Climate change could kill ice hockey in Canada

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by kirant

Most time people speak, they're out of their element, so it's up to the people with knowledge to break down the information into digestible chunks. Shutting them down with a snide remark only furthers frustration (and I'd suggest a post like Daradon's is much more suitable for the situation)

In general I agree with what you're saying. However, I also share the frustration expressed above. Many people in this 'debate' aren't looking to increase their knowledge on the subject or even to have a real conversation about it. Instead, they have already decided their view, often based on non-science, and close themselves off to the facts.

... Past this, I'm seeing a pretty high level of politics being played with scientific papers, with what I call "bad science" being played. Fair enough that every paper tries to sell you on an idea or concept, but I find it's turned up to eleven in the realm of GHG and global warming.

There have been very few (two to my knowledge) of misleading scientific information or "bad science" being played by the group that has demonstrated the causes and eventual effects of GHG and global warming. Almost all of the "bad science" is being played by climate change deniers. This isn't surprising if you follow the money. Big industry, which is solely interested in short-term profit, has been on a campaign to discredit the science, buy the politicians and muddle the message because it hurts their bottom line.

Until both sides learn to sit down, research properly (and be willing to admit their hypotheses are wrong on occasion...on both sides), and act like, for lack of a better term, mature adults, it's difficult for me to take a larger side because both sides are willing to make proving themselves right a higher priority than doing proper research and the research that comes out makes it difficult to discern truth from fiction.

One 'side' has done EXTENSIVE research into this and has conclusively demonstrated the same thing over and over again. The other 'side' doesn't do research. They play to the lowest common denominator, poke semantic holes into science they don't understand and lobby the public and politicians alike.

There is a fall equivalency being made here. There aren't "two sides" that are arguing the issue. There is no issue to argue. The science is fairly straight-forward. One 'side' of the 'debate' is using science (and lots of it) and the other 'side' of the 'debate' is using primarily nonsense.

So yes, I suppose it's always best to treat people with respect when discussing any issue even when they put their fingers in their ears, scream the theme song to "The Flintstones" and dance around like idiots.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

There is absolutely still debate surrounding the rate of change and, extent of damage caused by humans.
Saying otherwise would be silly.

I wasn't suggesting that the debate is whether humans have or haven't had an effect...

Sorry I read your post as there's debate on how much effect humans are having and whether that's a starting point to debate whether we should do anything about it.

We're having the primary forcing effect. We can do something about it before it's too late. The stakes are incredibly high. This is not something to be laissez-faire about and hope that some technological solution delivers us from salvation. We need concerted policy effort to reduce fossil fuel use, full stop.

[Thor]

Sorry I do try to avoid being a ######, but its really tough sometimes when you spend so much time reading and learning about the science and people with no effort or time talk like they have a clue about whats actually going on in the scientific community.

Especially because I feel debating those who are so distrustful of science tend to very resistant to hearing anything but what confirms to what they already believe. For me its worth discussing these topics with those in the middle who find this whole debate intimidating and tend to shy away because of the passion by people.

I compare it to the frustration you feel when trying to actually debate a truther, a birther... Anyhow thats why we have others like Photon have have patience to spare and others who can do it without the occasional jerk remark like I did.

Anyhow my bad.

[Tinordi]

People who deny the anthropogenic causes of climate change and question whether we should do anything are no better than birthers and truthers.

[kirant]

I apologize in advance. I just realized how I accidentally referred to "both groups", which likely pointed towards the idea that I referred to "it exists" and "it doesn't exist" type of crowds. I've been wrapped in a debate elsewhere with two heavily ingrained sides (one where they say it's a minor issue and one which suggests it's a matter of major change that must occur now), so I was referring to them.

The matter at hand for me is no longer that earth has climate change due to human GHGs, but the extent at which we impact things (which I guess I didn't make clear. I did state I accept that GHGs impact temperature of the earth (which, unless you're using media logic, means that they have a positive correlation) and humans creating GHGs, but it was left implied that I believed humans created positive temperature changes), be it somewhere from "a minor change" to "scorched earth" and the salesman like pitches made to sell us on certain predictive model types.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

In general I agree with what you're saying. However, I also share the frustration expressed above. Many people in this 'debate' aren't looking to increase their knowledge on the subject or even to have a real conversation about it. Instead, they have already decided their view, often based on non-science, and close themselves off to the facts.

And I think that's an issue in society - many times people don't discuss things to exchange ideas, but to attempt to convince others that their viewpoint is right...that they're opinion is the be all, end all.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

There have been very few (two to my knowledge) of misleading scientific information or "bad science" being played by the group that has demonstrated the causes and eventual effects of GHG and global warming. Almost all of the "bad science" is being played by climate change deniers.

I'll be the first to admit I don't keep count of who's been proven wrong anymore. I did in high school, but post secondary eats up so much time. Little things though such as some pretty favourable curving schemes (I recall a big article which used what looked like temperature exponential curving on a data expectation that should not, in theory, be any exponential factors to cause such a rapid change) are what I notice as a red flag.

But the existent/non-existent crowds aren't what I intended to refer to. I mean how we're all now creating a wide stripe of predictions of how strongly GHGs impact the temperature. Even a 10 second Wikipedia search yields uncertainty ranges of about 1.5 degrees Celsius variance (2 to 5 degrees Celsius) 100 years from now. And my intention as a fence sitter is to wait until all this cleans up to decide exactly how badly GHGs actually are an issue, which seems to be a lot of politics (and occasionally gives fuel to the argument that GHGs aren't an issue when they overstretch the realm of logic and reasoning...hardly support for denial, but for people impatient and unwilling to look at the figures and arguments, I would posit that it swings readers one way, even though it shouldn't).

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

One 'side' has done EXTENSIVE research into this and has conclusively demonstrated the same thing over and over again. The other 'side' doesn't do research.

Fair enough. Again, when we consider it "no global warming" against "is global warming", I don't see much of an argument. The extent at which GHGs and global climate interact is a bit of a mystery and something I have no intend debating because of the weirdness played in it.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

There is a fall equivalency being made here. There aren't "two sides" that are arguing the issue. There is no issue to argue. The science is fairly straight-forward. One 'side' of the 'debate' is using science (and lots of it) and the other 'side' of the 'debate' is using primarily nonsense.

Fair enough. That was a mistype on my behalf (see above, where this issue in my mind really shouldn't be considered two partied).

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

There have been very few (two to my knowledge) of misleading scientific information or "bad science" being played by the group that has demonstrated the causes and eventual effects of GHG and global warming.

Let's break it down succinctly. CO2 is one of many green house gasses. Do you know where most of the CO2 originates? No, not from human activity. Most of it comes from water vapor. So, what are we going to ban the oceans? Moreover, the greatest influence on temperature comes from the Sun.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Almost all of the "bad science" is being played by climate change deniers.

You mean like showing cartoons of polar bears and manipulated PowerPoint presentations to impressionable college kids during "An Inconvenient Truth," by Al Gore, whose farm requires $10,000/month in energy?

If this subject interests you, and you have some available time, please watch the video linked in my previous post.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

This isn't surprising if you follow the money.

Yes, by all means, follow the money! If you do, you will learn about the plans for a carbon tax and trading of carbon futures.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Big industry, which is solely interested in short-term profit, has been on a campaign to discredit the science, buy the politicians and muddle the message because it hurts their bottom line.

Explore further and discover banks and the UN with Agenda 21. We could get into a pissing match about Big Business vs. Big Government, but the truth is they're both controlled by the same sources. Don't think for a moment that the "Corporate Elite" aren't involved.

[Red Slinger]

^ I'm going to ignore the strawmen and instead ask some straightforward questions:


1) Do you believe that the Earth is in a warming period?

2) If yes to #1, do you believe that at least part of the reason for this is due to human activity?

3) If yes to #1, do you believe we can do anything to curtail this?

4) If no to #1, what is this belief based on, ie. science?

5) If no to #2, what is this belief based on, ie. science?

6) Do you happen to work in an energy related field?

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

^ I'm going to ignore the strawmen

Of course, it's much easier to engage in name-calling and shift the argument, when confronted with facts and data, instead of orthodoxy.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

If yes to #1, do you believe that at least part of the reason for this is due to human activity?

Yeah, we, as humans, exhale CO2! However, since your question is the (presumed) correlation between CO2 and earth temperatures, again, please view the video. This subject is dealt with in great detail.

[Red Slinger]

I can't see any video as I'm at work at the moment. But I'll check it out later. I presume that the video answers most of the questions I asked, however, I'm guessing it doesn't answer the last one: what you do for a living.

Name calling? Really?

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

Of course, it's much easier to engage in name-calling and shift the argument, when confronted with facts and data, instead of orthodoxy.



Yeah, we, as humans, exhale CO2! However, since your question is the (presumed) correlation between CO2 and earth temperatures, again, please view the video. This subject is dealt with in great detail.

Okay, I watched the video and it was interesting. Then I did a little reading about the reaction to the video:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle

Following criticism from scientists the film has been changed since it was first broadcast on Channel 4. One graph had its time axis relabelled, the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans was removed, and following objections about how his interview had been used, the interview with Carl Wunsch was removed for the international and DVD releases of the programme.
Other scientific arguments used in the film have been described as refuted or misleading by scientists working in the relevant fields.[9][19] Critics have also argued that the programme is one-sided and that the mainstream position on global warming, as supported by the scientific academies of the major industrialised nations and other scientific organisations, is incorrectly represented.[9]

There are lots of websites that debunk this film or at least significant parts of it. I thought the part about the poor, developing nations was frankly pathetic. That's not to suggest that all of it should be dismissed, but also it shouldn't be swallowed hook, line and sinker either.

[GirlySports]

It's going to kill cross-country skiing first! Where the hell are they going to find 50km of snow to stage the marathon?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

Do you know where most of the CO2 originates? No, not from human activity. Most of it comes from water vapor.

Explain the science that supports this claim.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Name calling? Really?

Pointing out a logical fallacy is calling someone a name apparently?

[Tinordi]

What kills me is the lunatic conspiracy theory pointing to some shadowy legion of stone cutters that stand to make money from carbon mitigation. Most loons use this as their key example for why climate change is a hoax.

Instead, just look at the vested interests that have significant amounts to lose if we start weaning off fossil fuels. There are entire industries capitalized to the hundreds of billions of dollars who stand to see their asset value decreased if we do something about global warming. Wouldn't it make much more sense to question the motives of those people and groups instead of making up some conspiracy?

[polak]

Edit: NVM misread the post

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What kills me is the lunatic conspiracy theory pointing to some shadowy legion of stone cutters that stand to make money from carbon mitigation. Most loons use this as their key example for why climate change is a hoax.

Instead, just look at the vested interests that have significant amounts to lose if we start weaning off fossil fuels. There are entire industries capitalized to the hundreds of billions of dollars who stand to see their asset value decreased if we do something about global warming. Wouldn't it make much more sense to question the motives of those people and groups instead of making up some conspiracy?

Yeah I have never understood this either and it is one of the biggest things that bugs me about the 'global warming by humans can't be verified' crowd.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that there is a lot more at stake for the fossil fuel and status quo energy and business crowd than the people who might benefit(?) from carbon trading and reduction, and new emerging technologies or ways of doing business. It also doesn't take more than a couple clicks of a mouse to see where the biggest lobby dollars go. They go to maintaining the status quo.

And it isn't just for this example, that's an example that has repeated itself since the beginning of time. The people in power, or who control the means and the wealth will always fight tooth an nail to stop progress and new ways of doing things.

And in the end, they'll even deny science, just like all the fundamental religious organizations that want to hang on to their power or their world view.

It's such a transparent and silly tactic.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yeah I have never understood this either and it is one of the biggest things that bugs me about the 'global warming by humans can't be verified' crowd.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that there is a lot more at stake for the fossil fuel and status quo energy and business crowd than the people who might benefit(?) from carbon trading and reduction, and new emerging technologies or ways of doing business. It also doesn't take more than a couple clicks of a mouse to see where the biggest lobby dollars go. They go to maintaining the status quo.

And it isn't just for this example, that's an example that has repeated itself since the beginning of time. The people in power, or who control the means and the wealth will always fight tooth an nail to stop progress and new ways of doing things.

And in the end, they'll even deny science, just like all the fundamental religious organizations that want to hang on to their power or their world view.

It's such a transparent and silly tactic.

As Upton Sinclair wrote: "It is hard to get a man to understand something when his income depends on him not understanding it."

[polak]

I'm not getting involved in the man-made or not man-made discussion but the status quo is the status quo for a reason.

The only time it changes easily is if the change improves it.

Frankly, the vast majority of people would much rather find a way to capture and eliminate carbon over doing the necessary things that are needed to really make a big dent into GHG emissions.

Luckily, those technologies are improving and a lot of that is because of the heavy investment from the O&G sector so don't paint them all as evil, polluting, capitalist pigs just yet.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

As Upton Sinclair wrote: "It is hard to get a man to understand something when his income depends on him not understanding it."

Not just that - I think many people in the industry can't contemplate that there may be blood on their hands. Guilt avoidance.

[WCan_Kid]

Is it these evil power brokers dragging their heels, or simply that a vast majority of people aren't willing to give up everything that relies on energy from fossil fuels to solve a problem that we may or may not have any ability to control at this point?

You have to be complete idiot to think humans won't have a negative impact on the environment, but how many of the global warming evangelists are willing to put their money where their mouth is instead of simply passing the responsibility on to someone else?

We have too many people consuming too much stuff, are you ready to give up everything that requires fossil fuels in the hope that we can reverse the damage done? Or, is it is easier to argue in favor of simply transferring money around and calling it "doing something"?

I think if some people were to set aside their undeserved arrogance for a few minutes they might realize that they're really not smarter than the average bear, they just haven't realized that others just want them shut up so they can continue focusing on a practical solution that doesn't require stepping back to the stone age and trying again.