Help! Climate denying father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-11-2016, 09:50 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
My dad, too, thinks that climate change is a lie.

Good luck. I doubt much can be done to help these poor brainwashed people. o.o
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like AnaBunny's post
27-11-2016, 10:12 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Climate change deniers are the new evolution deniers. Same lack of comprehension, different scientific fact.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WillHopp's post
27-11-2016, 10:34 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Just got back home from my Thanksgiving travels. Thank you all for your links, I'm going to get into reviewing them tomorrow. I shared the first one from TheBeardedDude with my father during breakfast this morning and his question was how we know what the temperatures were +100 years ago, and how we don't know that temperatures weren't higher in say, the 1600's. Somehow, he wonders if NASA has considered this argument.

My father holds a specialist's degree in psychology. He's certainly not an idiot, and he is the one who taught me to approach things with an impartial, scientific mindset. Why do I even need to have this conversation with him? Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
27-11-2016, 11:08 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2016 11:14 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Aliza, I'd invite him to question the degree to which he has been fed misinformation by people (and the corporations they run) with an agenda to muddy the waters in order to keep doing what makes them money. They often accuse scientists of having an agenda, to which I reply, "WHAT agenda?" To make money through grants, they say... to which I reply, "That's absolute bullshit."

As if scientists just can't find enough stuff to work on, so they go into environmental science and try to make up stuff so they can make money. "Well, I was going to use my science degrees to get into cancer research, or look for the next subatomic particle, or develop a new medicine, or find a new species, or isolate the gene for Alzheimer's Disease... but no, there are just too many people already doing that kind of work, and no demand, really, so I'll go into this field where I'll be smeared and called a charlatan by every profit-making company, get paid a minimal amount, just in the hopes that I can get in on the action of grant writing for a nonsense field."

I mean, honestly, is this what they think is happening?!?

Okay, I'll try to help. Your father, who might have been poisoned to distrust the climate scientists who have been screaming at the top of their lungs for the past several decades about this, might perhaps be swayed by the fact that the US military experts have recognized the military implications of Climate Change for decades and have been making active plans to adapt to the fact that it is happening. They're the ultimate pragmatists, are usually highly conservative, and already have enough threats to worry about without making up a whole new arena of them unless there's really something there to worry about.

You can dig up old reports from the military on this, but here's the latest version of their recognition that this is real and that our military will lose effectiveness unless we incorporate it into our planning. I used a Fox News link so your dad would not dismiss it before reading it... I don't know that your dad is conservative enough to prefer Fox over other news sources, but it's a tactic I've learned is useful when debating people who have bought into a particular ideological narrative; use their own sources and they can't dismiss it before considering it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/14/cli...-says.html

A better (less political) article on the subject comes from the DoD themselves:

http://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710

And finally, here's a Forbes article about the fact that it's coming from the Generals and strategists themselves, so he can't just dismiss it as Obama pushing the agenda (as if the President could tell military people what to write and suggest for military planning... but I've heard that one), but from the military establishment that recognized long ago that this was an issue:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2...93422a1f23

"At a time when Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bush 41, and even British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, called for binding international protocols to control greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. Military was seriously studying global warming in order to determine what actions they could take to prepare for the change in threats that our military will face in the future.

The Center for Naval Analysis has had its Military Advisory Board examining the national security implications of climate change for many years. Lead by Army General Paul Kern, the Military Advisory Board is a group of 16 retired flag-level officers from all branches of the Service.

This is not a group normally considered to be liberal activists and fear-mongers."


Edit to Add: "Flag-level officers" means Admirals, and has been expanded to mean Generals, as well, now that they're all working together instead of as totally separate branches.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
27-11-2016, 11:40 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
I think what pisses me off the most about the inherent slur against scientists, when people claim they're exaggerating or making this stuff up (which is a position one must hold, if they are to ignore the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community on this topic), is that they're claiming scientists have a selfish motive, when that's not at all the case...

...but we know damned well that companies do have a selfish motive, that it's their only motive if they have shareholders, and that they have a long history of doing it, muddying the waters with a couple/few bought "pet" scientists of their own.

They did it with cigarettes. We got to live through the time when it was exposed, by a rising popular opinion that we were tired of being manipulated by these companies for their own profit, often outright lying to us openly in order to destroy people's resistance to their charlatan responses and destroy the resistance against their own actions, raising their profit margins at the expense of lives. That was the basis of all the lawsuits against the tobacco companies. Why should we think the petroleum industry and related industries would not operate in a similar fashion, against the chief threat to their ongoing business of selling us the carbon energy of trapped ancient sunlight?

Because we know they already have. That they do.

