Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[AiliailiA]

I'm not a climate change denier

I'm a skeptic of the global warming hypothesis, though.

And ye be pirate, arrr!

You can be skeptical for a while, and say so. But if you ask questions and get answers, and are directed to 'sources', you really should form some kind of opinion of your own. To remain adamantly "skeptical" whatever you read or a linked to read, would look a lot more like willful ignorance than a scientific open mind.

So, what is it about the "global warming hypothesis" you are most skeptical about?

(did I forget to say "welcome aboard ay ship o' fools me hearty" ...?)

[Zephie]

Should climate change promoters be removed from society?

Doesn't sound so nice when it's reversed, does it?

[AiliailiA]

I don't deny climate change.

I just realise that it only means that some places will become liveable and some won't.

http://www.worlddreambank.org/S/SEAPOLE.HTM

Enjoy.~

I enjoy that the way I enjoy a fat rich fuck stubbing his cigar out in my eye socket.

Those rich enough to invest in real estate without the protection of national sovereignty can all move to their "global summer palaces" while the majority of humanity who live in the tropics fight each other for the new beachfront properties. Let's take the money we made fucking up the planet and found a new nation of prosperity and opportunity and of course immigrants will be shot on sight. But that's alright, because the pioneers will generously allow some reservations for the Inuit and a polar bear sanctuary in a great big dome with air-conditioning.

Yeah, you trolled me. You're hilarious.

[Tubbsalot]

I don't deny climate change.

I just realise that it only means that some places will become liveable and some won't.

Yes, the key point being that Alaska and such will become liveable while places like - just as an example - NYC will become unliveable.

Which, as trades go, is pretty poorly balanced.

[AiliailiA]

Should climate change promoters be removed from society?

Doesn't sound so nice when it's reversed, does it?

Crap, it's almost like we agree.

Just how fucking wrong is Franklin Delano Bluth, then?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I don't deny climate change.

I just realise that it only means that some places will become liveable and some won't.

Yes, the key point being that Alaska and such will become liveable while places like - just as an example - NYC will become unliveable.

Which, as trades go, is pretty poorly balanced.

Of course that this effects global food production is neither here nor there for the "rich"...

[Galla-]

I don't deny climate change.

I just realise that it only means that some places will become liveable and some won't.

Yes, the key point being that Alaska and such will become liveable while places like - just as an example - NYC will become unliveable.

Which, as trades go, is pretty poorly balanced.

Which, of course, in the grand scheme of things is less important than the human race surviving. Hell, NYC might be turned into ash and rubble long before sea level rising gets to it. Western Rome collapsing didn't destroy Europe. I don't think having rich people in Africa or Siberia which would be new the global breadbasket, with their black skin and yurts, will affect any one of us because we'll be dead by the time it happens.

As far as trades go, almost every modern state today will be long gone and dead by the time climate change catches up to us. The only one that might be able to stake a claim to surviving a thousand years into the future is San Marino or something.

[Tubbsalot]

Which, of course, in the grand scheme of things is less important than the human race surviving.

Yeah, that's what I tell people who keep whining about your stupid shitty cancer. Humanity will survive, isn't that enough for you?

Whoops, I mean, that's not what I do at all, because 'survival of humanity' is shockingly not the only thing that matters.

[AiliailiA]

I don't deny climate change.

I just realise that it only means that some places will become liveable and some won't.

Yes, the key point being that Alaska and such will become liveable while places like - just as an example - NYC will become unliveable.

Which, as trades go, is pretty poorly balanced.

It's worse than that. Those who can afford to emigrate, not for fear of persecution, nor for inability to make a living from the land, but for "opportunity". They buy their way in to Greenland, or they annex Antarctica, or they buy islands abandoned by residents unable to resist rising sea levels and build them up with rubble and garbage shipped in on freighters which themselves make the problem worse.

Perhaps I exaggerate, but really all "humanity will survive" arguments are ultimately "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" arguments. They are Social Darwinism of the worst kind ... the kind with people dying so others can live well.

I got trolled by Galla- and I'm not saying it won't happen again. Galla- has some game. I congratulate you on your more moderate response.

EDIT for spellcheck error: "with" not "which"

[Tubbsalot]

As far as trades go, almost every modern state today will be long gone and dead by the time climate change catches up to us.

What, you mean, arguably right now, and certainly in about 50 years or so?

You think that almost every country on Earth is about to self-destruct?

[Renegade Island]

Skepticism is the default scientific position.

I don't know why people take issue when I say I'm skeptical of climate change.

I'm skeptical of everything.

[Tubbsalot]

Skepticism is the default scientific position.

I don't know why people take issue when I say I'm skeptical of climate change.

I'm skeptical of everything.

Yes, except "I'm skeptical of climate change" doesn't mean "I contend there is reasonable doubt as to the validity or veracity of the evidence suggesting its existence," it means "it doesn't exist no matter what your 'evidence' says."

[Renegade Island]

Skepticism is the default scientific position.

I don't know why people take issue when I say I'm skeptical of climate change.

I'm skeptical of everything.

Yes, except "I'm skeptical of climate change" doesn't mean "I contend there is reasonable doubt as to the validity or veracity of the evidence suggesting its existence," it means "it doesn't exist no matter what your 'evidence' says."

I object to your inferrence of my being dogmatic, good sir.

[Tubbsalot]

I object to your inferrence of my being dogmatic, good sir.

Well then presumably you don't know much about it.

In which case you're not skeptical, you just don't know about it.

[Renegade Island]

My objection to climate change science is it's failure in predictions.

A good scientific theory can accurately predict results. Climate prediction models are not accurate.

The premise of the hypothesis is plausible, and the science is theoretically solid, but until application of the science can yield accurate data, I will remain skeptical. I'm sure a good scientist such as yourself will understand.

[Tubbsalot]

My objection to climate change science is it's failure in predictions.

A good scientific theory can accurately predict results. Climate prediction models are not accurate.

That's true. They've consistently underestimated the severity of climate change, even in their most extremely pessimistic forms.

Why that would convince you that climate change wasn't happening, I'm not sure.

The premise of the hypothesis is plausible, and the science is theoretically solid, but until application of the science can yield accurate data, I will remain skeptical. I'm sure a good scientist such as yourself will understand.

Yes, I do understand, but as mentioned above that only makes sense when the data conflicts. In this case the data are even stronger than we thought.

[Renegade Island]

On further reflection....

I believe what I'm saying is that climate science is still not fully understood, so I suppose I'm skeptical of global warming in the way early 20th century physicists became skeptical of Newtons Laws of Gravity, as it couldn't account for stellar phenomena.
Once Relativity was defined, they realised that Newton was indeed right, it just wasn't the whole story.

[Tubbsalot]

On further reflection....

I believe what I'm saying is that climate science is still not fully understood, so I suppose I'm skeptical of global warming in the way early 20th century physicists became skeptical of Newtons Laws of Gravity, as it couldn't account for stellar phenomena.
Once Relativity was defined, they realised that Newton was indeed right, it just wasn't the whole story.

Er, so you accept that anthropogenic climate change is A Thing? So you're not actually skeptical at all? I mean, it's not like people are claiming the models are perfectly accurate and we know everything, it's just that we know enough to say climate change is happening. That's what people usually mean by 'I'm a skeptic' - that they don't accept we know enough to say whether it's happening.

[AiliailiA]

As far as trades go, almost every modern state today will be long gone and dead by the time climate change catches up to us.

What, you mean, arguably right now, and certainly in about 50 years or so?

You think that almost every country on Earth is about to self-destruct?

Yeah probably. I have the bad fortune to often be posting and reading the threads Galla- posts to.

It probably is meant so short-sightedly and so flippantly as the way it reads. Galla- is either a spoiled rich kid, or more tragically an adult hanging on to spoiled rich kid beliefs.

If the latter, well ...

@Galla- ... get the fuck out of that mindset. Don't even consider living into your late forties with that mindset. It's crippling and demeaning and I tell you this as someone who did it, regrets it, but just can't break such long habits. It just plain out sucks to have inherited pride and not live up to it.

*drinks wine*

Not that life sucks, mind.

Pride is satisfying in itself, and there is a certain justice in the dereliction or downfall of those who inherited privilege. Also, sometimes people find you funny and that makes their lives a little better.

I'm not saying you're funny. But if you burn every other opportunity and waste the next two decades of your life ... you just might be. But that's a tiny remnant of a far greater opportunity you have, and I'm advising your most strongly not to play that way. Seize opportunities and make them sucesses, like you were born poor and with no expectations, seeing an opportunity you never dreamed of. Don't be haughty and turn down opportunities because they are not the best you can hope for ... or you may find yourself where I am. Old, tired, regretful. With the shyness of a young person who knows their limited experience puts them at a disadvantage, fossilized into the avoidance of personal risk. Clackety-clack, skeleton fingers and skeleton brain, optimized for defense and sustenance of the beliefs I formed as a teenager and young adult. Don't do it man.

*drinks wine*

I'm not saying that your life will suck. I'm just saying you can do better. Live like you never saw an opportunity before in your life, take pride and care in your appearance but don't resort to costly adornments, learn what you are curious about (because your conscious mind does not choose that, the 7/8th of the iceberg of mind chooses that), when you have no desire nor stake then do what your friends want you to do (they will very likely repay if you later want their help and ask politely, and of course you cannot have too many friends in this sense), and do not ever be bored. Boredom is nothing but the failure in that moment to seize an opportunity. Boredom is cowardice.

