Climate deniers! What are the reasons you're skeptical about climate change? Watch

RoastedElephant
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Are you not convinced by the science, or is it deeper than that? I need specifics.
1
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by RoastedElephant)
Are you not convinced by the science, or is it deeper than that? I need specifics.
Can you identify anyone who does not admit that the climate is changing, has changed in the past and does not believe that climate will change in the future?
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by RoastedElephant)
Are you not convinced by the science, or is it deeper than that? I need specifics.
It doesn't help that so far the debate has been politicised.

Every prediction that's been made hasn't happened. (Ice caps haven't melted, polar bears are still here, temperatures haven't risen an all of a sudden we now get told that heat is going into the oceans.

Anybody that questions is labelled a heretic.

Claims by climate change activists that 97% of climate change scientists agree is wrong. (Those who offer an opinion is 97% (less than 50% of scientists offer an opinion meaning that less than 50% of climate change scientists are willing to say it's man made.)

And let's be honest. Look at the type of people who get upset when you disagree with them. Their inability to rationally discuss a topic and look at facts objectively is entertaining.

Look at the name. Climate change. Climate has always changed.
3
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
It doesn't help that so far the debate has been politicised.
Correct. It may have something to do with hundreds of millions of dollars being pumped into funding anthropogenic climate change denial by the fossil fuel industry.

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Every prediction that's been made hasn't happened. (Ice caps haven't melted, polar bears are still here, temperatures haven't risen an all of a sudden we now get told that heat is going into the oceans.
Ice caps have been melting. If you look at the IPCC's predictions about how fast Arctic sea ice would melt, and look at how fast it actually melted, you'd see that the IPCC were conservative, as usual, in their estimates: sea ice has been melting faster than the IPCC predicted in the Arctic. Temperatures have risen and of course heat goes into the oceans. Decade upon decade, temperatures have risen and 14 out of the 15 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000, and 2015 is set to break 2014's record by some way, whilst 2016 may be warmer still.

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Claims by climate change activists that 97% of climate change scientists agree is wrong. (Those who offer an opinion is 97% (less than 50% of scientists offer an opinion meaning that less than 50% of climate change scientists are willing to say it's man made.)
Out of abstracts which took a position, 97.1% stated that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. But, the reason that positions are not taken in the rest of the abstracts is not because climate scientists "are not willing" to say it's man-made, but because their papers aren't about anthropogenic climate change. Climate science isn't all about that, you know: there are other topics.

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Look at the name. Climate change. Climate has always changed.
This is perhaps the funniest trope. The climate has always changed due to external forcings. Currently, humans are the dominant forcing, causing the climate to warm.
14
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by viddy9)
Correct. It may have something to do with hundreds of millions of dollars being pumped into funding anthropogenic climate change denial by the fossil fuel industry.



Ice caps have been melting. If you look at the IPCC's predictions about how fast Arctic sea ice would melt, and look at how fast it actually melted, you'd see that the IPCC were conservative, as usual, in their estimates: sea ice has been melting faster than the IPCC predicted in the Arctic. Temperatures have risen and of course heat goes into the oceans. Decade upon decade, temperatures have risen and 14 out of the 15 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000, and 2015 is set to break 2014's record by some way, whilst 2016 may be warmer still.



Out of abstracts which took a position, 97.1% stated that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. But, the reason that positions are not taken in the rest of the abstracts is not because climate scientists "are not willing" to say it's man-made, but because their papers aren't about anthropogenic climate change. Climate science isn't all about that, you know: there are other topics.



This is perhaps the funniest trope. The climate has always changed due to external forcings. Currently, humans are the dominant forcing, causing the climate to warm.
Thank you for proving my point (s).
1
reply
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by viddy9)
Correct. It may have something to do with hundreds of millions of dollars being pumped into funding anthropogenic climate change denial by the fossil fuel industry.
This is such a disingenuous argument. There is many times more money going into funding the propagation of AGW alarmism than there is into "denial".
1
reply
Pegasus2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
This is such a disingenuous argument. There is many times more money going into funding the propagation of AGW alarmism than there is into "denial".
er, what?

To what end does AGW 'alamism' achieve anything?

Remember, high abounts of FF funded denial is already proven.


1
reply
SmashConcept
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Thank you for proving my point (s).
Was your point that you didn't really have a point?
9
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by SmashConcept)
Was your point that you didn't really have a point?
You claimed the IPCC have been too conservative with their assessments. If you look at their language they've toned it down because very little of what they're saying came true.

