Forums

WIRED: What Climate Change Skeptics aren't Getting about Science

WIRED: What Climate Change Skeptics aren't Getting about Science

Science isn't about what one or two think about a topic; it's a general consensus based on data. Read and learn:

http://www.wired.com/2016/08/climate-change-skeptics-arent-getting-science

SO | 21 augustus 2016

We will never convince everyone. People still question the moon landing.

What I'd like to say to that politician is ok.....how about this:

What is the worst that could happen if the scientist is wrong?

What is the worst that could happen if you are wrong?

Don't you think we should act based upon the least worse possible outcome?

SCCRENDO | 21 augustus 2016

Here is the definition of science
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

As noted it is a discipline that helps understand things. As such it is evolving and based on the best evidence. As such it changes. Old facts that are wrong get removed and replaced with better facts when new things are discovered. That is why pretty much nothing will ever be 100 % known. If we wait for that we would never have started using insulin, penicillin, embarked on space exploration, discovered evolution etc. it relies on a consensus of the experts in the field.

The general scientific consensus on climate change is well established and fits the model. Now in any science one can always find a study that contradicts the data. When that happens we need to reevaluate the strengths of the studies. The only true debate is the rate of man made global warming. That it is happening is not evern debatatable anymore.

The denier movement is very strong and has arisen out of interests that are political and financial. It's the same as the pro tobacco lobby suppressed the science on the harmful effects of tobacco to protect the tobacco industry which was a thriving business creating many jobs. The fossil fuel industry which includes oil drilling, coal mining, fracking and the establisted auto industry is under threat. So they put a lot of money into denying the science. They find smart scientists and help fund biased studies to refute the science. It's like one can measure a distance with tape measures or electronically. They will then tell someone to pace it out and come up with a different answer. So we find methodological flaws in their science, we find financial ties of the denier scientists to certain individuals like the Koch brothers. With measurement of temperatures to took 13 years for a group of denier scientists to admit to data flaws yet many years after that they still misquote the refuted data,

As you can see from this forum no denier gets into the science. They just express opinions. We have presented dozens of unrefuted links. Mitch is the only one to try post science but he is always reference the usual gang of 4-6. You just need to google these guys and you can see that they are funded by the fossil fuel industry etc and you can easily see the flaws in the science they are misquoting

Tesla-David | 21 augustus 2016

Yes, facts are an inconvenient truth for deniers/skeptics. This 33 year study in my northwest backyard is another example of "facts" showing how dramatically our glaciers are retreating here, but also world wide. The facts are irrefutable and disturbing. We are heading for disaster, and we have to act soon or suffer the consequences. Washington State will be voting on a carbon fee and dividend in November (I-732). I pray that it passes. The time to act is NOW.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/33-years-later-glaciers-dying-a...

TeslaTap.com | 21 augustus 2016

Reminds me of poor Oklahoma - for years politicians and oil industry were in complete denial that local earthquakes were caused by fracking (or actually pumping the billions of gallons of toxic fracking fluids deep into the ground). Anyone not connected with the local industry could see a direct correlation, but since all the politicians were virtually owned by the oil industry, they could deny there was any connection. Rather silly, but sad too. Prior to fracking (about 2009) most Oklahomans had never felt an earthquake in their entire life, and now in many areas they get multiple earthquakes every hour.

carlk | 21 augustus 2016

It's the primitive thinking vs. science. That has always been the case since there was science. Human brain is not naturally evolved to associate with scientific methodology. It's programmed to intuitively taking care of best self interests and survival only. Science always win in the end of course the only question is where the end will be this time around.

SCCRENDO | 21 augustus 2016

I'm sorry to sound elitist by I guess I am. More educated people understand the science. Deniers fall into 2 classes. Those people not smart or educated enough and having some political and or other reason to deny the science. These folk are the ones who make dumb unsubstantiated statements. Then there are the minority that understand the science but chose to distort it for a variety of political and economic reasons. I see a lot of parallels in Trump voters. Trump can say anything without substantiation and the folk believe him. It's ironic that of late he is beginning to accuse Hillary of stuff he is blatantly guilty of doing. I am actually impressed by his well oiled propaganda machine. It's sad how many people are stupid enough to believe him

codyb12889 | 21 augustus 2016

@SCCRENDO:

Most of the second group that you refer to in my mind falls under the label of hardcore stasists.

These are people that are so adjusted to the status quo and so afraid of not being able to fit in or understand a rapidly changing landscape. These are the people that will first try to disprove anything that calls for a need to change and second they will try to convince people that these changes are dangerous or the wrong path with little backing other than insinuations based on pure speculation.

Side note, if elitism is stating a fairly blatant truth then we are on a much more dangerous path that some would think.

kevin | 21 augustus 2016

As someone whose hobby is debunking nonsense on the Internet, I can say that some people, and the number may be over 20%, just don't use good sense when they make decisions about events outside their own expertise. Bias abounds, and it is just one of the messy parts of being human.

MitchP85D | 21 augustus 2016

Since I am the only weatherman I know of in this Tesla Forum, I will most certainly comment on this topic. What I see are a bunch of Koo-aid drinkers, blindly following a movement that they ever so desperately want to believe in. And, they have the mistaken belief that science is on their side, and that there is an overwhelming consensus that scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. This is utter bullcrap! It is more like 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-...

docnukem | 21 augustus 2016

I think you better look closer at your citation (authored by the Heartland Institute) and the study the author quotes. Not only does the author cherry-pick numbers (the 36% number excludes many who think humans play a role--only 24% in that survey believe humans play no role), but the survey was completed by engineers and "geoscientists" from APEGA--Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta. That's right, Alberta, home of the tar sands where over 50% of such engineers and "geoscientists" are employed by the oil industry.

ray | 21 augustus 2016

Look at the mess *science* has made of nutrition. Firstly the fiasco with eggs
and cholesterol; remember that: don't eat eggs they contain cholesterol. Now,
of course, it's eat eggs they are good for you. and remember don't eat fat as
it will make you fat - what utter rubbish. All along saying "sugar is fine"
and you must eat fruit or at least drink fruit juice (if you want to kill
yourself). It is now well known that sugar (fructose) is worse for you than
tobacco.

Now that same self serving body of persons is telling us that carbon dioxide
produced by man is going to destroy the planet. Oh, all the evidence is there
in their *models*. They couldn't even model one human body so why do they
think they can model the whole planet.

I am now almost recovered from severe fructose poisoning inflicted by the
mis-information from the *science* community. My problem isn't with Climate
Science it is with any over promoted and under researched *science*. Get real;
so called climate science might be believable in thirty or forty years if the
theory lasts that long (which I doubt).

I support alternate energy because it makes economic sense not because I
believe any of that Global Warming/Climate change krap. I drive a Tesla
because it's the most advanced and most economical car there is not because of
some misguided climate science.

johndoe | 21 augustus 2016

@ray
There is no evidence you suffered from severe fructose poisoning. Fructose is natural. Fructose has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Fructose is good. You cannot have too much of a good thing.

johndoe | 21 augustus 2016

@SCCRENDO
Although I agree that most deniers do not know, nor understand, the science of Climate Change, that is not the real problem we face. The real problem, as others have alluded to, is that people do not like change unless they see a short term benefit to themselves. They deny, not because of the balance of evidence, but because they are mostly interested in not changing their opinion which they think is 'correct' simply because they think it matches their own short term interest. This is why even those who accept the catastrophic future if we do not combat Climate Change will vote for Trump nonetheless. We need those people to realise that their perceived short term interest is against their long term interest to such an extent that it is ethically unacceptable to vote for those who deny the need for action on Climate Change.

Kosta | 21 augustus 2016

What many fail to understand is that our planet is a living organism, just like how we are. As such through various means our living planet will seek homeostasis. There is always a waiting period to see what reaction will be taken to bring the condition back to achieve homeostasis. It's a relationship very similar to predator and prey. As prey populations increase so do the predator populations. When prey population begin to decrease, there is a time where the prey population will continue to grow until it is quickly reduced to the point where the prey population exceeds predator population; and the process begins again. As water levels rise and weather patterns become more extreme populations will cease to exist. As human population overcrowd relatively small areas disease will spread easily. Once rare bacteria and virus' will become more common and deadly. As temperatures increase, like a pressure cooker, we will witness more volcanoes so that the plumes cover the sky and quickly reduce average temperatures. Homeostasis.

