Perversions of open-minded thinking on climate change

[averagejoe]

Try - https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052016/why-antarctica-sea-ice-level-growing-while-arctic-glaciers-melts-climate-change-global-warming

You need to read Static's question again. He was asking why ANTarctic sea ice is at record lows, which it is. So is arctic sea ice.

Underwater volcanoes......

[Silverstarqueen]

As glaciers in Switzerland recede, a 4000 year old forest is revealed. Not the first time for global warming.
Alaskan glaciers are revealing 1000 year old forest.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/08/ ... thing-new/

You are falling for a logical fallacy here. Anthropogenic warming is not invalidated just because a forest existed where there is now a melting glacier. Please familiarize yourself with the Milankovitch cycles. It explains how the earth's climate changes over time and what creates ice ages and warm periods. You might be surprised to know that climate scientists know about these cycles too.

Base purely on Milankovitch cycles, we are currently in a cooling phase. So why is it getting warmer? Hmm. Maybe there's something else going on.

What logical fallacy? I never said anything about antrhopogenic warming.
"You might be surprised that climate scientists know about these cycles too." Yeah, I sure hope they do.
"Maybe there is something else going on". Yes, maybe there is, Could be underwater volcanoes, cosmic rays, etc.

[Silverstarqueen]

Majority of scientists skeptical:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... e560e0171b

No matter which way you lean, you always need to check your sources. In my view, one of the biggest mistakes that lay-people make on both sides of the debate is posting crap that they haven't checked and what they are saying is patently incorrect.

The first sentence of the abstract states the purpose of the study:

This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures.

Hmm, not really about a scientific consensus is it?

From the perspective of whether or not the consensus card can be pulled from the results, there is potentially an amount of confirmation bias in the study group. People who work in the Oil Sands.

To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.

To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada.

Also:

The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol consider climate change to be a significant public risk and see an impact on their personal life.

Based on the framing in the original article, there is no consensus.

Please read and understand your information before you post it.

Thanks

Any scientists which are not skeptical at this point, are not scientists.

[Silverstarqueen]

IF the powers that be simply want to reduce use of fossil fuels, all they have to do is provide the masses with an affordable alternative.

[rustled]

Remember the Vikings? Why did they call Greenland Greenland, when we an see it's just a big block of ice? Because it used to be green. The earth's warming and cooling cycles have coincided with Solar warming and volcanic eruptions. How are we going to control that? Check out the graphic of "Global Temperatures" from thousands of years ago. Even since the last ice age (the last 20,000 years, this variation has been ongoing.

http://www.docmercury.com/rainy/dear-gl ... ing-denier

Good summary of how we got to where we are, with our leaders fiddling while Rome burns. Thanks for posting it.

I appreciated how both "sides" are credited with the spawning the twisted logic that keeps them fiddling, and us endlessly, mindlessly dancing to their tunes instead of insisting we prepare sensibly for the future:

Framing The Debate

The single biggest pit that our side falls into is the "It hasn't warmed in xx years!" claim, which is identical to the "record-breaking" silliness. Who refers to years when dealing with climate on a global scale?

Not to single it out, but a recent article on Hot Air was titled:

Surprise! No warming for last 11 years

In other words, if suddenly the earth actually does warm up over the next few years, then man-made global warming is real? Framing the argument this way is a horrific error in logic, destined to lose, and yet you see it everywhere. Anthony Watts over at Watts Up does it, Tom Harris at Climate Science does it, the guy at Daily Bayonet does it, and now here's Ed Morrissey of Hot Air doing it. Regardless of what he then goes on to say in the article, he's now framed the debate that way. As long as the global temperature doesn't go up, then AGW is a hoax.

As long as.

As I hope I've shown, the only way to debate this issue is to quickly agree that the earth is warming in general, then bring up whether or not it's man-made, then point to the geological record. Anyone still arguing at that point isn't worth the time or trouble. They either have an agenda to fulfill or they're outright zealots, and either way they're not going to be shaken from their anointed path by mere words and graphs.

[JLives]

There are no "sides" unless you are referring to opinion and I don't care about opinion when talking about science, I care about facts. If you are going to blogs for "facts" you aren't getting them. Having an open mind means accepting facts, not looking for someone else's opinion that backs up what you already believe. Having an open mind means not "believing" anything at all but accepting facts as true.

