Help! Climate denying father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-11-2016, 08:24 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
One thing you could do is show him that Exxon Mobil misled the public about climate change, and see how he reacts to that: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...ate-change
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GenesisNemesis's post
28-11-2016, 12:04 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(28-11-2016 12:51 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(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.

This is a terrible bet, on both sides. It limits the range of data to a very narrow band, raising the possibility (probability) of anomalous data corrupting the overall picture, due to a relatively small sample size.

More importantly, it ignores that there are other factors potentially in play which might alter or mitigate the rate of global average temperature change in a five-year span. For instance: the ice is melting.

According to NASA's Earth Observatory project, in the past few decades alone we have lost 9% of the Arctic ice each decade, and the rate appears to be increasing. Now this doesn't change the ocean height because the ice floats, displacing its weight in water, but as the melt happens over land-areas like Greenland and Antarctica, it has the potential to really impact the sea levels.

This "bet" you described strikes me as roughly akin to holding a thermometer close/directly over a bucket of ice with a fire built underneath it, and commenting that the fire seems to be doing nothing because the thermometer isn't showing a change in the air temperature above the ice. We'll just ignore that it's all melting at a prodigious rate!

I found the same sorts of problems with Michael Crichton's anti-climate-change book, State of Fear, the ultimate in conspiracy theory and looking myopically at data in only select points (such as, in his case, high-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite), while ignoring the congruence of all the other data.

"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
28-11-2016, 05:33 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(28-11-2016 12:04 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  According to NASA's Earth Observatory project, in the past few decades alone we have lost 9% of the Arctic ice each decade, and the rate appears to be increasing. Now this doesn't change the ocean height because the ice floats, displacing its weight in water, but as the melt happens over land-areas like Greenland and Antarctica, it has the potential to really impact the sea levels.

Antarctica is not a land mass like Greenland. It is a series of islands like Indonesia that is presently covered by ice. If the ice wasn't there, no one would call it a "continent", and the word continent is purely arbitrary anyway.



Now I'll go over the science that I think virtually all climate sceptics agree with:
  1. The earth has been warming since at least the 1800's.
  2. According to NASA in 2009, CO2 accounts for around 50% of the anthropogenic warming trend observed from greenhouse gasses. The remaining 50% is due to a combination of Methane, Black Carbon, and trace CFCs.
  3. The global climate is always warming or cooling by a few tenths of a degree per century, therefore nature is likely playing a role in either curtailing the trend, or in exacerbating it (more likely).
  4. Humans are playing a significant role in climate change, but we're not sure how much.
Now I want to go over the lies that are told about all this.

Firstly - sea level rise. Sea level rise has nothing to do with glacial melting, nor is it directly related to surface air temperature. Sea level rise is due to the deep ocean temperature increasing, which causes water to expand and occupy more volume. This is very well attested to in the scientific literature, and yet it gets completely ignored by climate scientists and the media who wrongly use sea level rise for their agenda. Because it's based on deep ocean temperature, the tend does not follow and is not correlated to shorter term global warming trends, and in fact sea levels have been rising at a consistent rate for at least 20,000 years now:

[Image: grLpR9t.jpg]
(Image: NASA)

You can see clearly, that sea levels have not fallen at any time in the past 20,000 years - not even during the Little Ice Age.

Okay, secondly - we don't know how much the world is going to warm by over the next century. Now - sure don't take my word for it, I'm a sceptic. Let's listen to a humanist who is a strong warmest, and a highly respected philosopher - Noam Chomsky:




(at 23:50)

When asked if it's too late to stop climate change "well we don't know". There's another interview I've seen where he has been asked how much warming will there be if we do nothing, and he gives the same answer.

The issue here is that it's reasonably well established now in climate science that CO2 is only 50% of the anthropogenic cause that contributes to climate change.

Let's imagine a scenario where we are sure the world will warm by 4°C over the next century. And let's assume it's all due to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. That means that if we eliminate all CO2 emissions then we could limit the warming to 2°C. Australia is responsible for 1.5% of global CO2 emissions. That means we are responsible for 0.03°C of the predicted trend over the next century.

Of course if we assume that the trend is 50% due to nature, and 50% due to human activity that improvement we make then drops to 0.015°C. And if the world is only going to experience 2°C of warming over the next century, not 4, then it drops even further to 0.0075°C - a level that we can't even measure! So if that were the case then we would make a completely immeasurable difference to the overall climate trend.

So I reiterate what I said earlier - climate change policy should focus on addressing the real world problems associated with climate change, such as shifts in rainfall. If that's not addressed then 60 years from now we will face a refugee crisis far greater than the present refugee crisis and people need to move from arid regions to fertile regions. And that is going to pose an ongoing problem for us for many thousands of years to come, because in the ancient world people used to just get up and leave and go to new places when their rivers ran dry - now they can't do that because the whole world is populated. That is the problem that needs to be addressed now, not trying futile measures to contain climate change that will do next to nothing even in the best case scenario. By the way, it's not a huge problem for us in Australia - yes average rainfall will shift north, but we're not projected to have less overall rainfall.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aractus's post
28-11-2016, 08:22 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Nothing you say or present to him will change his mind.

He is a science denier. He doesn't understand chemistry, because it's too complicated.

In the end, he doesn't want to make the effort.
He doesn't want to form his own opinions.
He wants to be told by people he sees on TV what the "truth" is and conservative TV is all propaganda.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2016, 09:33 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(28-11-2016 08:22 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Nothing you say or present to him will change his mind.

He is a science denier. He doesn't understand chemistry, because it's too complicated.

In the end, he doesn't want to make the effort.
He doesn't want to form his own opinions.
He wants to be told by people he sees on TV what the "truth" is and conservative TV is all propaganda.

He understands chemistry better than I do, but then again I suck at chemistry. My father has enough chemistry under his belt to have gotten certified to teach it at the high school level. He's not a dumb guy, but he is being intellectually dishonest about this.

He's fallen in with this Trump crowd and all of a sudden he's denying climate change. Trump speaks to his aggravations, so to be a part of the in-group, he's adopting their paranoid, politically and financially motivated position on everything including science and education. Dodgy Yes, he's willing to let the TV tell him what the 'truth' is, because that 'truth' comes packaged with the other things he wants and cares about more than climate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2016, 10:31 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(28-11-2016 09:33 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(28-11-2016 08:22 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Nothing you say or present to him will change his mind.

He is a science denier. He doesn't understand chemistry, because it's too complicated.

In the end, he doesn't want to make the effort.
He doesn't want to form his own opinions.
He wants to be told by people he sees on TV what the "truth" is and conservative TV is all propaganda.

He understands chemistry better than I do, but then again I suck at chemistry. My father has enough chemistry under his belt to have gotten certified to teach it at the high school level. He's not a dumb guy, but he is being intellectually dishonest about this.

He's fallen in with this Trump crowd and all of a sudden he's denying climate change. Trump speaks to his aggravations, so to be a part of the in-group, he's adopting their paranoid, politically and financially motivated position on everything including science and education. Dodgy Yes, he's willing to let the TV tell him what the 'truth' is, because that 'truth' comes packaged with the other things he wants and cares about more than climate.

So you have identified the problem. Have you tried conveying these thoughts to him?

If he refuses to even consider that you are right then there isn't much else that you can do to help him. His mind is made.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2016, 11:03 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(28-11-2016 10:31 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(28-11-2016 09:33 PM)Aliza Wrote:  He understands chemistry better than I do, but then again I suck at chemistry. My father has enough chemistry under his belt to have gotten certified to teach it at the high school level. He's not a dumb guy, but he is being intellectually dishonest about this.

He's fallen in with this Trump crowd and all of a sudden he's denying climate change. Trump speaks to his aggravations, so to be a part of the in-group, he's adopting their paranoid, politically and financially motivated position on everything including science and education. Dodgy Yes, he's willing to let the TV tell him what the 'truth' is, because that 'truth' comes packaged with the other things he wants and cares about more than climate.

So you have identified the problem. Have you tried conveying these thoughts to him?

If he refuses to even consider that you are right then there isn't much else that you can do to help him. His mind is made.

My father is allowing climate denying bullshit to override what should be very obvious to him -and always was very obvious to him in the past. He's stopped being skeptical and he's accepting conservative arguments at face value. This is unacceptable! Angry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aliza's post
29-11-2016, 03:40 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(28-11-2016 05:33 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
(28-11-2016 12:04 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  According to NASA's Earth Observatory project, in the past few decades alone we have lost 9% of the Arctic ice each decade, and the rate appears to be increasing. Now this doesn't change the ocean height because the ice floats, displacing its weight in water, but as the melt happens over land-areas like Greenland and Antarctica, it has the potential to really impact the sea levels.

Antarctica is not a land mass like Greenland. It is a series of islands like Indonesia that is presently covered by ice. If the ice wasn't there, no one would call it a "continent", and the word continent is purely arbitrary anyway.



Now I'll go over the science that I think virtually all climate sceptics agree with:
  1. The earth has been warming since at least the 1800's.
  2. According to NASA in 2009, CO2 accounts for around 50% of the anthropogenic warming trend observed from greenhouse gasses. The remaining 50% is due to a combination of Methane, Black Carbon, and trace CFCs.
  3. The global climate is always warming or cooling by a few tenths of a degree per century, therefore nature is likely playing a role in either curtailing the trend, or in exacerbating it (more likely).
  4. Humans are playing a significant role in climate change, but we're not sure how much.
Now I want to go over the lies that are told about all this.

Firstly - sea level rise. Sea level rise has nothing to do with glacial melting, nor is it directly related to surface air temperature. Sea level rise is due to the deep ocean temperature increasing, which causes water to expand and occupy more volume. This is very well attested to in the scientific literature, and yet it gets completely ignored by climate scientists and the media who wrongly use sea level rise for their agenda. Because it's based on deep ocean temperature, the tend does not follow and is not correlated to shorter term global warming trends, and in fact sea levels have been rising at a consistent rate for at least 20,000 years now:

[Image: grLpR9t.jpg]
(Image: NASA)

You can see clearly, that sea levels have not fallen at any time in the past 20,000 years - not even during the Little Ice Age.

Okay, secondly - we don't know how much the world is going to warm by over the next century. Now - sure don't take my word for it, I'm a sceptic. Let's listen to a humanist who is a strong warmest, and a highly respected philosopher - Noam Chomsky:




(at 23:50)

When asked if it's too late to stop climate change "well we don't know". There's another interview I've seen where he has been asked how much warming will there be if we do nothing, and he gives the same answer.

The issue here is that it's reasonably well established now in climate science that CO2 is only 50% of the anthropogenic cause that contributes to climate change.

Let's imagine a scenario where we are sure the world will warm by 4°C over the next century. And let's assume it's all due to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. That means that if we eliminate all CO2 emissions then we could limit the warming to 2°C. Australia is responsible for 1.5% of global CO2 emissions. That means we are responsible for 0.03°C of the predicted trend over the next century.

Of course if we assume that the trend is 50% due to nature, and 50% due to human activity that improvement we make then drops to 0.015°C. And if the world is only going to experience 2°C of warming over the next century, not 4, then it drops even further to 0.0075°C - a level that we can't even measure! So if that were the case then we would make a completely immeasurable difference to the overall climate trend.