Remember this blast from the past about the ice caps.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

What about polar bears being killed off?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...global-warming

Nobody mentioned the oceans becoming heat sinks when thy claimed temperatures were rising? They had to think that one up super duper quick to highlight the flat lining in global temperatures.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Pegasus2)
er, what?

To what end does AGW 'alamism' achieve anything?

Remember, high abounts of FF funded denial is already proven.


Wow. Several different methods of measurements fused together.

Highly inaccurate manual measurements form 1902 merge with satellite imagery.

Does anybody collect the same stats today using the same methodology as they did in 1902?

They reported meting ice caps in the 1920s.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...tway-81073443/

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/...0-11-0589a.pdf
0
reply
SmashConcept
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
You claimed the IPCC have been too conservative with their assessments. If you look at their language they've toned it down because very little of what they're saying came true.
I haven't claimed anything, because my first post in this thread was telling you you don't have a point. This latest post does little to convince me otherwise.

Remember this blast from the past about the ice caps.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm
What of it?

What about polar bears being killed off?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...global-warming
Apparently they are adapting well to the melting ice. I'll be sure to congratulate the next one I see.

Nobody mentioned the oceans becoming heat sinks when thy claimed temperatures were rising? They had to think that one up super duper quick to highlight the flat lining in global temperatures.
I hate it when a body of scientific work adapts to include new data. Clearly this is holding us back as a society.
1
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
This is such a disingenuous argument. There is many times more money going into funding the propagation of AGW alarmism than there is into "denial".
Yet you provide no evidence for this.

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Their inability to rationally discuss a topic and look at facts objectively is entertaining.
Let's discuss the facts then, in a rational manner. Rational discussion of a topic includes the willingness to change one's mind based on an objective assessment of the evidence. In a rational discussion, one should not flinch from experiences which might destroy one's beliefs. To quote Eliezer Yudkowsky: let the winds of evidence blow you about as though you are a leaf, with no direction of your own. Beware lest you fight a rearguard retreat against the evidence, grudgingly conceding each foot of ground only when forced, feeling cheated. Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can. Do this the instant you realize what you are resisting; the instant you can see from which quarter the winds of evidence are blowing against you. Be faithless to your cause and betray it to a stronger enemy.

One should also be charitable to one's opponent, or, as I put it, one's partner in trying to find out the truth, and embrace criticism.

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
You claimed the IPCC have been too conservative with their assessments. If you look at their language they've toned it down because very little of what they're saying came true.
Could you give an example of where the IPCC have toned their language down? Currently, I believe that this is highly unlikely; if anything, the IPCC have increased their confidence in the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

In the 2007 IPCC report, they stated: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90 percent confidence] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

In the 2013 IPCC report, they stated: "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

Again, I would be pleased to see examples of where the IPCC have toned their language down, but if you do not have any evidence of this, are you willing to, as a rational being, change your mind on this point?

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Remember this blast from the past about the ice caps. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm
I was referring to the IPCC's predictions, which represents the consensus of thousands of climate scientists. Do you accept that the news article you cite contains a claim made by only one research group, namely that of Professor Wieslaw Maslowski?

Do you also accept that the article explicitly cited Dr. Mark Serreze, who states: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years."

Do you also accept that Professor Peter Wadhams, in the article, states: "It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040"?

Finally, this is the actual graph of IPCC predictions vs. actual melting of Arctic sea ice. As you can see, the IPCC predictions were clearly too conservative. Name:  Arctic_models_obs.gif
Views: 240
Size:  14.0 KB

Are you willing to change your mind on this issue, based on the above, as a rational being?

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
What about polar bears being killed off? http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...global-warming
The article you link to in turn cites the Global Warming Policy Foundation and the assessment of a single scientist working for them. This is an organisation dedicated to promoting doubt about global warming. I would be skeptical of such a source. I don't think the IPCC have ever predicted that polar bears would be extinct right now, but they do say that: "if sea ice declines according to some projections, polar bears will face a high risk of extinction with warming of 2.8°C above pre-industrial".

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Nobody mentioned the oceans becoming heat sinks when they claimed temperatures were rising? They had to think that one up super duper quick to highlight the flat lining in global temperatures.
There has been no flat-lining in global temperatures. The rate of surface temperature rise has slown down, but there was no flat-lining. Of course oceans are a heat-sink, but I don't think scientists decades ago could have predicted that there would be global warming deniers who cherry-pick an 18-year period starting from an abnormally warm year (1997-1998) and use it to claim that a regression to the mean counts as "flat-lining". This is why they mainly focused on surface temperatures.
1
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by viddy9)
Yet you provide no evidence for this.



Let's discuss the facts then, in a rational manner. Rational discussion of a topic includes the willingness to change one's mind based on an objective assessment of the evidence. In a rational discussion, one should not flinch from experiences which might destroy one's beliefs. To quote Eliezer Yudkowsky: let the winds of evidence blow you about as though you are a leaf, with no direction of your own. Beware lest you fight a rearguard retreat against the evidence, grudgingly conceding each foot of ground only when forced, feeling cheated. Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can. Do this the instant you realize what you are resisting; the instant you can see from which quarter the winds of evidence are blowing against you. Be faithless to your cause and betray it to a stronger enemy.

One should also be charitable to one's opponent, or, as I put it, one's partner in trying to find out the truth, and embrace criticism.



Could you give an example of where the IPCC have toned their language down? Currently, I believe that this is highly unlikely; if anything, the IPCC have increased their confidence in the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

In the 2007 IPCC report, they stated: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90 percent confidence] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

In the 2013 IPCC report, they stated: "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

Again, I would be pleased to see examples of where the IPCC have toned their language down, but if you do not have any evidence of this, are you willing to, as a rational being, change your mind on this point?



I was referring to the IPCC's predictions, which represents the consensus of thousands of climate scientists. Do you accept that the news article you cite contains a claim made by only one research group, namely that of Professor Wieslaw Maslowski?

Do you also accept that the article explicitly cited Dr. Mark Serreze, who states: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years."

Do you also accept that Professor Peter Wadhams, in the article, states: "It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040"?

Finally, this is the actual graph of IPCC predictions vs. actual melting of Arctic sea ice. As you can see, the IPCC predictions were clearly too conservative. Name:  Arctic_models_obs.gif
Views: 240
Size:  14.0 KB

Are you willing to change your mind on this issue, based on the above, as a rational being?



The article you link to in turn cites the Global Warming Policy Foundation and the assessment of a single scientist working for them. This is an organisation dedicated to promoting doubt about global warming. I would be skeptical of such a source. I don't think the IPCC have ever predicted that polar bears would be extinct right now, but they do say that: "if sea ice declines according to some projections, polar bears will face a high risk of extinction with warming of 2.8°C above pre-industrial".



There has been no flat-lining in global temperatures. The rate of surface temperature rise has slown down, but there was no flat-lining. Of course oceans are a heat-sink, but I don't think scientists decades ago could have predicted that there would be global warming deniers who cherry-pick an 18-year period starting from an abnormally warm year (1997-1998) and use it to claim that a regression to the mean counts as "flat-lining". This is why they mainly focused on surface temperatures.
Out of interest. What does ideal climate look like?

What is ideal temperature?

What is ideal ice coverage?
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Out of interest. What does ideal climate look like?

What is ideal temperature?

What is ideal ice coverage?
Are you going to address my points? Or, have you accepted that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but you're now wondering about whether the effects will be net positive or net negative? You wanted a rational discussion based on objective fact: it would be good to see you respond to some of the points made above. We last had this discussion on 20th December 2014, and, as I did then, I would like to ensure that we don't leave any points hanging, if we're interested in finding out the truth about the matter.
1
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by viddy9)
Are you going to address my points? Or, have you accepted that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but you're now wondering about whether the effects will be net positive or net negative? You wanted a rational discussion based on objective fact: it would be good to see you respond to some of the points made above. We last had this discussion on 20th December 2014, and, as I did then, I would like to ensure that we don't leave any points hanging, if we're interested in finding out the truth about the matter.
It's difficult to address your points. The IPCC toned down their predictions because they were way off. You claim they were too conservative. I can't counter that. It's like segueing with a creationist or SNP supporter. You'll see what you want to see.

Secondly, it's difficult to say things are getting worse because you can't say what ideal state is.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
It's difficult to address your points. The IPCC toned down their predictions because they were way off.
Again, could you give me an example of this? I thought you said you wanted to deal in objective facts and have a rational discussion? Have I not given you evidence? The central conclusion of the IPCC report was, as I demonstrated, toned up, not toned down. Do you dispute this?

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
You claim they were too conservative. I can't counter that.
I've given you empirical evidence demonstrating that they were too conservative when it comes to Arctic sea ice extent. I'd also, again, like to see your response to my analysis of your BBC article.

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Secondly, it's difficult to say things are getting worse because you can't say what ideal state is.
The question of what the ideal state is is disingenuous, because you know that there's no objectively ideal state. What we do know is that organisms on Earth are adapted to the current climate; humans perform economic activity, build infrastructure and build cities based on the current climate. Due to the fact that global temperatures are increasing, we will see an increased risk of extreme weather events, more famine, more water scarcity in some areas, and more disease spreading. Thus, it's very easy to say that things are getting worse.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by viddy9)
Again, could you give me an example of this? I thought you said you wanted to deal in objective facts and have a rational discussion? Have I not given you evidence? The central conclusion of the IPCC report was, as I demonstrated, toned up, not toned down. Do you dispute this?



I've given you empirical evidence demonstrating that they were too conservative when it comes to Arctic sea ice extent. I'd also, again, like to see your response to my analysis of your BBC article.



The question of what the ideal state is is disingenuous, because you know that there's no objectively ideal state. What we do know is that organisms on Earth are adapted to the current climate; humans perform economic activity, build infrastructure and build cities based on the current climate. Due to the fact that global temperatures are increasing, we will see an increased risk of extreme weather events, more famine, more water scarcity in some areas, and more disease spreading. Thus, it's very easy to say that things are getting worse.
This is MatureStudent. Literally incapable of admitting defeat even when you have just shown how you are wrong yourself in words you have written. (My proudest TSR moment, he fell for my trap, mwwuuhhaaaahaaaaa)

Never admit you may be wrong, even if it makes you look like a spud.
3
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by viddy9)
Again, could you give me an example of this? I thought you said you wanted to deal in objective facts and have a rational discussion? Have I not given you evidence? The central conclusion of the IPCC report was, as I demonstrated, toned up, not toned down. Do you dispute this?



I've given you empirical evidence demonstrating that they were too conservative when it comes to Arctic sea ice extent. I'd also, again, like to see your response to my analysis of your BBC article.



The question of what the ideal state is is disingenuous, because you know that there's no objectively ideal state. What we do know is that organisms on Earth are adapted to the current climate; humans perform economic activity, build infrastructure and build cities based on the current climate. Due to the fact that global temperatures are increasing, we will see an increased risk of extreme weather events, more famine, more water scarcity in some areas, and more disease spreading. Thus, it's very easy to say that things are getting worse.
http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missi...ticle33457.htm
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
This is MatureStudent. Literally incapable of admitting defeat even when you have just shown how you are wrong yourself in words you have written. (My proudest TSR moment, he fell for my trap, mwwuuhhaaaahaaaaa)

Never admit you may be wrong, even if it makes you look like a spud.
I don't doubt that the climate has changed.

I don't doubt that man has had some impact on that.

I merely pointed out that elements in the left try and close down debate.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
Thank you. The article cites one prediction that was retracted by the IPCC, namely the claim, from a non peer-reviewed source, that the Himalayan Glaciers would completely melt by 2035.

They were absolutely right to do that, but is one retraction enough to prove your hypothesis that the IPCC has "toned down" its language? No.

Again, I direct you to the central conclusion of the 2007 report, followed by the 2013 report. The 2013 report was more confident in the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

So, it's safe to say that human activities are causing global warming (I've addressed your claim about the slowdown in the rate of surface warming, without response from you, so I can only assume that you've accepted these points). Now, you appear to have questions about whether it will be net positive or net negative, based on the question of whether there is an ideal state.

As I've said, there is no objective ideal state, but the fact that the temperature is increasing from pre-industrial levels will have an effect on both humans and other organisms, meaning that it is bad. This falls outside the remit of this thread, though, which obviously asked why you were skeptical about anthropogenic climate change.

If you'd like to have a discussion about whether the effects of human-caused climate change will be positive or negative, you could perhaps start a different thread.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you give blood?

Yes (69)
8.14%
I used to but I don't now (23)
2.71%
No, but I want to start (313)
36.91%
No, I am unable to (212)
25%
No, I chose not to (231)
27.24%

Watched Threads

View All