Also, don't ever attend an English Literature class where you will be obliged to read a part from a Shakespeare play, while tripping on acid.

[/Polonius out]

[Renegade Island]

My objection to climate change science is it's failure in predictions.

A good scientific theory can accurately predict results. Climate prediction models are not accurate.

That's true. They've consistently underestimated the severity of climate change, even in their most extremely pessimistic forms.

Why that would convince you that climate change wasn't happening, I'm not sure.

The premise of the hypothesis is plausible, and the science is theoretically solid, but until application of the science can yield accurate data, I will remain skeptical. I'm sure a good scientist such as yourself will understand.

Yes, I do understand, but as mentioned above that only makes sense when the data conflicts. In this case the data are even stronger than we thought.

As mentioned above, I didn't say at any point that climate change wasn't happening.

I'm just questioning the validity of a prediction model that has such a high error rate.

Because more climate change happened than we thought would happen doesn't immediately imply that the premise is correct.
In science, if your prediction fails to yield accurate results, you are supposed to go back and re-examine the hypothesis to account for the error, are you not?

[Tubbsalot]

As mentioned above, I didn't say at any point that climate change wasn't happening.

I'm just questioning the validity of a prediction model that has such a high error rate.

Because more climate change happened than we thought would happen doesn't immediately imply that the premise is correct.
In science, if your prediction fails to yield accurate results, you are supposed to go back and re-examine the hypothesis to account for the error, are you not?

We're all aware the models aren't very accurate. I just agreed - the models have failed to reflect the severity of the warming in all cases. So in attempting to more accurately model climate change, you'd need to amp it all up. Obviously it's worse than we ever expected. That's why we've consistently underestimated it - we thought it wasn't as bad as it is.

So the hypothesis - that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are causing a rise in global temperatures - is not challenged by that inaccuracy, it's reinforced. The model might not be great, but that hypothesis is on the money.

[Renegade Island]

As mentioned above, I didn't say at any point that climate change wasn't happening.

I'm just questioning the validity of a prediction model that has such a high error rate.

Because more climate change happened than we thought would happen doesn't immediately imply that the premise is correct.
In science, if your prediction fails to yield accurate results, you are supposed to go back and re-examine the hypothesis to account for the error, are you not?

We're all aware the models aren't very accurate. I just agreed - the models have failed to reflect the severity of the warming in all cases. So in attempting to more accurately model climate change, you'd need to amp it all up. Obviously it's worse than we ever expected. That's why we've consistently underestimated it - we thought it wasn't as bad as it is.

So the hypothesis - that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are causing a rise in global temperatures - is not challenged by that inaccuracy, it's reinforced. The model might not be great, but that hypothesis is on the money.

Ah OK. Unless something else is causing warming as well, that you might have missed? Have we checked for that? I can't remember.

[Tubbsalot]

Ah OK. Unless something else is causing warming as well, that you might have missed? Have we checked for that? I can't remember.

Well firstly let me say I am shocked to find someone admitting they're something approaching wrong on NSG. Always a terrifying experience.

Secondly, yeah, there's more things that can cause warming, the major one being solar output, which has decreased recently at the same time as the temperature's risen. There's residual heat from the centre of the earth, which is a very very minor component. There's also heat emitted directly from human activity - burning oil releases heat, after all - which is also a minor component.

Basically the two major influences are greenhouse gas concentration and solar output, and only one of those has been increasing.

[Renegade Island]

Was the rate of warming assumed to be linear and then found to be geometric? That would make sense, at least.

[Biomechatronics]

So climate change is happening. And now, so what? Is our planet static? Never was, never will be. And one would think, that neoluddites, primitivists and other environmentalists would understand that.

Also, long time ago there was a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than now. But it's somewhat problematic now, since we are not plants. So I understand complaints about CO2, since I am of human species.

And CO2 is not the only thing, that affects climate on the planet Earth. There is the Sun, the dust, the aerosol, methane etc. If there was some huge volcanic explosion it would probably make our planet cooler. And if you don't want to wait for a volcano to explode, you can always drop a few atomic bombs and induce atomic winter (that's actually the most effective way of fighting the global warming. I use the term global warming, because "climate change" will occur, no matter what. Unless we find a way, how to make our planet perfectly static.).

So, the so called deniers should not be disenfranchised, because they don't really matter, just like climate change doom-and-gloom people are not important. Climate change cannot be stopped. But we can, even with current technology, change climate. I say, let's drop a few atomic bombs of the Tsar class.