So I reiterate what I said earlier - climate change policy should focus on addressing the real world problems associated with climate change, such as shifts in rainfall. If that's not addressed then 60 years from now we will face a refugee crisis far greater than the present refugee crisis and people need to move from arid regions to fertile regions. And that is going to pose an ongoing problem for us for many thousands of years to come, because in the ancient world people used to just get up and leave and go to new places when their rivers ran dry - now they can't do that because the whole world is populated. That is the problem that needs to be addressed now, not trying futile measures to contain climate change that will do next to nothing even in the best case scenario. By the way, it's not a huge problem for us in Australia - yes average rainfall will shift north, but we're not projected to have less overall rainfall.

I actually agree with all of this. I think it has been too late to "stop" it for quite some time, that the problems (such as the deep ocean temps) are ones that are going to continue to build over time rather than showing immediate correlation to what is causing them, like a lit fuse that hasn't yet set off the dynamite.

At this point, we should be trying to make the world better to live in after all the changes that are bound to happen occur... including putting more effort into determining what they will be and how we can cope with them. I like the cartoon that was posted before, about "What if this is all a hoax and we make the world better for nothing?"

I posted the military part because the US military certainly recognizes that it is happening, has clearly concluded that we're fucked if we don't make major changes RIGHT NOW (as in 30 years ago, when they started) to cope with the way the world is going to be when those rainfall patterns and other weather issues shift. All those people who depend on crops from settled regions that have gone dry/burned up are going to be very hungry, and very, very pissed off. I keep thinking of Jared Diamond's book Collapse, in his chapters on the Anasazi and the Incas, where their civilizations were flourishing until drought wiped them out and/or turned them into monsters as part of their collapse. Sad

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
29-11-2016, 03:42 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(28-11-2016 09:33 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(28-11-2016 08:22 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Nothing you say or present to him will change his mind.

He is a science denier. He doesn't understand chemistry, because it's too complicated.

In the end, he doesn't want to make the effort.
He doesn't want to form his own opinions.
He wants to be told by people he sees on TV what the "truth" is and conservative TV is all propaganda.

He understands chemistry better than I do, but then again I suck at chemistry. My father has enough chemistry under his belt to have gotten certified to teach it at the high school level. He's not a dumb guy, but he is being intellectually dishonest about this.

He's fallen in with this Trump crowd and all of a sudden he's denying climate change. Trump speaks to his aggravations, so to be a part of the in-group, he's adopting their paranoid, politically and financially motivated position on everything including science and education. Dodgy Yes, he's willing to let the TV tell him what the 'truth' is, because that 'truth' comes packaged with the other things he wants and cares about more than climate.

This is a shockingly good analysis of the psychology going on here. A pity your father the psychologist can't see it. Undecided

I'll just refer back to my original comment, that you should invite him (as a professional expert on the brain, including the human tendency to self-deceive) to reconsider his prejudices and blind spots, when it comes to this subject.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
29-11-2016, 05:38 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(29-11-2016 03:40 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I actually agree with all of this. I think it has been too late to "stop" it for quite some time, that the problems (such as the deep ocean temps) are ones that are going to continue to build over time rather than showing immediate correlation to what is causing them, like a lit fuse that hasn't yet set off the dynamite.

I guess one more example I could have given is the Great Barrier Reef and coral bleaching. Parts of the reef are always bleached that's just how reefs go through their life cycles is they die and regrow. Yes it's probably true that a higher climate has caused more bleaching, but it pales in comparison to polluted river run-offs if you want to look for an anthropogenic cause. There is no solid evidence that I have seen that shows the reef is in long-term danger due to climate change.

Quote:At this point, we should be trying to make the world better to live in after all the changes that are bound to happen occur...

Well here's the thing that many people don't get. There is no solid academic evidence published, here or anywhere in the world, that says that we can prevent climate change by eliminating CO2 emissions. What we do need to do is work out how to respond to climate change to prevent the crisis of climate refugees that will happen in just 60 years or so!

If I must say so, we're not the problem - it's those asshole counties that have bred to unsustainable populations that have cause this problem. Filling their lands to and well beyond capacity. We could cut ourselves off from the rest of the world and live quite happily - we have enough food, shelter, and water for everyone even if a climate crisis happens here.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: