Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[The Garbone]

Happy New Year..

And they lied....

Forbes Welcome

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If there's sfa we can do about it, then why is it so important to you to slap down the finding? Sounds you're locked into step 1 of the grieving process, maybe?



bad example. Like eating more veggies, making reductions in CO2 output won't kill you, and might do you some good in other areas as well.

If there's a 95% probability you have cancer X, you would at least cough up for more tests, and at 95% likelihood, you might immediately opt for treatment anyway.

Umm, no.

It's like going to the doctor and being told that you have a disease that has a 95% chance of being lifestyle related that may have symptoms ranging from none to a remote possibility of severe that won't show up for decades and cannot be cured at this time,

However, there's a therapy available that may, or may not, prolong the above onset and alleviate any current asymptomatic problems if present. It just requires you to make radical and inconvenient changes to your everyday lifestyle at great expense starting today.

Not like eating your Brussels sprouts at all, imo.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Well this is nothing better than an attempt at a press release. Really. What on earth is this supposed to represent and how does it address anything at all that I have said? This is one of the sloppliest, most weirdly irrelevant (to anything vaguely identifiable as scientifically relevant) pieces that I have ever had the displeasure to read from an ostensibly academic institution.

I mean… truly. You posted it here. What do you think that it is attempting to say? What are its actual, scientifically relevant and precise data points? WTF is this even supposed to be, because it bears almost zero resemblance to anything like any scientific paper I have ever known.

It is a press release to draw attention to an article by scientists at UM who published the referred article in Geology. The actual article is behind a paywall, sorry. The summary seemed on-point.

No doubt your own scientific credentials will entitle you to free viewing of the referenced paper.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Umm, no.

It's like going to the doctor and being told that you have a disease that has a 95% chance of being lifestyle related that may have symptoms ranging from none to a remote possibility of severe that won't show up for decades and cannot be cured at this time,

However, there's a therapy available that may, or may not, prolong the above onset and alleviate any current asymptomatic problems if present. It just requires you to make radical and inconvenient changes to your everyday lifestyle at great expense starting today.

Not like eating your Brussels sprouts at all, imo.

It was thoughtful of you to provide as many false and irrelevent assumptions as in your anti-AGW position.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It was thoughtful of you to provide as many false and irrelevent assumptions as in your anti-AGW position.

Really? Do share.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It is a press release to draw attention to an article by scientists at UM who published the referred article in Geology. The actual article is behind a paywall, sorry. The summary seemed on-point.

No doubt your own scientific credentials will entitle you to free viewing of the referenced paper.

Well if it was "on point" I would appreciate your personal analysis of it… as to the last sentence, was it an attempt at sarcasm? Because it really looked like a clear case of argumentum ad populum to me. Or were you trying to make some kind of appeal to authority?

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It is a press release to draw attention to an article by scientists at UM who published the referred article in Geology. The actual article is behind a paywall, sorry. The summary seemed on-point.

No doubt your own scientific credentials will entitle you to free viewing of the referenced paper.

Hostage to fortune, and a poor (of the otherwise defeated) argument, mate.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by The Garbone

Happy New Year..

And they lied....

Forbes Welcome

Quote:

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The article blithely goes on, referring to this select group only as scientists, as if there were no other kinds.

It's no secret that geoscientists were among the last to grudgingly acknowledge AGW. It's no coincidence that a great many geoscientists have professional ties to oil, gas, coal and mining concerns. But they have come around.Another link

btw I hope it's no surprise that geologists don't generally study climate.

Engineers... no comment

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Hostage to fortune, and a poor (of the otherwise defeated) argument, mate.

It was an attempt at humour, about how many of you seem to think you've achieved a unique scientific insight that has some how escaped the majority of the world's scientists.

Seriously, do you think nobody's thought of this yet?

[closeup shot of face of world's best climate scientist as he reads this thread. Smugness drains from his face as he reads your post. "...****. ...****!...****! How did I miss that?!?!" furious dialling. Somewhere in Hell, a red, scaly hand picks up a very expensive phone. "Mr Gore. We have a problem...." To be continued...]

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Quote:

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The article blithely goes on, referring to this select group only as scientists, as if there were no other kinds.

It's no secret that geoscientists were among the last to grudgingly acknowledge AGW. It's no coincidence that a great many geoscientists have professional ties to oil, gas, coal and mining concerns. But they have come around.Another link

btw I hope it's no surprise that geologists don't generally study climate.

Engineers... no comment

Interesting. In your assessment, Geologists are obviously biased for the purpose of financial gain, yet you hold climatologists above reproach?



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

WTF?? You guys gonna debate this for the entire rest of the year or sumthin'?

OReilly drew a distinction a little while back b'twn. scientific theory (also distinguishing this from "theory" in layman's terms) and scientific law. I recall it was mentioned during one of these astrophysics discussions with Muckle & sailorchic that went over my head so fast it may have left a mark. So maybe it's useful to distinguish the two when it comes to the CC consensus, including which part of the consensus is being referred to.

So L-E, this is not a trick question but you do seem to view CC more as settled scientific law vs. theory at this point, although you're still not clear on whether your views extend beyond (a) GW exists, and (b) it is caused by humans. This seems to be what's causing you such angst when others post a challenge. I suppose I would be troubled too if I heard somebody say the law of gravity, for e.g., was bogus. But that is not how I view CC so remain open to all views.

Maybe you or others might care to respond, but I won't be offended if I have to wait until next year.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Interesting. In your assessment, Geologists are obviously biased for the purpose of financial gain, yet you hold climatologists above reproach?

Didn't say that. Note also that they have come "on-side". Do you figure the climate scientists took a little of their colossal bribe money and bought off the geologists too?

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It was an attempt at humour, about how many of you seem to think you've achieved a unique scientific insight that has some how escaped the majority of the world's scientists.

Seriously, do you think nobody's thought of this yet?

[closeup shot of face of world's best climate scientist as he reads this thread. Smugness drains from his face as he reads your post. "...****. ...****!...****! How did I miss that?!?!" furious dialling. Somewhere in Hell, a red, scaly hand picks up a very expensive phone. "Mr Gore. We have a problem...." To be continued...]

Talk about a spectacularly bizarre non argument. What on earth is it supposed to mean? A complete lack of cogent response is all I see. And the hostage to fortune still hangs in the air. All your post suggests to me, is that you are not, nor ever have been, a scientist. The appeal to authority which is, apparently, your entire attempted riposte here, basically rebounds on yourself with that revelation. Wow. Well done. (And you still haven't come close to cashing in the hostage to fortune you threw out a few posts ago)

But in any case, Happy New Year. TTFN

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Didn't say that. Note also that they have come "on-side". Do you figure the climate scientists took a little of their colossal bribe money and bought off the geologists too?

You did say that starting with "Its no secret..."

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by The Garbone

Happy New Year..

And they lied....

Forbes Welcome

James Taylor lied. The authors respond to his misrepresentation of their study

Dear Mr. Taylor -
Thank you for the attention you are giving to our research and continuing the discussion about how professional engineers and geoscientists view climate change. We would like to emphasize a few points in order to avoid any confusion about the results.
First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.
In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.
All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.
But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!
We trust that this clarifies our findings. Thank you again for your attention.
Best regards, Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer

Forbes Welcome