SCCRENDO | 21 augustus 2016

@ray. Your comment was a word salad. Provide some references please
@Mitch. You continue to define your expertise as a weatherman. This may shock you but I am not convinced as to your credentials. You refuse to join the American Meteorolical Society where 96 % understand climate change. Also you have never discussed your qualifications. Do you have any science degree that was not obtained through Trump University?

fgaliegue | 22 augustus 2016

@ray fixing it for you: "look at the mess *science REPORTING* has made of [whatever]".

Read the original reports. In full. And understand the statistics behind them. Yes, there is this saying: "lies, damn lies, and statistics"; except that statistics, when accurate, don't lie... Curiously enough, so called "scientific papers" with regards to climate change written by deniers fail to gather the necessary data to begin with. And of course, with skewed data come skewed conclusions and arguments.

Do it all or don't do it at all.

b.tesla | 22 augustus 2016

A few human beings have the launch codes that could make the entire planet a nuclear wasteland no longer suitable to life as we know it. Therefore, there is at least one way for humans to destroy life on earth. Let's hope that never happens. But could we also do it to our planet more slowly?

There are insulating properties to the atmosphere. As a simple example, when there is cloud cover at night, the temperature does not drop as much overnight vs. a completely clear night. If the chemical composition of the atmosphere changes with additional greenhouse gases that are better insulators, there is going to be an overall warming trend. The weather changes every day, but the overall change of climate across the entire planet is taking effect slowly but surely as 7 billion people pour countless tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Just like the tobacco industry tried to deny the health risks of smoking, big oil industries (and the politicians they've bought) will do whatever it takes to deny climate change. If people were unbiased and objective, they could see it clearly. Until then, you might as well lump them in the same category of people who thought that the world was flat, or that the sun rotated around the earth every day, or countless other ideas that may have been popular at the time but are obviously absurd with today's knowledge. Until then, maybe the science deniers can take up smoking and die more quickly. :) It won't kill you today or tomorrow, etc, but the cumulative effects will probably take years off a person's life.

brando | 22 augustus 2016

Deforestation (trend started in Middle East (the Fertile Crescent, Cedar Trees of Lebanon), perhaps N. Africa, around the Mediterranean, in fact most of Europe, perhaps Australia?, you get the idea. Even Seattle is deforested.

MonoCulture agriculture obviously screws up ecosystems. Leads to soil erosion. Often to irrigation which almost always ends in too much salt in the soil (ask the Australians for one of the most recent examples). Is this what happened to N. Africa or was it really the Romans spreading salt around? I have read most irrigation system last less than 100 years. Nile river was a little different as flooding removed the salts, not anymore.

Pollution not just of the air, but also the land which also means our water supplies.

Over fishing. You all know this, right?

Over hunting or extinction of other animals Bison, Woolly Mammoths, many birds, a long list and counting of other animals, birds, fish, etc.

US food supply is degrading. Not just tasteless fruits and vegetables these also lack nutritional value. This along with processed food (sugar, salt, fat are the hall mark ingredients of processed foods) leading to fat people and this bad diet is moving around the world as corporate persons go global.

CO2 is just another straw on the camels back. Seems to me few people acknowledge any of this.

Atomic Power?
The promise that nuclear power is too cheap to meter.
The reality is too expensive to matter.

http://thinkprogressDOTorg/climate/2016/08/04/3803499/nuclear-power-bail...

(And the most complex and dangerous way to boil water yet devised by mankind. Where and when will the next core meltdown happen? )

[1970, 1986, 2011 = 5 core meltdowns - about one every 7 years?]
Ooops - I missed the first (?) core meltdown 1959, 1964, 1969
https://en.wikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment
https://en.wikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory

clean up status
http://www.latimesDOTcom/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20140613-column....
And I suspect there are other "secret military sponsored reactors" from other governments I don't know about.

I'm afraid Carl Sagan may have summed it up best. We don't see/find intelligent life in the universe because intelligent life just doesn't last that long.

You can have an ecosystem without an economy. You can not have an economy without an ecosystem.

Elon is trying to partial change these trends to sustainable transportation and energy and even a backup at Mars.
And I love him for it. GO Elon.