Opinion blog found here - http://www.docmercury.com/rainy/dear-gl ... ing-denier

Science found here - http://climate.nasa.gov/ There's a page that's Greenland and Iceland specific for those who want some knowledge on it. Please note NASA is under Republican administration now for those who think facts have a bias. Maybe you'll listen now.

[JLives]

IF the powers that be simply want to reduce use of fossil fuels, all they have to do is provide the masses with an affordable alternative.

It's not that simple. People's livelihoods are tied up in fossil fuel and our technology is in it's infancy. Yes, we need to make a change in energy sources. Yes, we need to do it now. Yes, people are going to lose a lot in the process and it won't be easy. We're not there yet but we will be eventually and we should be putting a lot more resources into figuring it out.

[Glacier]

There are no "sides" unless you are referring to opinion and I don't care about opinion when talking about science, I care about facts.

There are two sides. One thinks that human emissions are causing or will cause catastrophic warming. The other side doesn't. The science is inconclusive either way.

[JLives]

There are two sides. One thinks that human emissions are causing or will cause catastrophic warming. The other side doesn't. The science is inconclusive either way.

No, there is not and the science is not inconclusive. There is right and wrong. And people who don't accept science are flat wrong. The vast majority of scientists studying this issue agree the facts are true whether or not forum posters agree with them. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ We KNOW we are responsible.

[averagejoe]

We KNOW we are responsible.

WE do?

[JLives]

Scientists do. Whether you want to accept facts or not is on you, not them.

[Glacier]

No, there is not and the science is not inconclusive. There is right and wrong. And people who don't accept science are flat wrong. The vast majority of scientists studying this issue agree the facts are true whether or not forum posters agree with them. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ We KNOW we are responsible.

I never said we weren't responsible for warming. I said some people think we are seeing increased hurricanes, droughts, floods, and many other catastrophic events because of AGW. The science does not even show evidence of such increases let alone causation.

[rustled]

There are no "sides" unless you are referring to opinion and I don't care about opinion when talking about science, I care about facts. If you are going to blogs for "facts" you aren't getting them. Having an open mind means accepting facts, not looking for someone else's opinion that backs up what you already believe. Having an open mind means not "believing" anything at all but accepting facts as true.

Opinion blog found here - http://www.docmercury.com/rainy/dear-gl ... ing-denier

Science found here - http://climate.nasa.gov/ There's a page that's Greenland and Iceland specific for those who want some knowledge on it. Please note NASA is under Republican administration now for those who think facts have a bias. Maybe you'll listen now.

It's a blog, alright, and well worth reading if you care about how you may have been misled, and why, and the travesties caused by widespread mindless support of this "cause".

Having an open mind means accepting all the facts, including those that don't fit your bias.
- Facts like the geological record.
- Facts like the real data that falsified the models on which this "cause" was built.
- Facts like who actually profits by ignoring, manipulating or suppressing that data.
- Facts like the very real people who are kept living in deplorable conditions because of the "cause" (and I simply cannot understand why it is so easy for people caught up in this "cause" to ignore human suffering).
- Facts like the very real environmental devastation done in the name of the "cause".
- Facts like how we're encouraging our leaders to line people's pockets with politically motivated schemes instead of preparing for climate change.

From the piece:

Driving Forces

The reason it's so hard to fight the AGW movement is because it's widely divided into three camps, and without much overlap.

In one corner are the 'pure' environmentalists; meaning, there's nothing political or monetary in their actions, they're just doing it for good ol' Ma Earth. This could generally be broken down into the people who have been convinced by the 'science' of AGW, and those who just buy it because that's what the media says. Imagine how many people out there believe it's true yet have never read a single article on it? Not in the paper, not online. See it on the TV news, spot the same headlines year after year, and there's simply no reason to.
...
So that's the problem.

On one hand, you have ardent believers for whatever reason, and on the other you have people who might very well know it's all b***t, but the actual truth is irrelevant when faced against political power or the almighty dollar.

And the money people are going to be extremely tough to even slow down, much less stop. If you've recently heard of the Euros wanting to impose a carbon tax on the international airlines, then you know this nice little revenue generator is doing nothing but gaining steam. And since everybody makes money on these carbon credit deals — since there's zero expenditure, outlay or risk — they're not going to want to slow it down for any reason, and will fight any effort to do so tooth and nail — or the legal equivalent thereof.

Open-minded means we're willing to consider the possibility we've been misled, that we have formed an opinion or belief on the basis of information that has since been disproved by facts.

That's science.

[Silverstarqueen]

IF the powers that be simply want to reduce use of fossil fuels, all they have to do is provide the masses with an affordable alternative.

It's not that simple. People's livelihoods are tied up in fossil fuel and our technology is in it's infancy. Yes, we need to make a change in energy sources. Yes, we need to do it now. Yes, people are going to lose a lot in the process and it won't be easy. We're not there yet but we will be eventually and we should be putting a lot more resources into figuring it out.

So while our gov't is taxing carbon fuels, what do they want people to use as an alternative?
"We are not there yet", "eventually" does not help people who can barely afford to heat their homes as it is.
Other countries that have taxed the heck out of people's energy use, have forced people literally to turn off their heat, or sit in the dark. So this is not a cavalier question. "What is the affordable alternative?"
"Eventually" does not heat their homes this winter, in one of the longest, coldest, winters.
What exactly are people supposed to do?

[JLives]

It's a blog, alright, and well worth reading if you care about how you may have been misled, and why, and the travesties caused by widespread mindless support of this "cause".

Having an open mind means accepting all the facts, including those that don't fit your bias.
- Facts like the geological record.
- Facts like the real data that falsified the models on which this "cause" was built.
- Facts like who actually profits by ignoring, manipulating or suppressing that data.
- Facts like the very real people who are kept living in deplorable conditions because of the "cause" (and I simply cannot understand why it is so easy for people caught up in this "cause" to ignore human suffering).
- Facts like the very real environmental devastation done in the name of the "cause".
- Facts like how we're encouraging our leaders to line people's pockets with politically motivated schemes instead of preparing for climate change.

From the piece:

Driving Forces

The reason it's so hard to fight the AGW movement is because it's widely divided into three camps, and without much overlap.

In one corner are the 'pure' environmentalists; meaning, there's nothing political or monetary in their actions, they're just doing it for good ol' Ma Earth. This could generally be broken down into the people who have been convinced by the 'science' of AGW, and those who just buy it because that's what the media says. Imagine how many people out there believe it's true yet have never read a single article on it? Not in the paper, not online. See it on the TV news, spot the same headlines year after year, and there's simply no reason to.
...
So that's the problem.

On one hand, you have ardent believers for whatever reason, and on the other you have people who might very well know it's all b***t, but the actual truth is irrelevant when faced against political power or the almighty dollar.

And the money people are going to be extremely tough to even slow down, much less stop. If you've recently heard of the Euros wanting to impose a carbon tax on the international airlines, then you know this nice little revenue generator is doing nothing but gaining steam. And since everybody makes money on these carbon credit deals — since there's zero expenditure, outlay or risk — they're not going to want to slow it down for any reason, and will fight any effort to do so tooth and nail — or the legal equivalent thereof.

Open-minded means we're willing to consider the possibility we've been misled, that we have formed an opinion or belief on the basis of information that has since been disproved by facts.

That's science.

Rustled, I don't have a bias. That's not what the word means. I'm accepting the facts the scientists do. If the science showed we weren't causing an acceleration of the warming I would accept that conclusion immediately, but it doesn't. Why do you think you know more than them? Can you link me to your studies? Why does that blogger know more than the vast majority of climate scientists around the planet, from both private and public backgrounds? It is a conspiracy theory to believe scientists around the planet from multiple funding sources, including some paid by oil companies to debunk it but who found otherwise, are colluding around the planet to mislead us to profit off carbon taxes that aren't even in affect in the majority of the areas they work in and they don't benefit from. There are no high fallutin' scientists jetting off with their bags of money. Do you get that? Do you understand how impossible that would be to pull over on an entire planet of people? How come the blogger is right because he agrees with you but the VAST MAJORITY of climate scientists who are studying the issue in their fields are wrong? What makes you so special that you have it all figured out and we should take your opinions over their facts?