One of the most astounding, insidious and long term destructive, successes of the climate science contrarian advertising campaign is this
constant drum beat that we are not allowed to attribute any extreme climate event to manmade global warming.
On the face of it, of course you can’t blame any given weather event on manmade global warming which is in its infancy.
Weather happens nonstop anyways.
The real question should be, how might manmade global warming have influenced or altered the characteristics of any particular storm.
On a more fundamental level we really should appreciate we are dealing with a Map verses the Territory challenge.
We ought to be honest enough to recognize that every storm that get’s spawned in our measurable altered climate system has been influenced
by the physical reality of our planet is warming.
Measuring temperatures, measuring the various aspects of extreme storm systems or climate phenomena, is exceedingly difficult.
Errors are to be expected, and in real science they are used as learning experiences.
Errors are not an excuse to throw out common sense and the record of the observational experience.
The physical reality of our planet is that the state of our climate system dictates the characteristics of storms that spawn out of that regime,
ergo, there is NO storm or weather event on this planet that does not carry an imprint of manmade global warming.
You can also be certain that the worst we see in a storm today is the promise of what the new normal of tomorrow will be bringing much more of.
Too many are too oblivious to how absolutely depend our complex society is on fairly moderate and predictable weather patterns, not to mention the wonderful biosphere it has nurtured.
Or new chaotic system is not going to be good for anyone’s wellbeing.
One of the most astounding, insidious and long term destructive, successes of the climate science contrarian advertising campaign is this constant drum beat that we are not allowed to attribute any extreme climate event to manmade global warming. On the face of it, of course you can't blame any given weather event on manmade global warming which is in its infancy. Weather happens nonstop anyways. The real question should be, how might manmade global warming have influenced or altered the characteristics of any particular storm. On a more fundamental level we really should appreciate we are dealing with a Map verses the Territory challenge. We ought to be honest enough to recognize that every storm that get's spawned in our measurable altered climate system has been influenced by the physical reality of our planet is warming. Measuring temperatures, measuring the various aspects of extreme storm systems or climate phenomena, is exceedingly difficult. Errors are to be expected, and in real science they are used as learning experiences. Errors are not an excuse to throw out common sense and the record of the observational experience. The physical reality of our planet is that the state of our climate system dictates the characteristics of storms that spawn out of that regime, ergo, there is NO storm or weather event on this planet that does not carry an imprint of manmade global warming. You can also be certain that the worst we see in a storm today is the promise of what the new normal of tomorrow will be bringing much more of. Too many are too oblivious to how absolutely depend our complex society is on fairly moderate and predictable weather patterns, not to mention the wonderful biosphere it has nurtured. Or new chaotic system is not going to be good for anyone's wellbeing.We have 7 billion humans on earth and every one of them is burning something. I can't see how it would not have a negative effect on the environment, including the weather.
One of the most astounding, insidious and long term destructive, successes of the climate science contrarian advertising campaign is this constant drum beat that we are not allowed to attribute any extreme climate event to manmade global warming. On the face of it, of course you can't blame any given weather event on manmade global warming which is in its infancy. Weather happens nonstop anyways. The real question should be, how might manmade global warming have influenced or altered the characteristics of any particular storm. On a more fundamental level we really should appreciate we are dealing with a Map verses the Territory challenge. We ought to be honest enough to recognize that every storm that get's spawned in our measurable altered climate system has been influenced by the physical reality of our planet is warming. Measuring temperatures, measuring the various aspects of extreme storm systems or climate phenomena, is exceedingly difficult. Errors are to be expected, and in real science they are used as learning experiences. Errors are not an excuse to throw out common sense and the record of the observational experience. The physical reality of our planet is that the state of our climate system dictates the characteristics of storms that spawn out of that regime, ergo, there is NO storm or weather event on this planet that does not carry an imprint of manmade global warming. You can also be certain that the worst we see in a storm today is the promise of what the new normal of tomorrow will be bringing much more of. Too many are too oblivious to how absolutely depend our complex society is on fairly moderate and predictable weather patterns, not to mention the wonderful biosphere it has nurtured. Or new chaotic system is not going to be good for anyone's wellbeing.We have 7 billion humans on earth and every one of them is burning something. I can't see how it would not have a negative effect on the environment, including the weather. Okay, I'm in no way an expert on GW, however, from what I have seen some of the weather that has taken place does indeed reflect some predicted models of GW. Now, that's not to say that the case for GW is proven, in fact, scientists don't like the word 'proof' and prefer to think in terms of weight of evidence. Even established theories like Relativity are never really proven because some piece of evidence might come along to question our current model of Relativity. So all one can do is look at what evidence there is and make an evaluation based on that. Currently, the weight of evidence appears to support man-made GW and unless and until contradictory evidence is discovered to the contrary it's a fair bet that GW will become more ever accepted as being correct. I also think we need to clarify the controversies surrounding past GW periods. First of all, these events took a relatively long time to develop, whereas man-made GW has developed extremely rapidly, as rapidly as the worldwide use of fossil fuels from around the 1970's. Secondly, some of these past climate change events have been relatively localized as, for example, in the case of the Thames freezing over. GW is a global phenomenon which strongly suggests there is some causation that has a worldwide impact and not due to anomalous local conditions. The use of fossil fuels fits the bill very well.
Now, that's not to say that the case for GW is proven, in fact, scientists don't like the word 'proof' and prefer to think in terms of weight of evidence.I don't recall using "proof", we can leave that out of this. I myself speak in terms of overwhelming evidence, I might add I've been actively paying attention to this developing science story since the early 1970s so come at this with a bit more background than most. If I come across arrogant or pissy, that's why, sorry, I'm actually a nice guy. :cheese: But christ we've destroyed our children's futures, it's reason enough for being a little pissed and dejected. fyi: State of Our Climatehttps://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201704
I also think we need to clarify the controversies surrounding past GW periods.What controversy are you talking about? This is important. The controversy driven by Murdoch/Koch et al in their relentless advertising campaign attacking the validity of climate science? Or are you implying some scientific controversy? That is important to clarify because the former can be shown to contrived con-jobs one after another, while the later. Well past climate change has been and active area of study since the early 1900's. After a century of study particularly the past couple decades our understanding has grown in leaps and bounds. I know of no fundamental scientific controversies, over various details, sure - but the broad outline of past climate changes is fairly well understood. If you have any specific scientific controversies in mind - please do share, it would be interesting perhaps fun to look at them.
Secondly, some of these past warming periods have been relatively localized as, for example, in the case of the Thames freezing over. GW is a global phenomenon which strongly suggests there is some causation that has a worldwide impact and not due to anomalous local conditions. The use of fossil fuels fits the bill very well.I completely agree. :cheese:
It’s impossible with current technology to determine the amount that global warming has influenced any short term weather event, there are too many variables.
Which is why we study the influence on climate which is weather averaged over time allowing us to determine long term trends.
Climate is weather averaged over time and climate change is changes in patterns of weather that can in fact be quantified and placed entirely within the context of global warming.
So we can say with a high degree of certainty that there is a global warming context to weather in any changing climate. Otherwise the weather would have remained within the previous range.
As for climate change contrarians, they will present anything that confirms their bias, it’s not science and it’s not honest in the slightest. It’s basically lying…
Think of it this way, if you had 1,000 darts that you threw at a board 10 feet away you could determine a pattern of distribution that was determined by a number of different factors like wind resistance, gravity, any cross breezes, the physical characteristics of the thrower and whatever else. Then someone turns on a fan that blows across the path of flight.
Now throw those 1,000 darts again, it would be very difficult to determine the exact influence of the fan when an individual dart lands, but if you look at the final pattern of distribution under the influence of the cross breeze caused by the fan you can in fact determine what the trend in change was.
Weather and climate are like this, weather is the fine and highly variable detail and the overall pattern of dispersion is climate. The cross breeze is clearly having an effect on every dart thrown just as global warming is having an influence on every weather event even if it can’t be teased out of all the other factors at that scale.
Yes, that’s true. Also, something I forgot to mention earlier is that the evidence in support of man-made GW comes from a number of strands, not just one or two which, I understand, is important in trying to provide a solid basis in the formation of a scientific theory. It’s like any other scientific theory that only becomes accepted after rigorous examination has been conducted of all of the available evidence.
In the period from 1880 to 2012, the global average (land and ocean) surface temperature has increased by 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, multiple independently produced datasets confirm.[26] In the period from 1906 to 2005, Earth’s average surface temperature rose by 0.74±0.18 °C. The rate of warming almost doubled in the last half of that period (0.13±0.03 °C per decade, against 0.07±0.02 °C per decade).[27] Although the popular press often reports the increase of the average near-surface atmospheric temperature as the measure of global warming, most of the additional energy stored in the climate system since 1970 has gone into the oceans. The rest has melted ice and warmed the continents and the atmosphere.[28][c]
Since 1979, the average temperature of the lower troposphere has increased between 0.12 and 0.135 °C (0.216 and 0.243 °F) per decade, satellite temperature measurements confirm.[29][30] Climate proxies show the temperature to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally varying fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.[31]
The warming evident in the instrumental temperature record is consistent with a wide range of observations, as documented by many independent scientific groups.[32] Examples include sea level rise,[33] widespread melting of snow and land ice,[34] increased heat content of the oceans,[32] increased humidity,[32] and the earlier timing of spring events,[35] e.g., the flowering of plants.[36] The probability that these changes could have occurred by chance is virtually zero.[32]
Yes, that's true. Also, something I forgot to mention earlier is that the evidence in support of man-made GW comes from a number of strands, not just one or two which, I understand, is important in trying to provide a solid basis in the formation of a scientific theory. It's like any other scientific theory that only becomes accepted after rigorous examination has been conducted of *all* of the available evidence.
Climate change: How do we know? https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling: Sea level rise ... Global temperature rise ... Warming oceans ... Shrinking ice sheets ... Declining Arctic sea ice ... Glacial retreat ... Extreme events ... Glaciers are retreating ... Ocean acidification ... Decreased snow cover ...
Anyone want to take a stab at why the majority of climate change deniers insist that humans don’t cause climate change, despite science to the contrary? What do you think their game is?
Anyone want to take a stab at why the majority of climate change deniers insist that humans don't cause climate change, despite science to the contrary? What do you think their game is?Because they're paid to, the amount of money funding deniers could be in the billions by now, there is no way to know how much money is being funneled into the groups that are behind this because companies like Exxon Mobil and Koch Inc. do it in the dark now. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon. The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement. It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years. In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.Climate change denial is a very well paying job for people with no conscience who don't mind screwing everybody else on the planet.
Anyone want to take a stab at why the majority of climate change deniers insist that humans don't cause climate change, despite science to the contrary? What do you think their game is?All that Doug writes is true, but he overlooks the true passion and self-certitude these people have, in large part thanks to that outrageously successful alt-reality they have been able to fabricate via agenda driven "Think" Tanks and Murdoch media and Koch's millions and billions of dollars devoted to his obsessive drive to become true master of the universe. While the intellectually enlightened were smuggle having their good time and totally underestimating the seriousness of the tea party threat and Faith-based dogmas being accepted as some sort of sane thinking rather than the naive childish crap that it is. Add to that America's passion for having a good time, supercharged by a century of Hollywood expectations and media force feeding an insatiable addiction for more, and better, and more, and bigger, and more. It's still not enough, now they need Virtual Reality googles to get through life. How many people these days have spent any sort of real time in a wild landscape, watching the natural rhythms of the day go by? How many have caught wild life interactions and visitations that inspire an appreciation for the many other levels of reality going on under our noses in this most fantastical of planet in the universe. How many have actively witnessed the weather patterns changing through the day, or the progression of storms coming, dumping and going, out in the raw, not hiding in some building. How many truly believe that the important reality only goes as far as the internet and fashion, or architecture, or pro sports, or music peddled in thousands of glossy sales magazines/catalogues. Ask people about our planet's evolution and how it got to be this wonderful cornucopia (we people are destroying as fast as possible). Ask what they think about Stromatolites - only very rarely do eyes light up, with a yeah baby, now you talking, a true superstar, that's when this biology thing finally got figured out. Not only that, in the process they radically rearranged our planet's atmosphere. How's that? What difference did it make? Most don't have a clue. Climate science contrarians will tell you well, carbon was once hundreds of times higher, so there. Never for a moment stopping long enough to appreciate that was before complex life on this planet formed. It's life that sucked all that extra carbon out of the atmosphere and it's life with it's moisture engines that helped create the climate the produced the weather that made continued development of complex life possible. But they'll post endlessly about climate science, injecting grade school mentality and misconception with the ring of ultimate truth - for them. Childish stuff, but these people are taught they know all truth. Changing their mind is consider a mortal sin. Readjusting their perspective in light of convincing new evidence is a moral defeat for that crowd. They pride themselves that their minds will never be changed. Thus they narrow down their tunnel vision and believe that's the whole world. Check out "Beatriz at Dinner" for a good portrayal of that winning mentality.
What CC writes has merit also, there are clear sociopaths - many in the Tea Party like Paul Ryan - who see climate change denial as the ultimate F.U. to all of society.
What better way to destroy human society than prevent it from protecting itself from one of the worst threats imaginable.
Just look at the utter BS they’re trying to pull over affordable health care in the US. They claim that Obama’s attempt to even halfway try and help Americans be healthier and thus their lives be longer and better was evil but their “program” will take health care away from 22 million Americans. That’s their kind of “progress”.
Their policies on denying climate change away everything from everyone.
Also keep in mind that the Koch among some others from the super-rich class are the one who created the Tea Party.
A new academic study confirms that front groups with longstanding ties to the tobacco industry and the billionaire Koch brothers planned the formation of the Tea Party movement more than a decade before it exploded onto the U.S. political scene. Far from a genuine grassroots uprising, this astroturf effort was curated by wealthy industrialists years in advance. Many of the anti-science operatives who defended cigarettes are currently deploying their tobacco-inspired playbook internationally to evade accountability for the fossil fuel industry’s role in driving climate disruption.So you've got super-rich sociopaths who want to own everything so they can control everything basically hiring an entire political movement who want to be just like them. They don't care who loses as long as they "win", and destroying us all is a secondary benefit for them. And the ghost of Ayn Rand hovers in the background whispering that altruism is evil and that most people don't even deserve to be here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKd0ToQD00o And soulless freaks like Paul Ryan listen. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/paul-ryan-medicaid
Unlike the average college student, who spends their university years studying to pass the next midterm or, more realistically, planning their next alcohol-drenched bacchanalia, Paul Ryan stayed focused on loftier goals: denying health-care coverage for millions of low-income and elderly Americans. Or so he implied while defending his current effort to roll back Medicaid, via his unpopular plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, while speaking with National Review editor Rich Lowry at an event Friday hosted by the conservative magazine. “Sending it back to the states, capping its growth rate," Ryan said wistfully. “We have been dreaming of this since I have been around, since you and I were drinking at a keg." Now, he may finally get his wish.Keep in mind that Ryan's messiah of sociopathy Rand didn't have the money to afford cancer treatment when she got sick. Even though she preached how evil any social supports are it didn't stop her from taking what little socialized medicine there was in America to treat her cancer. http://www.alternet.org/story/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them
Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy" that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well. Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor). As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, “In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest."So not only are all these sociopaths liars, they are also massive hypocrites. spamblock line ignore...
What CC writes has merit also, there are clear sociopaths - many in the Tea Party like Paul Ryan - who see climate change denial as the ultimate F.U. to all of society. What better way to destroy human society than prevent it from protecting itself from one of the worst threats imaginable. Just look at the utter BS they're trying to pull over affordable health care in the US. They claim that Obama's attempt to even halfway try and help Americans be healthier and thus their lives be longer and better was evil but their "program" will take health care away from 22 million Americans. That's their kind of "progress". Their policies on denying climate change away everything from everyone. Also keep in mind that the Koch among some others from the super-rich class are the one who created the Tea Party. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/study-confirms-tea-party-_b_2663125.htmlThat's what people are like. Everyone has different opinions and standards about how to live, what to read, how to assess others' opinions, who is a hypocrite, etc. What makes you think your opinions are right and others' are wrong? And what are you suggesting people who think they are right do about getting others to act and think the way you do? Who decides which opinions are correct? Any ideas about that? What kind of a society are you suggesting? Who should be able to force their opinions on other people who think differently? How would you feel about other people who think differently than you do being in a position of forcing their opinions and standards on you? If you can do it to others, others can and will do it to you. LoisA new academic study confirms that front groups with longstanding ties to the tobacco industry and the billionaire Koch brothers planned the formation of the Tea Party movement more than a decade before it exploded onto the U.S. political scene. Far from a genuine grassroots uprising, this astroturf effort was curated by wealthy industrialists years in advance. Many of the anti-science operatives who defended cigarettes are currently deploying their tobacco-inspired playbook internationally to evade accountability for the fossil fuel industry’s role in driving climate disruption.So you've got super-rich sociopaths who want to own everything so they can control everything basically hiring an entire political movement who want to be just like them. They don't care who loses as long as they "win", and destroying us all is a secondary benefit for them. And the ghost of Ayn Rand hovers in the background whispering that altruism is evil and that most people don't even deserve to be here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKd0ToQD00o And soulless freaks like Paul Ryan listen. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/paul-ryan-medicaidUnlike the average college student, who spends their university years studying to pass the next midterm or, more realistically, planning their next alcohol-drenched bacchanalia, Paul Ryan stayed focused on loftier goals: denying health-care coverage for millions of low-income and elderly Americans. Or so he implied while defending his current effort to roll back Medicaid, via his unpopular plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, while speaking with National Review editor Rich Lowry at an event Friday hosted by the conservative magazine. “Sending it back to the states, capping its growth rate," Ryan said wistfully. “We have been dreaming of this since I have been around, since you and I were drinking at a keg." Now, he may finally get his wish.Keep in mind that Ryan's messiah of sociopathy Rand didn't have the money to afford cancer treatment when she got sick. Even though she preached how evil any social supports are it didn't stop her from taking what little socialized medicine there was in America to treat her cancer. http://www.alternet.org/story/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_themAyn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy" that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well. Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor). As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, “In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest."So not only are all these sociopaths liars, they are also massive hypocrites. spamblock line ignore...
Anyone want to take a stab at why the majority of climate change deniers insist that humans don't cause climate change, despite science to the contrary? What do you think their game is?Because they're paid to, the amount of money funding deniers could be in the billions by now, there is no way to know how much money is being funneled into the groups that are behind this because companies like Exxon Mobil and Koch Inc. do it in the dark now. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon. The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement. It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years. In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.Climate change denial is a very well paying job for people with no conscience who don't mind screwing everybody else on the planet. There isn't enough money in the world to pay people to be deniers that humans cause climate change. Do you really think people can be paid off to change their opinions? There is a more important factor driving denial. In my opinion, the majority of climate change deniers are capitalists who don't want regulations interfering with their profit-making. They know very well that if most people agree that human activity is causing climate change that governments will start (actually continue and increase) imposing regulations to mitigate it. Many, if not most, of them already think there are too many regulations putting a damper on profits. They will continue to adamantly deny that humans cause climate change for this one reason. I know a fair number of climate change deniers and see a lot of opinions about it on the Internet. Just about every one cites the ides that more regulations will interefere with their profits. Denying reality to them is better than trying to find a sensible approach. If they had their way there would be almost no environmental regulations except those that raise their profits. . They see most environmental regulations as a liberal plot to decimate their profits.