For a good insight into how the oil companies operate, look at what happened with the anti-knock additive TetraEthyl Lead in gasoline, when science realized there was a link between TEL in the atmosphere and a rise in certain very dangerous health problems:





(Start at the 24-minute mark for the full story of lead, and 28:30 for just the TEL in the industry, the actions of the companies, and the fight against it.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
28-11-2016, 12:38 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Scientists, a group so bad at keeping secrets that the USSR knew about the A-bomb before Japan did, are accused of engineering a grand climate change conspiracy so that they can amass power and funding. According to the oil industry and their friends in government.

Conversely, the oil industry lacks the money to fund a research program with the talent to blow our cover.

[Image: MUAHAHAHA.jpg]

[Image: 56915444.jpg]

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
28-11-2016, 12:51 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(27-11-2016 08:00 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I need some help finding videos or short articles about global warming. My father has been brainwashed been swayed by conservative nonsense, and climate denying is the newest thing that he's going on about. Sad

First you need to clarify what he's "denying". Second, do not use offensive stigmatising language like "denier"! I remain a strong climate sceptic, but I'll tell you what I do believe in a future post.

I'll begin with the 2007 prospective bet made between sceptic David Evans and warmist Brian Schmidt. The details for which are here on Brian's former website, and here on David's website. I'll summarise their bet:
  • 5-year average climate compared 10, 15, and 20 years in the future using NASA GISS data.
  • The baseline date is 2005-2009. It will be compared to the 5-year averages for 2015-2019, 2020-2024, and 2025-2029.
  • Brian's goal was to set the bet at a point where if he lost it was clear there was a systemic failure in climate science. He also says if he were to lose all bets it might even disprove climate change theory.
  • Brian wins $1000 if climate changes by at least 0.17°C per decade average across the reference years.
  • David wins $1000 if climate changes by 0.13°C or less per decade average across the reference years.
  • Between 0.13-0.17 per decade warming voids their best.
  • An additional 2:1 bet sees Brian win $1000 if temperatures increase by just 0.11°C per decade, whereas David wins $2000 with a temperature increase by 0.09°C or less per decade.
  • Therefore David cannot win any money unless temperatures increase by less than 0.11°C per decade.
So, how are they doing so far? Well Brian posted in April 2015 that: "I'm winning the first two months of the five year period from 2015 to 2019, which is good for me but not all that definitive. Prior to 2015, comparing years that didn't count, I was losing the bets, and prior to 2014 I was losing them badly."

The trend at the moment across their reference years shows this:

[Image: gistemps-from-2005.png]

It is therefore slightly in David's favour, although he would still lose the 2:1 bet essentially voiding any winnings between them.



Now to get onto the real issues. Climate change is happening, and IMO it's not a matter of what we can do to prevent it so much as it's a matter of how we handle the issues it will create, particularly in Africa, South America, and other regions of the world where average rainfall shifts away from some nations and towards others.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2016, 01:42 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Next time he puts faith in science (they'll find a replacement for cheap oil, or cure cancer) or marvels at what it can do (look at this shiny gadget etc) then remind him that it is the exact same scientific method that is warning us about climate change. You can't pick and choose. Either the scientific method works, or it doesn't. The existence of the modern day world shows that it does work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
28-11-2016, 07:20 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(27-11-2016 10:34 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Just got back home from my Thanksgiving travels. Thank you all for your links, I'm going to get into reviewing them tomorrow. I shared the first one from TheBeardedDude with my father during breakfast this morning and his question was how we know what the temperatures were +100 years ago, and how we don't know that temperatures weren't higher in say, the 1600's. Somehow, he wonders if NASA has considered this argument.

My father holds a specialist's degree in psychology. He's certainly not an idiot, and he is the one who taught me to approach things with an impartial, scientific mindset. Why do I even need to have this conversation with him? Facepalm

Well, we can use geochemistry to reconstruct temperatures from sediment and fossil samples. So we can calculate (to a high degree of accuracy, maybe plus or minus half a degree?) temperatures for land, ocean, and lakes (we can even reconstruct temperature gradients in the ocean by depth thanks for benthic and pelagic forams). We can also use the geochemical proxies for reconstructing ice volume and how climate change alters hydrology. We can also use the geochemical proxies to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations and we can use most of these proxies in the much more distant past too.

We use: hydrogen isotopes (deltaD)
Oxygen isotopes (delta18O)
Carbon isotopes (delta13C)
Clumped isotopes (Delta47)
Ca/Mg ratios
Tex86
UK37
...these are the ones occurring to me now.

We look at these geochemical proxies either in sediments or in fossils. We can do leaf waxes and clams (sclerochronology) and forams. We can look at speleothems or other inorganic proxies (like marine cements and ice cores).

This is literally what I do for my research.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication..._Australia

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
28-11-2016, 07:25 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
That's the kind of denialism that really gets me. The people who think that all of the data from the paleoclimate record is essentially just made up and the scientists don't know what we are doing.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: