Help! Climate denying father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-12-2016, 02:25 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(02-12-2016 08:34 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Maybe this will help.




Thank you for posting that.

"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
02-12-2016, 02:33 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(02-12-2016 02:17 PM)morondog Wrote:  TBD, glad to have you in this thread. As well as Paleophyte. Aractus seems to be an example of a plausible, smooth-spoken guy who'd probably get away with this bullshit if you weren't there to point out the deficiencies. Here's to you Bowing

Have to put that education to good use when I can Thumbsup

[Image: 16552.jpg]

[Image: 5484a09ae989fdbb337c0e0abba3a78f.jpg]

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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
02-12-2016, 03:26 PM (This post was last modified: 02-12-2016 03:40 PM by Aractus.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(02-12-2016 07:55 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It is a terrible reason. You are quite literally saying that because of something that was oversimplified and then presented to you while you were getting your primary school education, you no longer trust the experts (scientists). That is an awful reason.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the science was right but the climate modelling was wrong, we know it was wrong, and we were right to be sceptical. We have been vindicated by the fact that climate modelling now does not show the 8-12 degree rise.

Quote:Instead you seem to be doubling down on it. You have scientists telling you about the mistakes you are making in your assumptions, but you continue to believe you are correct.

In peer-review there is something called publication bias. It has always been there, but only more recently have people clearly recognised it for what it is. The way the IPCC calculated its "consensus" in 2007 (and please feel free to correct me if I err here) is that they read the abstracts of every paper in the field in a specific time-frame - any that were neutral as to GHGs contributing to climate change they ignored, and then they compared the number of papers that said it was with those that said it wasn't. That of course was a grossly inaccurate way to determine whether there's consensus on the issue - you're hardly likely to see "climate change is not caused by Indian rainmakers" by scientists who dismiss that idea - it's more likely they'll say nothing at all. And if you are going to take the time to say it, you're probably not going to put it in your paper's abstract.

The warmist position is overrepresented in the literature, and as climategate showed they are deeply affected by groupthink. If you don't think those are good reasons to be sceptical then you're the one who isn't taking science seriously.

Quote:2) It is also a straw man to assert that scientists were all alarmingly predicting catastrophe by now

That's what we were told in the early-mid 90's.

Quote:Also, if you're going to say "alarmist" as a derogatory term, don't be hypocritical when someone calls people deniers.

I believe I'm drawing the line sensibly between most warmists and some alarmists. You'd do well to draw the line between sceptics and deniers. I'm not denying any part of climate science - I'm saying what I don't think most people are aware of which is that CO2 is not solely responsible, it is about 50% responsible (slightly less) out of the anthropogenic GHGs. We think that the anthropogenic CC and the natural CC are happening together, and we don't know how much of the past warming trend is attributable to GHGs, but we think it's probably about half.

But, even using numbers from the most alarmist types we see that eliminating all CO2 emissions in Australia will have only a negligible near-zero effect on climate change. Therefore I do not feel that action is appropriate. As I've said though, a thousand times, if you want to reduce CO2 emissions to fix ocean acidification then that's a cause I can get behind.

If you want us to be a part of a global effort there needs to be greater recognition that it's the countries with absurdly high population densities that need to do the heavy-lifting - not Canada, Australia, the US, Africa or South America. Canada was a key participant in negotiating the Kyoto protocol, but in 2011 they had to pull out of it because they found it would be impossible to meet their requirements. The UK decided to move to biofuel and look at the fuck-up that caused.

Quote:2) Fishing of all marine mammalian species helps in what way? That is a terrible idea with an even worse justification. Overfishing one species is NOT a valid reason to overfish any other.

Helps with sustainability.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2016, 03:57 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(02-12-2016 03:26 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
(02-12-2016 07:55 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It is a terrible reason. You are quite literally saying that because of something that was oversimplified and then presented to you while you were getting your primary school education, you no longer trust the experts (scientists). That is an awful reason.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the science was right but the climate modelling was wrong, we know it was wrong, and we were right to be sceptical. We have been vindicated by the fact that climate modelling now does not show the 8-12 degree rise.

Quote:Instead you seem to be doubling down on it. You have scientists telling you about the mistakes you are making in your assumptions, but you continue to believe you are correct.

In peer-review there is something called publication bias. It has always been there, but only more recently have people clearly recognised it for what it is. The way the IPCC calculated its "consensus" in 2007 (and please feel free to correct me if I err here) is that they read the abstracts of every paper in the field in a specific time-frame - any that were neutral as to GHGs contributing to climate change they ignored, and then they compared the number of papers that said it was with those that said it wasn't. That of course was a grossly inaccurate way to determine whether there's consensus on the issue - you're hardly likely to see "climate change is not caused by Indian rainmakers" by scientists who dismiss that idea - it's more likely they'll say nothing at all. And if you are going to take the time to say it, you're probably not going to put it in your paper's abstract.

The warmist position is overrepresented in the literature, and as climategate showed they are deeply affected by groupthink. If you don't think those are good reasons to be sceptical then you're the one who isn't taking science seriously.

Quote:2) It is also a straw man to assert that scientists were all alarmingly predicting catastrophe by now

That's what we were told in the early-mid 90's.

Quote:Also, if you're going to say "alarmist" as a derogatory term, don't be hypocritical when someone calls people deniers.

I believe I'm drawing the line sensibly between most warmists and some alarmists. You'd do well to draw the line between sceptics and deniers. I'm not denying any part of climate science - I'm saying what I don't think most people are aware of which is that CO2 is not solely responsible, it is about 50% responsible (slightly less) out of the anthropogenic GHGs. We think that the anthropogenic CC and the natural CC are happening together, and we don't know how much of the past warming trend is attributable to GHGs, but we think it's probably about half.

But, even using numbers from the most alarmist types we see that eliminating all CO2 emissions in Australia will have only a negligible near-zero effect on climate change. Therefore I do not feel that action is appropriate. As I've said though, a thousand times, if you want to reduce CO2 emissions to fix ocean acidification then that's a cause I can get behind.

If you want us to be a part of a global effort there needs to be greater recognition that it's the countries with absurdly high population densities that need to do the heavy-lifting - not Canada, Australia, the US, Africa or South America. Canada was a key participant in negotiating the Kyoto protocol, but in 2011 they had to pull out of it because they found it would be impossible to meet their requirements. The UK decided to move to biofuel and look at the fuck-up that caused.

Quote:2) Fishing of all marine mammalian species helps in what way? That is a terrible idea with an even worse justification. Overfishing one species is NOT a valid reason to overfish any other.

Helps with sustainability.

I love it when an amateur lectures a scientist on what peer review is and how science is done /sarcasmfont

Pull your head from the sand some time and join the rest of us instead of assuming you know more than the rest of us and you might learn something.

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
02-12-2016, 04:22 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(02-12-2016 03:26 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
Quote:2) Fishing of all marine mammalian species helps in what way? That is a terrible idea with an even worse justification. Overfishing one species is NOT a valid reason to overfish any other.

Helps with sustainability.

Facepalm You trolling? Overfishing = ecological balance fucked. How does more fishing make it sustainable, pray? You're aware that entire fishing industries have ceased to exist because the stocks have been fished out?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
02-12-2016, 04:30 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(02-12-2016 04:22 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(02-12-2016 03:26 PM)Aractus Wrote:  Helps with sustainability.

Facepalm You trolling? Overfishing = ecological balance fucked. How does more fishing make it sustainable, pray? You're aware that entire fishing industries have ceased to exist because the stocks have been fished out?

That's but one of many incredibly stupid things he's said in this thread. Don't you know that continents aren't real too?!!!!!

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
02-12-2016, 04:34 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(02-12-2016 04:30 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Don't you know that continents aren't real too?!!!!!

ORLY? They're a scientist's plot too???

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
02-12-2016, 04:36 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(02-12-2016 04:34 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(02-12-2016 04:30 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Don't you know that continents aren't real too?!!!!!

ORLY? They're a scientist's plot too???

And apparently 60% of Antarctica is over water. Whatever the fuck that means. Too many conspiracies to keep track of, I don't know where to start.

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
02-12-2016, 07:13 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(02-12-2016 04:22 PM)morondog Wrote:  How does more fishing make it sustainable, pray? You're aware that entire fishing industries have ceased to exist because the stocks have been fished out?

It doesn't. I said that the Minke whale farming by Japan is more sustainable than the Bluefin tuna farming by Australia.

(02-12-2016 03:57 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Pull your head from the sand some time and join the rest of us instead of assuming you know more than the rest of us and you might learn something.

My position is not that much different from warmists. The only difference is that I don't think we should do anything about CO2 emissions for that reason. I don't think there's a looming catastrophe about to happen, and I believe that renewable energy sources are going to be cheaper than coal and gas very soon anyway. I don't believe in biofuel because it's been an absolute environmental disaster, but I'd love to see electric vehicles displace most that are run on petrol in my lifetime.

I am more than happy to be on-board with reducing CO2 levels to prevent further acidification of the oceans.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2016, 08:40 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Try celebrating your father’s rational and skeptical thinking.

If he read Michael Crichton’s CalTech lecture, or something of a similar nature, he will probably not open his arms to secular religion.

Climate “science” is like Trinity Broadcasting Network, but without all the singing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: