Captains concern about changing conditions.

    Is that Award an exemplar?

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 15th, 2014 at 9:33pm

    muso wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 8:33pm:
    1. Those who know that they are propagating lies.
    2. The gullible multitude.



    Hmmm, that sounds exactly like some people I know.

    Ah yes, of course ...

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 15th, 2014 at 11:15pm
    Kiddy fiddlers of the world unite and take more  ;D

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by # on Jan 16th, 2014 at 12:39pm

    lee wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 9:13pm:
    Skeptical Science got an award from UNSW Climate Research. ...
    I didn't know about that one; thanks for pointing it out.

    The one that impresses me is the Eureka from the Australian Museum.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by lee on Jan 16th, 2014 at 1:28pm

    # wrote on Jan 16th, 2014 at 12:39pm:
    The one that impresses me is the Eureka from the Australian Museum.


    Sponsored by the NSW Government. Same award

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by # on Jan 16th, 2014 at 2:13pm

    greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 9:33pm:

    muso wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 8:33pm:
    1. Those who know that they are propagating lies.
    2. The gullible multitude.



    Hmmm, that sounds exactly like some people I know.
    ...
    1. is of course greggerypeccary.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by # on Jan 16th, 2014 at 2:14pm

    lee wrote on Jan 16th, 2014 at 1:28pm:

    # wrote on Jan 16th, 2014 at 12:39pm:
    The one that impresses me is the Eureka from the Australian Museum.


    Sponsored by the NSW Government. Same award
    So list the awards won by denialist sites.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by progressiveslol on Jan 17th, 2014 at 5:31am

    # wrote on Jan 16th, 2014 at 2:14pm:

    lee wrote on Jan 16th, 2014 at 1:28pm:

    # wrote on Jan 16th, 2014 at 12:39pm:
    The one that impresses me is the Eureka from the Australian Museum.


    Sponsored by the NSW Government. Same award
    So list the awards won by denialist sites.

    Wuwt, most visited website on climate change. The people have given them that award, not some doggy agw church org

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by lee on Jan 17th, 2014 at 11:40am
    Excerpts from an article in Nature -

    'Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.'

    'But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. '

    '“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. According to this theory, the tropical Pacific should snap out of its prolonged cold spell in the coming years.“Eventually,” Trenberth says, “it will switch back in the other direction.” '

    http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

    No estimate of when it will "snap out of it". 100 years, 1,000 years.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by # on Jan 17th, 2014 at 1:12pm

    progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 5:31am:

    # wrote on Jan 16th, 2014 at 2:14pm:

    lee wrote on Jan 16th, 2014 at 1:28pm:

    # wrote on Jan 16th, 2014 at 12:39pm:
    The one that impresses me is the Eureka from the Australian Museum.


    Sponsored by the NSW Government. Same award
    So list the awards won by denialist sites.

    Wuwt, most visited website on climate change. The people have given them that award, not some doggy agw church org
    Not quite sure about the relevance; aren't porn sites popular? Are you saying that Watts peddles denialist porn? You might just be on to something.  :)

    Anyhow, back to basics. Can you substantiate your assertion: "Wuwt, most visited website on climate change"? We'll deal with whether it means anything after we've established whether it's true.

    "some doggy agw church org". That's a bit ruff! So you reckon the Australian Museum is part of the grand Global Warming conspiracy?


    muso wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 8:33pm:
    To call them sceptics is an insult to true sceptics. Theirs is an anti-science position.

    They are denialists or confusionists. They fall into two categories.

    1. Those who know that they are propagating lies.
    2. The gullible multitude.
    It looks like progressiveslol is a 2.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by lee on Jan 17th, 2014 at 3:04pm

    lee wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 11:40am:
    According to this theory, the tropical Pacific should snap out of its prolonged cold spell in the coming years.“Eventually,” Trenberth says, “it will switch back in the other direction


    So natural variation is true, after decades denying its existence.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by muso on Jan 17th, 2014 at 5:21pm

    lee wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 3:04pm:

    lee wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 11:40am:
    According to this theory, the tropical Pacific should snap out of its prolonged cold spell in the coming years.“Eventually,” Trenberth says, “it will switch back in the other direction


    So natural variation is true, after decades denying its existence.


    You haven't been listening.

    http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1247904929

    That's what I said 5 years ago. Read reply 4. It talks about natural variation.

    Every single IPCC report from AR1 has discussed natural variation. Here's the chapter from the third report (TAR)

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/042.htm

    I'll just increase the heading size in case you can't read it properly:


    1.2.2 Natural Variability of Climate

    Lee,
    1. what is that section about?
    2. Are they denying that there is natural variation in climate?
    3. Has anybody actually denied this or are you just speaking from your posterior orifice?

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by # on Jan 17th, 2014 at 8:14pm

    muso wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 8:33pm:
    To call them sceptics is an insult to true sceptics. ...
    Indeed. Unfortunately, the web site says what is says. I've been pondering the misuse of the term sceptic (and variants) for some time.

    Scepticism is a rational philosophy, yet those who embrace the term in relation to Global Warming are anything but rational. Take greggerypeccary, for instance.

    A while back, he was pushing his "insufficient evidence" line. When challenged, greggerypeccary couldn't show any rational basis for his belief. After repeated failures, he finally stopped referring to himself as a sceptic (to me, at least). To this day, however, he clings to that irrational belief. Denialists, it seems, believe what they believe for reasons other than rational.


    muso wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 8:33pm:
    Theirs is an anti-science position.
    ...
    Theirs is a very peculiar psychology.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by # on Jan 17th, 2014 at 8:17pm

    lee wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 11:40am:
    Excerpts from an article in Nature -
    ...
    You really should get your interpretations from somewhere other than denialist blogs. Aren't you confused enough?

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by lee on Jan 17th, 2014 at 9:30pm

    # wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 8:17pm:

    lee wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 11:40am:
    Excerpts from an article in Nature -
    ...
    You really should get your interpretations from somewhere other than denialist blogs. Aren't you confused enough?


    You really ARE deluded - Nature Magazine is not a denialist blog.

    It bills itself as the "international weekly journal of science.

    In the previous issue Chris Turney defended his Antarctic expedition.

    That doesn't sound like a denialist blog.

    It's a wonder I wasn't accused of taking it out of context. That seems to be the alarmist second line of defence.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by lee on Jan 17th, 2014 at 9:45pm
    muso, you are right- natural variation does indeed get a mention.

    However-'Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]

    4. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e US EPA, OAR, Climate Change Division (December 2009), Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: Climate Change: US EPA (PDF), Press release: EPA's Final Endangerment Finding: Climate Change Facts. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171.'

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change 

    So natural variation alone can't explain the warming, but natural variation alone can explain the hiatus.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by muso on Jan 18th, 2014 at 12:25pm

    lee wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 9:45pm:
    So natural variation alone can't explain the warming, but natural variation alone can explain the hiatus.


    Keep trying. Eventually you'll understand aerosols.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by lee on Jan 18th, 2014 at 6:53pm

    muso wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 12:25pm:

    lee wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 9:45pm:
    So natural variation alone can't explain the warming, but natural variation alone can explain the hiatus.


    Keep trying. Eventually you'll understand aerosols.


    An unexpected increase in the number of stratospheric aerosol particles could be another factor keeping Earth cooler than predicted. These particles reflect sunlight back into space, and scientists suspect that small volcanoes — and perhaps even industrialization in China — could have pumped extra aerosols into the stratosphere during the past 16 years, depressing global temperatures.

    Some have argued that these two factors could be primary drivers of the hiatus, but studies published in the past few years suggest that their effects are likely to be relatively small4, 5. Trenberth, for example, analysed their impacts on the basis of satellite measurements of energy entering and exiting the planet, and estimated that aerosols and solar activity account for just 20% of the hiatus. That leaves the bulk of the hiatus to the oceans, which serve as giant sponges for heat. And here, the spotlight falls on the equatorial Pacific.

    Same article

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by # on Jan 18th, 2014 at 7:27pm

    lee wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 9:30pm:

    # wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 8:17pm:

    lee wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 11:40am:
    Excerpts from an article in Nature -
    ...
    You really should get your interpretations from somewhere other than denialist blogs. Aren't you confused enough?


    You really ARE deluded - Nature Magazine is not a denialist blog.
    ...
    True, but wherever you got your misinterpretation of the Nature article is, isn't it?

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 18th, 2014 at 9:54pm

    # wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 7:27pm:

    lee wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 9:30pm:

    # wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 8:17pm:

    lee wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 11:40am:
    Excerpts from an article in Nature -
    ...
    You really should get your interpretations from somewhere other than denialist blogs. Aren't you confused enough?


    You really ARE deluded - Nature Magazine is not a denialist blog.
    ...
    True, but wherever you got your misinterpretation of the Nature article is, isn't it?

