Dont know if this is fake news or a legitimate article. Regardless, this is the first time Ive seen this suggested and at the very least , I believe the idea needs wider dissemination , if only to generate discussion.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Global warming is over!!! 2
- Thread starter miningman
- Start date
rb1957 said:
Has the scientific method changed since the 80s and 90s? I see more comments on "peer reviewed" now than I recall seeing back then. I may be wrong but I seem to recall you could not (or should not) accept research that had a desired goal attached to it but now that appears acceptable. Someone could pay you to research whether Coca Cola makes you drunk or not but they could not ask you to prove Coca Cola makes you drunk.
Incidentally, based on my own research, Coca Cola will make your drunk. I have gotten drunk from Bourbon and Coke, Rum and Coke and even tried Beer and Coke. Got drunk every time. Coca Cola was the only common denominator.
The suggestion that the IPCC cast a wide net because they could not get a consensus from the small group of scientists with substantial knowledge of climate studies is just plain wrong.
The question of what effect increasing greenhouse gasses will have on the climate is a scientific question.
The question of what should be done about it is an engineering question. Yes, it includes social/political aspects, but so does almost every other engineering question.
The reluctance of people here to talk about what should be done about it is frustrating.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
IDS said:
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. I have no real talent in Chemistry, Biology, Meteorology or Environmental Engineering even though I am a Civil graduate. So I have very little to offer in the way of technical expertise about CC. All I remember about chemistry is take the word "sodium" and add any word that ends in "ate" and you may have the correct answer to what something is. Sodium Procrastinate, Sodium Infuriate etc.
I was looking into the forum to inform myself a little better on this subject. Right now, I am sure we are negatively affecting the earth but I am not sold on the urgency of it. So I am a "climate change denier light". I see this issue as having 3 pieces that for the most part could be worked on somewhat independently.
[ol 1]
[li]What is the current magnitude of CC. (reliable research) [/li]
[li]What can we do to reduce, slow down or eliminate CC. (brainstorming engineering, chemistry, biology, physics etc) [/li]
[li]How do we implement the CC reduction methods based on our perception of the seriousness of it. (social, financial and political) [/li]
[/ol]
I expected to read about engineers brainstorming solutions and not worrying about the politics. I don't have a problem with shunning climate deniers from the brainstorming sessions if they are messing up the process but I do have a problem with shunning them from the general debate and how to implement phases. You need their participation in the 3rd piece for sure. I think there should be multiple threads going on right now that are dedicated to the 2nd piece. The threads need to be more surgical in nature when it comes to what we can contribute. The deniers should respectfully stay out of the brainstorming session comments but raise all the hell they want in the other 2. It is a shame to have this much available talent and nothing is happening in the one piece the world expects us to help with. The 2nd piece also needs to have no politics in it. When the thread starts social and political commentary, it invites us deniers to comment.
LionelHutz
Electrical
Why are you asking me? I didn't start with the "popular press". I really could care less to argue what popular press is or why it matters. However, just to note, In recent years I have seen quite a few stupid stories about how a hot this or that is/was being touted as proof of global warming coming from North American national news feeds. I certainly don't go searching fringe sites for news stories.
-
2
- #25
Anyone who can't see plainly that the USA press tries to make every significant weather event into proof of CC is either not watching/reading anything, or simply so ingrained in their own confirmation bias that they are blind to it. It is everywhere and obvious. It is happening every hour of every day right now due to the hurricane. But it doesn't have to be a hurricane. Every heat wave, cold spell, blizzard, flood, and drought is driven by CC. Gotta maintain the narrative at all costs.
I've stated several times how much I think this narrative hurts the cause. It doesn't even matter if it turns out to be true. It's not provable with present data. It's illogical to a layperson that CC could cause hotter and colder and wetter and dryer weather. And, what it looks like is a huge scare tactic. When you say everything proves your point, no matter what, you look like the crazy delusional one.
