Denial...was CC- What do we know, when did we know it?

[Smidge204]

...reality is probably somewhere in the middle as usual...

Argumentum ad temperantiam - a logical fallacy which asserts that given two positions there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.



It's a fallacy because being a compromise between two or more positions has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of the claim itself. This is why we rely on evidence to make a case for our position, and the likelihood our position is true is directly proportional to the quality and quantity of the evidence. If there was a murder, with one eyewitness saying the victim was stabbed and another saying the victim was shot, and you have a body with a knife in his back but no bullet wounds, the correct conclusion is not that the victim was killed with a gun that shoots knives.
=Smidge=

[AndyH]

I'm so tired of the constant "I'm right and you are an idiot" mentality that infests both sides of this debate that I tend to avoid it. (Well, not this time, I suppose.) So rather than comment on the issues I'd like to comment on the debate itself.

First, SierraQ, Can you please provide a link to anyone on/in either the science camp or the environmentalist camp (the folks using science info to recommend policy) that is calling anyone an idiot? Thanks!

I don't think you can divide the entire world into "believers" and "deniers."

I agree with you 100%!

The middle is often drowned out from all the screaming and propaganda from the extremists on both sides so the average person does not know who the believe.

Ahh crap. Here's the problem I have with this: In science there is no - zero - room for 'belief.' Gravity isn't keeping you in your chair as you read this because you or anyone else believes in gravity. Nuclear engineers don't design reactor vessels based on belief. The International Space Station isn't being held in low Earth orbit by belief. And back in the mid 1800s when chemists were taking the atmosphere apart they didn't discover CO2 because of belief.

The driving thought behind the extreme "believers" is that if they are right we are effectively killing the planet and ourselves along with it, and that is obviously bad so something must be done. They point to the few decades of data we have gathered, plot a trend, correlate that with human activity, and draw a conclusion. The conclusion is correct, based on that data, and they are very angry that people are not listening.

Sorry - this is incorrect. Nobody worth reading is saying we're killing the planet. The planet will be fine. What we're doing is helping move the planet to a climate in which Homo sapiens sapiens has never survived. As for data and a 'few decades' - satellite observations go back to the 1950s. The function of greenhouse gases goes back to the 1850s. And there are samples of the Earth's atmosphere trapped in bubbles in the planet's ice that let us look back more than 110,000 years.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... _IceCores/

This, sorry to say, makes the rest of this post irrelevant and misinformed, at least. Sorry.

Both viewpoints are fair and worthy of consideration; reality is probably somewhere in the middle as usual. I just wish we could jettison the extremists who control this debate and the other 99% of us could get together and figure out what we want to do.

So no - absolutely not. There is no 'debate' within the scientific community on that fact that human beings are drastically accelerating planetary warming. The debate - and the illusion of the need for 'another side' - are manufactured by a very small group of people that are paid by or supported by the fossil fuel industry. They are most of the same people that tried to create debate on acid rain, the danger of smoking tobacco, the polar ozone hole, the need for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, and climate change. The simple fact that you and others believe there is a debate, believe there is 'another side' and believe science is either extremist, activist, or has holes in the climatic data chain of custody proves that the denial industry is winning.

Congratulations.

[AndyH]

Very well said Sierra, welcome to the third group.. the Agnostics.

You're not an agnostic, Herm. I know you've said you are, but you've also said that you were willing to listen when presented with facts. The facts have been presented but they don't appear to have resulted in a detectable course correction.

It's ok - be a denier - claim your stripes! Come out of the closet man - you're among friends!

[padamson1]

I always enjoy these kind of discussions. Until people admit there is a problem it is pretty tough to try and get the problem solved. Personally I believe there are many solutions, EV's can be part of it, but they are only a small part.

For me it boils down to logic. Humans are pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere every day. Humans are cutting thousands of trees (which is the planets best tool to absorb carbon) every day. Now scientists have data that the planet is measurably warmer in the last 20yrs and carbon levels are as high as they've ever been in the last 100,000 years (ice core samples). Given what we know higher carbon levels will do to atmospheric temperature, logic says we've caused that warming. To say that humans didn't contribute and that "it is a natural cycle" is illogical, bordering on ridiculous.

Something will need to change, or the planet will continue to get warmer. The oceans might be able to pick up the slack and absorb more CO2, and they apparently are trying, but that makes them more acidic which will adversely affect life in the ocean (remember what acid rain did to fish populations in upstate NY). Will the planet compensate? Given the info we know about the planet, it doesn't look good.

Following this logic climate change is going to happen, unless we stop pumping CO2 into the air. The fact the Defense Department is already taking steps in preparation for those changes makes me laugh at the public figures who continue to say (and believe) its a non-problem.

Do I call them idiots? Maybe, but I certainly don't call them smart enough to run my country.

[Stoaty]

Evidence of Human Fingerprint on Recent Climate Change: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/0 ... ore-338286" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Herm]

It's ok - be a denier - claim your stripes! Come out of the closet man - you're among friends!

Nah, not a denier at all.. I just think a bit more time is needed to validate all the models and to know exactly (if that is possible) the numbers. Its possible the debate will become moot soon anyways, if green energy gets competitive.

If the worst happens we will just build atmosphere CO2 extractors powered by solar panels, problem solved if you have a bit of faith.

[AndyH]

It's ok - be a denier - claim your stripes! Come out of the closet man - you're among friends!

Nah, not a denier at all.. I just think a bit more time is needed to validate all the models and to know exactly (if that is possible) the numbers. Its possible the debate will become moot soon anyways, if green energy gets competitive.

If the worst happens we will just build atmosphere CO2 extractors powered by solar panels, problem solved if you have a bit of faith.

Here's the problem with this line of reasoning, Herm.

- The denial community are the ones pushing the 'model myth' - the fact is that we have actual measurements! The models being developed and tweaked are for projecting FUTURE possibilities. What's happened from today backwards ~110,000 years is black and white.
- Debate/moot/green energy: Sorry, no. The temperature appears to lag CO2 levels by about 40 years. This means that in order to halt the changes that are already happening, humanity needed to heed the science community's messages from the 1960s and as you already know, they didn't. It's too late now to turn this process off. The CO2 we've emitted thru today will be increasing the temperature until the 2050s.
- Herm - if we're driving down the road at 100 mph, and it'll take 5 seconds to stop, and we recognize we're 4 seconds behind a truck that has just panic stopped, when would be the best time to hit the brakes? Yes - I agree - about 6 seconds ago. Sorry - too late. The best we can do now is decide how much the wreck is going to cost us.

[Smidge204]

Nah, not a denier at all.. I just think a bit more time is needed to validate all the models and to know exactly (if that is possible) the numbers. Its possible the debate will become moot soon anyways, if green energy gets competitive.

I guess I can appreciate the "wait and see" approach - I do the same thing with my health care! I mean really, it's hardly worth getting all worked up and going to the doctor when the bleeding from my rectum might clear up any day now...
=Smidge=

[AndyH]

http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archiv ... 1-34.shtml

AGU Release No. 11–34
18 October 2011

WASHINGTON, DC — In recognition of his exceptional work as a climate communicator, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) has selected Gavin Schmidt as the recipient of its inaugural Climate Communications Prize.

Schmidt is a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and co-founder of the RealClimate.org, a blog that covers areas of science related to climate-from present-day measurements to paleoclimate proxies, from natural climate variation to anthropogenic change. Schmidt has also worked with photographers on a popular science book, on museum exhibits, and on online courses and has often appeared on TV and radio and in print...

[Fabio]

Those politicians and pundits who deny AGW (and while they are at it also evolution) are not idiots, they are being paid to lie.
Also, they need to reinforce a parallel view of reality (the one presented every day on faux news) which keeps the people who vote for them in a constant state of denial and paranoia.

Following this logic climate change is going to happen, unless we stop pumping CO2 into the air. The fact the Defense Department is already taking steps in preparation for those changes makes me laugh at the public figures who continue to say (and believe) its a non-problem.

Do I call them idiots? Maybe, but I certainly don't call them smart enough to run my country.