2024: Leas snow than normal

[dave.m]

What the actual ****??

Great summary of being an elitist. I would've assumed this was sarcasm, but sadly I honestly think otherwise.

Sorry, but actual science is unavoidably elitist.

Want to have an opinion that matters? Do some research, write up your findings and submit them for publication in a peer reviewed journal.

Science is like Major League Baseball. Want to affect the score? Simple. Just make the team. And what you’ll find is that you probably don’t have the speed, strength or skill to be on the field of play. And you’ll be in the bleachers throwing insults at the players for their elitist attitudes.

But silly scientists try to engage. At some point, wisdom kicks in and all you want is some Wild Turkey, a spot with a nice view and to be left alone. Or some sort of spiritual enlightenment that allows you to accept the coming carnage.

 

[KRooney]

... accept the coming carnage.

What's the basis for your prediction the carnage will follow?

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

What's the basis for your prediction the carnage will follow?

Climate carnage already has begun, decades ago.

 

[helmethiker]

What's the basis for your prediction the carnage will follow?

My school education* that said the next nuclear war would be 80 years after the last one, because almost all the people who lived during the last one would be dead. So 2025 is the year. Which is next year.

*I originally wrote elementary but concluded that it was several years later. Using just memory to date events of the past is hard.

 

[Salty]

Somebody posted boxes of popcorn, as though this is some sort of joking matter.

That was I, and while I don't think it's a joking matter as a serious subject of discussion, I do believe in science, scientists, and scientific methodology (I'd better, my livelihood depends on knowing what those pesky electrons are up to). That and >90% of people researching this agree it's largely human caused (CO2 samples from ice cores [as one example] rising sharply since the industrial age is the Big Clue). Where 50% of the nation can't agree with the other 50% that's amazing that almost every climate scientist in the US is a flaming liberal who will willingly lie, trashing their ethics as a person of science, and that peer reviewers are likewise as slanted. Wow, got to be the most amazing cover-up ever!!

My comment (popcorn) was more a commentary that people who have made their mind up as to it being fake (along with another number of conspiracy theories) will not be swayed by trivialities such as established facts with strongly supported theories. It's amusing to see one side try only to have the other side playing 3 "wise" monkeys. Funny how people embrace science in the cell phones, MRI's and such but are quick to dismiss that which they don't want to believe.

As to other comments about being puny humans, take a look at a satellite/ISS photo sometime and see how thin the atmosphere is, and think about all the people you are seeing under it. Never mind, the ozone layer depletion was a hoax, too, we faked the ISS actually being in orbit, and the photos are ALL doctored..

 

[skiguy]

That was I, and while I don't think it's a joking matter as a serious subject of discussion, I do believe in science, scientists, and scientific methodology (I'd better, my livelihood depends on knowing what those pesky electrons are up to). That and >90% of people researching this agree it's largely human caused (CO2 samples from ice cores [as one example] rising sharply since the industrial age is the Big Clue). Where 50% of the nation can't agree with the other 50% that's amazing that almost every climate scientist in the US is a flaming liberal who will willingly lie, trashing their ethics as a person of science, and that peer reviewers are likewise as slanted. Wow, got to be the most amazing cover-up ever!!

My comment (popcorn) was more a commentary that people who have made their mind up as to it being fake (along with another number of conspiracy theories) will not be swayed by trivialities such as established facts with strongly supported theories. It's amusing to see one side try only to have the other side playing 3 "wise" monkeys. Funny how people embrace science in the cell phones, MRI's and such but are quick to dismiss that which they don't want to believe.

As to other comments about being puny humans, take a look at a satellite/ISS photo sometime and see how thin the atmosphere is, and think about all the people you are seeing under it. Never mind, the ozone layer depletion was a hoax, too, we faked the ISS actually being in orbit, and the photos are ALL doctored..

 

[dug]

That was I, and while I don't think it's a joking matter as a serious subject of discussion, I do believe in science, scientists, and scientific methodology (I'd better, my livelihood depends on knowing what those pesky electrons are up to). That and >90% of people researching this agree it's largely human caused (CO2 samples from ice cores [as one example] rising sharply since the industrial age is the Big Clue). Where 50% of the nation can't agree with the other 50% that's amazing that almost every climate scientist in the US is a flaming liberal who will willingly lie, trashing their ethics as a person of science, and that peer reviewers are likewise as slanted. Wow, got to be the most amazing cover-up ever!!

My comment (popcorn) was more a commentary that people who have made their mind up as to it being fake (along with another number of conspiracy theories) will not be swayed by trivialities such as established facts with strongly supported theories. It's amusing to see one side try only to have the other side playing 3 "wise" monkeys. Funny how people embrace science in the cell phones, MRI's and such but are quick to dismiss that which they don't want to believe.

As to other comments about being puny humans, take a look at a satellite/ISS photo sometime and see how thin the atmosphere is, and think about all the people you are seeing under it. Never mind, the ozone layer depletion was a hoax, too, we faked the ISS actually being in orbit, and the photos are ALL doctored..

Not directed at you, but to me it seems as long as people who think they are more intelligent take the tact to talk down to others, instead of to others, one will never convince them to see their side. Insulting someone to get them to agree with you is a strange tact which never works. But, one thing the last month has told me, it won't stop, either.

 

[TEO]

Not directed at you, but to me it seems as long as people who think they are more intelligent take the tact to talk down to others, instead of to others, one will never convince them to see their side. Insulting someone to get them to agree with you is a strange tact which never works. But, one thing the last month has told me, it won't stop, either.

I'm a big believer in civil discourse. Some of my best friends are ideologically on the other side of the political spectrum from me. As we all know, the way to have civil discourse is to attack a person's argument and not the person.

At some point, however, does a person's outlandish beliefs become not worthy of civil discourse? Or to put it another way, does engaging in civil debate give an absurd belief some bit of validity? I'm thinking of Holocaust deniers and other white supremacists, flat-earthers, evolution deniers, 9/11-conspiracy believers, et cetera. Given the absurdity of their beliefs, do climate-change deniers deserve to be engaged in civil discourse? No. They should be ostracized from public, civil discourse.

 

[dug]

I'm a big believer in civil discourse. Some of my best friends are ideologically on the other side of the political spectrum from me. As we all know, the way to have civil discourse is to attack a person's argument and not the person.

At some point, however, does a person's outlandish beliefs become not worthy of civil discourse? Or to put it another way, does engaging in civil debate give an absurd belief some bit of validity? I'm thinking of Holocaust deniers and other white supremacists, flat-earthers, evolution deniers, 9/11-conspiracy believers, et cetera. Given the absurdity of their beliefs, do climate-change deniers deserve to be engaged in civil discourse? No. They should be ostracized from public, civil discourse.

Who is the Arbiter of out Outlandish Beliefs? How do you get selected for such an important position. What if others have a different delineation of outlandish than you? What if what is outlandish today, is common knowledge tomorrow?

So much of what we've heard about climate change has been proven true. And, so much of what we've heard has been proven false. Blanket statements about people's beliefs and elimination of their opinion "just because" truthfully gets us nowhere.

As mentioned, talking TO someone vs. DOWN AT someone should be encouraged. The assumptions that more education = more general intelligence on every subject is hilarious to me.

 

[KRooney]

So much of what we've heard about climate change has been proven true. And, so much of what we've heard has been proven false.

Sorry. I don't agree. Statements like this simply confuses and muddles the discussion needlessly.

 

[dug]

So much of what we've heard about climate change has been proven true. And, so much of what we've heard has been proven false.

Sorry. I don't agree. Statements like this simply confuses and muddles the discussion needlessly.

In my entire lifetime, I've been told we would be at an Armageddon stages so many times over the years. "The oceans will be boiling". "The icecaps will be gone by 2016". "The sea level will rise by 20 feet 'in the near future'". "If nothing is done by 2016, there is no turning back". There are so many more.

Thing is, I am in the camp that humans have a negative impact on our climate, and the biggest impact since human life. So, I am not out to discredit anyone or anything. Merely, the idea that we are now at a point in our society that we literally want to silence people, "ostracize" people. Lock people away?

Sad fact, there will always be some who don't even see it as a bad thing (lower population, longer growing seasons, less cold-related deaths, opening new shipping lanes). Yes, I know those are selfish and short-sighted views, but to those individuals affected, trying to live their lives, you really think talking down to them will work?

There has to be the ability to have discussions and not putting people in camps because they don't align. Science is about asking questions, not eliminating voices. Tomorrow, today's incorrect voice could be correct. Or, not. But, we'll never know as long as we want use ostracizing as a tool. Think about how often in recorded history critical thinkers were ostracized, put to death, over views which later turned to be correct. I don't want to live in a police state, no matter how dumb some may think I am.....

 

[B the Hiker]

In my entire lifetime, I've been told we would be at an Armageddon stages so many times over the years. "The oceans will be boiling". "The icecaps will be gone by 2016". "The sea level will rise by 20 feet 'in the near future'". "If nothing is done by 2016, there is no turning back". There are so many more.

None of those ridiculous statements have ever been said. This is the problem: there cannot be a rational conversation is this is how you depict the conversation.

What the science says is clear and unequivocal: the earth's temperature will rise if we continue to put the levels of carbon into the atmosphere we are, and in fact, we need to decrease it dramatically.

That's not something that might or might not happen in the future; it's happening now.

I'm not sure everyone knows this, but America has already lost a community to global warming: Newtok, Alaska had to move because the "permafrost" melted from under it. Great movie about it, go watch it:



Brian

 

[B the Hiker]

Who is the Arbiter of out Outlandish Beliefs? How do you get selected for such an important position. What if others have a different delineation of outlandish than you? What if what is outlandish today, is common knowledge tomorrow?

Scientists. They're all in agreement on this.

 

[dug]

Scientists. They're all in agreement on this.

None of those ridiculous statements have ever been said. This is the problem: there cannot be a rational conversation is this is how you depict the conversation.

What the science says is clear and unequivocal: the earth's temperature will rise if we continue to put the levels of carbon into the atmosphere we are, and in fact, we need to decrease it dramatically.

That's not something that might or might not happen in the future; it's happening now.

I'm not sure everyone knows this, but America has already lost a community to global warming: Newtok, Alaska had to move because the "permafrost" melted from under it. Great movie about it, go watch it:



Brian

See, you are of the opinion that you still need to convince me. I was clear, or at least I thought I was, that I agree with the human impacts. That is not the debate I am in.

Where I disagree is when pontificating DUI lawyers with PhDs and other elite academics and politicians and middle-school students who are not scientists, want to ostracize people. Want to leave no room for an alternating view. Want to give no empathy. Want to ensure that the blue-collar, non-college educated population who, likely, have less of an impact on the earth as many others, need to fall in line or be rounded up.

You will continue to show about the big brain on Brian, and I will continue to show how it pushes people away. But, have at it. In ironic timing, just read this from President Obama just now:

Obama also advocated for "pluralism."
"It means that in a democracy we all have to find a way to live alongside individuals and groups who are different than us," he said.

"I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya'. I continue to mock and shame and no matter what, they STILL won't listen to me. It's like they don't even see the degrees on my wall or something...."

I get it...always trust the science. Science gave us pesticides in our foods, but we've since had to rethink that...

"Hey farmer, farmer put away that DDT now
Give me spots on my apples, but leave me the birds and the bees
Please"

 

[dug]

Scientists. They're all in agreement on this.

Not "ALL" a vast, vast majority think so.

But, you are advocating that Scientist are the Arbiter of Outlandish Beliefs. All scientists, some, do they get qualified, do we vote, etc.?

 

[TEO]

In my entire lifetime, I've been told we would be at an Armageddon stages so many times over the years. "The oceans will be boiling". "The icecaps will be gone by 2016". "The sea level will rise by 20 feet 'in the near future'". "If nothing is done by 2016, there is no turning back". There are so many more.

No climate scientist has said any of these statements, except perhaps the "no turning back." We are already in the limiting and mitigating consequences stage.

Thing is, I am in the camp that humans have a negative impact on our climate, and the biggest impact since human life. So, I am not out to discredit anyone or anything. Merely, the idea that we are now at a point in our society that we literally want to silence people, "ostracize" people. Lock people away?

I didn't say anything about locking people away, I said, "They should be ostracized from public, civil discourse." Let's say for example, that in the course of a discussion here, someone stated that the Holocaust didn't happen. The reasonable response is, "That is a lie and is anti-Semitic. It will not be tolerated here." Likewise, if someone stated that the September 11 attack by Al-Queda was actually a coverup, et cetera," the reasonable response is, "That is a lie and will not be tolerated here." People who deny anthropogenic climate change should not be taken seriously and their statements should be denouced as bogus.

 

[DayTrip]

In my entire lifetime, I've been told we would be at an Armageddon stages so many times over the years. "The oceans will be boiling". "The icecaps will be gone by 2016". "The sea level will rise by 20 feet 'in the near future'". "If nothing is done by 2016, there is no turning back". There are so many more.

I think this is yet another problem with this issue. Predictions. We (or at least the majority) are in agreement on the underlying science but the conclusions/predictions we make on it can vary. So the science is valid. But the predicted outcomes, their probability and their timeline is the judgement of individuals based on the science. So as these predictions do or do not happen the underlying science is declared true or false, not the prediction. That is a big distinction.

If I take a hunk of snow from my backyard into my living room, ask a group of people how fast it will melt, get predictions from 3 to 6 minutes and after 8 minutes it hasn't melted yet do we attack the science that water below 32 deg F doesn't melt but above 32 deg F it does? Obviously no, but I think that is what a lot of this whole climate argument is about: the predictions based on the science, not the science.

 

[dug]

I think this is yet another problem with this issue. Predictions. We (or at least the majority) are in agreement on the underlying science but the conclusions/predictions we make on it can vary. So the science is valid. But the predicted outcomes, their probability and their timeline is the judgement of individuals based on the science. So as these predictions do or do not happen the underlying science is declared true or false, not the prediction. That is a big distinction.

If I take a hunk of snow from my backyard into my living room, ask a group of people how fast it will melt, get predictions from 3 to 6 minutes and after 8 minutes it hasn't melted yet do we attack the science that water below 32 deg F doesn't melt but above 32 deg F it does? Obviously no, but I think that is what a lot of this whole climate argument is about: the predictions based on the science, not the science.

Agree with that. Once someone makes a prediction, it's doomed for scrutiny and used for fodder when they don't come true. But, the flip side, is using predictions invokes fear in an attempt to wake people up. When they don't come true, they just turn and go "see, your full of it".

 

[dug]

No climate scientist has said any of these statements, except perhaps the "no turning back." We are already in the limiting and mitigating consequences stage.


I didn't say anything about locking people away, I said, "They should be ostracized from public, civil discourse." Let's say for example, that in the course of a discussion here, someone stated that the Holocaust didn't happen. The reasonable response is, "That is a lie and is anti-Semitic. It will not be tolerated here." Likewise, if someone stated that the September 11 attack by Al-Queda was actually a coverup, et cetera," the reasonable response is, "That is a lie and will not be tolerated here." People who deny anthropogenic climate change should not be taken seriously and their statements should be denouced.

And, when "the science changed", what now? What you or I view as a conspiracy, could very well end up being a truth later on. It's easy to pick the easy ones out, but when we start ostracizing we run the risk of getting a whole lotta' egg on our faces if something turns out to be right after.

Sorry, I'll never be in favor in shunning and ostracizing anyone. People are free to be as idiotic as they want, because what I view as idiocy others may view as fact. And, I don't know everything so maybe they are right, and I'm the idiot. But, that's coming from a non-academia bloke so TIFWIW.....

Far too many times in our lifetime what was perceived as a good thing turned out to be bad, and only by dissenting voices were those realized.

 

[TEO]

but I think that is what a lot of this whole climate argument is about: the predictions based on the science, not the science.

No. "This whole climate argument" is not an argument. The oil and gas industries have lobbied politicians and created propoganda for decades to create denialism of anthropogenic climate change and maintain our dependency on the oil and gas industries. It really is as simple as that.