I've stated several times how much I think this narrative hurts the cause. It doesn't even matter if it turns out to be true. It's not provable with present data. It's illogical to a layperson that CC could cause hotter and colder and wetter and dryer weather. And, what it looks like is a huge scare tactic. When you say everything proves your point, no matter what, you look like the crazy delusional one.
… and yet when a thread starts with a link to a site that does precisely that, most people seem to think it is quite reasonable, and worth discussing.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
Just because it's illogical to the layperson doesn't make it false, since no place on Earth is ever at the average temperature for more than a few hours a day, if that. Just like the Antarctic's blistering cold is balanced out by the blistering heat of the Sahara, any extreme hot is balanced out by a nearly equally extreme cold. So CC can indeed bring on BOTH extreme hot and extreme cold; it's the average temperature, which is the difference of two large numbers that's moving up or down.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
IRstuff said:
I didn't say it made it false. I didn't say it is false at all. I said it's not provable with present data, and (to rephrase) it's a very tough sell to people who haven't studied math, physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics like we all have. I understand averages, and I understand the hypothesis of weather becoming more extreme, but that's all it is at this point - a hypothesis. And coming from zealous ideologues on TV who don't even understand it, it comes across like a con job, which (fallaciously) reinforces the ongoing narrative from Limbaugh types that the entirety of CC is a hoax.
But the reality is that average global temperature has indeed been climbing. The issue isn't that people didn't study physics, because they can still learn that redlining a car continuously is a bad idea; it's just that someone is telling them that the dangers of redlining are completely false and that things breaking off the engine is just "normal variation."
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
IRstuff, my communication skills must be failing me, because it seems you continue to misunderstand my points. I made no reference to temperature. I am talking about the "weather events = CC" narrative, which I believe is damaging to the overall expansion of understanding and acceptance of real CC issues. If alarmists focused on real issues instead of speculative ones, I believe there would be wider acceptance, less division, and less ammo for outright deniers.
Examples include the more than doubling of atmospheric CO2, the physics of radiative forcing, and ocean acidification. These issues are real, measurable, and provable. They give us a problem to solve instead of speculative problem to prevent. re-predicting the apocalypse every few years does no one any good.
Examples include the more than doubling of atmospheric CO2, the physics of radiative forcing, and ocean acidification. These issues are real, measurable, and provable. They give us a problem to solve instead of speculative problem to prevent. re-predicting the apocalypse every few years does no one any good.
LionelHutz
Electrical
IRstuff - You definitely began responding to one thing and then ended by twisting it to try and argue something completely different. Average global temperature has nothing to do with the post you began responding to.
I was responding to "It's illogical to a layperson that CC could cause hotter and colder and wetter and dryer weather." and my point was hotter and colder temperatures were not inconsistent with an increase in the average, since we're talking about a single number to represent everything that happens during a year. NOAA's maps show that while the average temperature was hotter, it was accompanied by both large anomalies in high and low temperatures, even when gauged against a period that contained relatively stable (the Pause) temperatures.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
That map was for only May 2019; June was much worse, but the US was relatively unaffected, although Alaska's had a pretty July, and May
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
LionelHutz
Electrical
I'm pretty sure your point was to force the fact that the average has increased into the thread....
Why wouldn't you just accept that his point was what he said it was?
Regardless of what his point was, when the opening post states:
and links to an article that looks at weather conditions over a few days over a small area, making a point about the long term average over the globe hardly needs to be "forced" into the thread.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
LionelHutz
Electrical
"It's illogical to a layperson that CC could cause hotter and colder and wetter and dryer weather."
The sub conversation started because of this statement. I see no way to explain how saying the average global temperature is climbing could relate to that statement, or act as a rebuttal to that statement. The 2 really have nothing to do with each other. The statement is a reflection on how a layperson might interpret the CC message. Average global temperature data just being thrown out there simply doesn't fit into the discussion how a layperson might interpret the CC message. So, my take is that it was injected into the sub conversation simply because it was felt necessary, relevance be damn. To put it another way, there was no need responding to that statement in a quote if you wanted to post average global temperature data because the 2 have nothing to do with each other.
A typical action of participants on forums is to take a post, clip out part of it, and using that to go off on their own tangent trying to prove the other person was wrong while in reality their proof has nothing to do with the message in the starting post.
Just try writing "X is wrong when Y happens" on a public forum. You can bet someone will respond with the quote "X is wrong" followed by some blurb along the lines of you have no clue what you're talking about because X is right when Z happens.
The sub conversation started because of this statement. I see no way to explain how saying the average global temperature is climbing could relate to that statement, or act as a rebuttal to that statement. The 2 really have nothing to do with each other. The statement is a reflection on how a layperson might interpret the CC message. Average global temperature data just being thrown out there simply doesn't fit into the discussion how a layperson might interpret the CC message. So, my take is that it was injected into the sub conversation simply because it was felt necessary, relevance be damn. To put it another way, there was no need responding to that statement in a quote if you wanted to post average global temperature data because the 2 have nothing to do with each other.
A typical action of participants on forums is to take a post, clip out part of it, and using that to go off on their own tangent trying to prove the other person was wrong while in reality their proof has nothing to do with the message in the starting post.
Just try writing "X is wrong when Y happens" on a public forum. You can bet someone will respond with the quote "X is wrong" followed by some blurb along the lines of you have no clue what you're talking about because X is right when Z happens.
- Thread starter
- #39
Well as the OP, I must say I'm a bit disappointed in the poor quality of the debate here. And perhaps therin lies the main problem......an inability to recognise the POSSIBLE legitimacy of an opinion than isnt 100% in alignment with ones own.
Regardless, the attached doesn't deny climate change / global warming but it does strongly suggest that the focus over the last 20 years or so has been severely misplaced.
Regardless, the attached doesn't deny climate change / global warming but it does strongly suggest that the focus over the last 20 years or so has been severely misplaced.
I have a bad habit of asking "why" someone has a particular opinion on something more than caring about "what" their opinion is. The"why" can possibly educate us on something where the "what" cannot. Unfortunately, I have learned over the years that there is a significant percentage of people who have no real reason for having a particular opinion. It appears they form an opinion rather rapidly and then spend the rest of their life only looking for validation of that somewhat totally uninformed opinion. Their most common first response of the "why" answers are amazingly the same regardless of the topic. The most common I hear are:
[ul]
[li]Everyone knows that[/li]
[li]It is common sense[/li]
[li]It just is (my favorite)[/li]
[li]Just ask anyone[/li]
[li]I just do.[/li]
[li][/li]
[/ul]
When you press them for a more informative reason, they really have to think. In the world of CC, the common 2nd response is:
[ul]
[li]97% of scientist say ...[/li]
[li]I watch the CNN and they always point out it CC is real and manmade.[/li]
[li]I watch Fox and they always point out it is fake.[/li]
[li][/li]
[/ul]
So as a rule, I try very hard to know why I think something or where I have no real reason to have an opinion, I just say I don't have one. And there are times I say " I just do". What is your favorite color? Blue. Why. It just is.
[ul]
[li]Everyone knows that[/li]
[li]It is common sense[/li]
[li]It just is (my favorite)[/li]
[li]Just ask anyone[/li]
[li]I just do.[/li]
[li][/li]
[/ul]
When you press them for a more informative reason, they really have to think. In the world of CC, the common 2nd response is:
[ul]
[li]97% of scientist say ...[/li]
[li]I watch the CNN and they always point out it CC is real and manmade.[/li]
[li]I watch Fox and they always point out it is fake.[/li]
[li][/li]
[/ul]
So as a rule, I try very hard to know why I think something or where I have no real reason to have an opinion, I just say I don't have one. And there are times I say " I just do". What is your favorite color? Blue. Why. It just is.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- News
- Locked
- Question