    You're saying a source wasn't provided  :o :o

    -that's andreis trick, trying to trick everyone into beleiving he's such a big swinger he doesn't need to provide sources: he uses the o noble art of subtlety....  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D yeh, subtle as a slegehammer  :D

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by lee on Jan 19th, 2014 at 11:31am

    # wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 7:27pm:
    You really ARE deluded
    True



    BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 9:54pm:
    You're saying a source wasn't provided  Shocked Shocked


    But a source was provided- Please do try to keep up. ::)

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by # on Jan 19th, 2014 at 1:54pm

    lee wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 11:31am:

    # wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 7:27pm:
    You really ARE deluded
    True



    BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 9:54pm:
    You're saying a source wasn't provided  Shocked Shocked


    But a source was provided- Please do try to keep up. ::)
    Your evasiveness sounds a lot like greggerypeccary. The source of the article was provided; the source of the misinterpretation wasn't.

    You've never been known to come up with an analysis of your own. Your starting point is always some denialist blog. In this case, I'm guessing Watts.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 19th, 2014 at 2:38pm

    lee wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 9:30pm:

    # wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 8:17pm:

    lee wrote on Jan 17th, 2014 at 11:40am:
    Excerpts from an article in Nature -
    ...
    You really should get your interpretations from somewhere other than denialist blogs. Aren't you confused enough?


    You really ARE deluded - Nature Magazine is not a denialist blog.

    It bills itself as the "international weekly journal of science.

    In the previous issue Chris Turney defended his Antarctic expedition.

    That doesn't sound like a denialist blog.

    It's a wonder I wasn't accused of taking it out of context. That seems to be the alarmist second line of defence.



    "Deluded" is an excellent description.

    Anything that does not support the AGW theory, is a "denialist blog".

    Disciples of AGW will not accept any evidence that dares to question their theory.

    They will always attack the source of the information, no matter how credible it may be.

    Never, in all my life, have I encountered such a closed-minded group of individuals.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by viewpoint on Jan 19th, 2014 at 3:02pm
    Talk sense
    Talk calmly
    Talk logically
    AND STOP SPEWING PARANOIAC RUBBISH!

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by # on Jan 19th, 2014 at 3:16pm

    greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 2:38pm:
    ...
    "Deluded" is an excellent description.
    ...
    Of you, greggerypeccary, it certainly is. For example:

    # wrote on Aug 10th, 2013 at 10:17am:

    # wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

    greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

    # wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 1:32pm:
    ...
    Bearing in mind that the vast majority of the best qualified hold a consistent position on Anthropogenic Global Warming, what are your qualifications for denying that there is "enough reliable, credible evidence to support it"?

    Is your position scepticism or denial?


    Scepticism.

    As I've already explained to you, I am completely open-minded: AGW may indeed be happening.

    Considering the evidence available at the moment though, I remain sceptical.

    So what is your rationale for denying the credibility of the evidence upon which the vast majority of the best qualified rely?

    From your failure to respond, I infer that you have no rational basis for your denial.

    Given that scepticism is a rational philosophy, if your denial has no rational basis, is it scepticism? If your denial is not scepticism, are you a genuine sceptic?

    You can easily establish your credibility by detailing your rationale. If you can't do that, then you might do yourself a favour by examining the reasons for your faith in a belief system that is not supported by the vast majority of the best qualified.

    The invitation was repeated many times:
    http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/66#66
    http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/55#55
    http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/53#53
    http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/33#33
    http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/31#31
    http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375834924/35#35
    http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375841990/57#57
    and these are only the ones that a quick search turned up.

    You repeatedly failed to present any evidence that your belief is rational. I've noticed that you no longer call yourself a sceptic, greggerypeccary, so you at least seem to have become a bit more realistic about yourself.

    Have you abandoned your delusion that there is not "enough reliable, credible evidence to support" Anthropogenic Global Warming? If not, can you:[list bull-blackball]
  • substantiate the assertion and/or
  • detail the rational basis for your belief?

    • Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 20th, 2014 at 1:16am

    viewpoint wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 3:02pm:
    Talk sense
    Talk calmly
    Talk logically
    AND STOP SPEWING PARANOIAC RUBBISH!




    That's asking an awful lot from the AGW disciples.

    Their whole existence is based on paranoiac rubbish.

    Title: Re: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
    Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 20th, 2014 at 4:02am

    greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 1:16am:

    viewpoint wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 3:02pm:
    Talk sense
    Talk calmly
    Talk logically
    AND STOP SPEWING PARANOIAC RUBBISH!




    That's asking an awful lot from the AGW disciples.

    Their whole existence is based on paranoiac rubbish.

    Only the paranoid survive: war is conducted in the economic sphere!

    How many times do you want me to repeat this?..

    System corrupts man.........
    .



    .
      :o

    Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
    YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.