Red Sage ca us | 22 augustus 2016

THIS JUST IN: Gatorade is NOT better than water.

MitchP85D | 23 augustus 2016

Well, what I read from you folks is that if it weren't for us gawl dang humans, the earth would be fine. If we just git rid of 'em, that will heal the planet.

Let's get back to realville. Humans demand energy. Our lifespans have been increasing due to cheap energy, not to mention refrigeration of our food which cheap energy allows. Humans always crave more for less. And this is especially true for our energy consumption. We always want more bang for the buck. If the authoritarian environmental activists would just get out of the way and allow this natural human driving force to take place, alternative forms of energy would flourish. But that is too simple. The ninny-nannies would rather point their hypocritical fingers at others and punish them for "bad behavior," i.e., buying a truck or SUV. This does absolutely nothing for the development of alternative forms of energy.

Ross1 | 23 augustus 2016

No matter what @doe says, fructose intolerance is very real for some of us.
Because USA uses corn syrup for its sugar needs, a fructose intolerant person is well advised in staying away.
There is however an antidote: glucose.

SCCRENDO | 23 augustus 2016

Mitch. There is no question that human life demands energy. But we need to recognize that like all commodities sources are not unlimited. The key to long term survival is homeostasis. Being able to get rid of our waste products. A natural human waste product is CO2. Plant life is capable of using CO2 via photosynthesis to produce O2 and carbohydrates. This has been in good balance until recent times. With industrialization CO2 plus other pollutant production has increased dramatically. By cutting down trees (deforestation) we are significantly reducing sources to get rid of CO2. So it ends up in the ocean changing the pH (we have overwhelmed the buffering systems) and also travelled into the atmosphere causing a greenhouse layer. So we have to adapt. Sure the earth will survive. However we may all have to leave coastal areas. Increased drought could lead to food shortages, starvation and more conflicts (wars) in our fight for food. Certain species particularly ocean life will die out. Yes evolution may produce new species. However any change in species may create consequences that we are not prepared for.

@Ross. You are diverting into a topic you don't completely comprehend. Perhaps reserve it for another thread as it quite a complex subject and probably not completely relevant to these forums.

SCCRENDO | 23 augustus 2016

On review it seems like many have wandered into the fructose thread. Fructose is a natural fruit sugar and can be metabolized by the human body. However excessive amounts are likely toxic. High fructose corn syrup as an additive in many US products is likely harmful and may be a bug player in insulin resistance and diabetes. However let's not get distracted by this topic as it is irrelevant to the topic at hand and this forum.

Ross1 | 23 augustus 2016

@SCCR:
Not exactly, just protecting the status quo introduced above by @ray and refuted by @johndoe.
But really happy to leave it at that.
And , contrary to your comment, I may know about it.
Lets drop it.

johndoe | 25 augustus 2016

@Ross
My post about fructose was satire. It is satire because I posted the same thing about fructose that people post about CO2.

My original post was:
There is no evidence you suffered from severe fructose poisoning. Fructose is natural. Fructose has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Fructose is good. You cannot have too much of a good thing.

A post from from Climate Change deniers goes like this:
There is no evidence humanity is suffering from too much CO2. CO2 is natural and required for life. CO2 has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 is good for plants. Plants cannot have too much of a good thing.

Ross1 | 25 augustus 2016

OK. You do satire. Well.
It wasn't funny.

johndoe | 25 augustus 2016

It was not meant to be funny.
https://en.wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Satire

SCCRENDO | 25 augustus 2016

Ross and johndoe. Get over it. Stop pecking at each other. Ross if you understand the issues discuss them and cut out the crap. Forget about @ray. He has some research to do before he knows what he is talking about.

MitchP85D | 25 augustus 2016

Well, this is what AGW advocates don't get - perspective!

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIce...

Now tell me - from this data are you really concerned that humans are going to melt the global sea ice?!!!

johndoe | 25 augustus 2016

@MitchP85D
You have brought up the Antarctic several times previously.
It has been addressed multiple times.
Most of them were on the Ice Age thread that got deleted, but below are some from threads which were not deleted.
The answer is:
The Arctic atmosphere is warming at an accelerating rate.
The Arctic land ice is melting at an accelerating rate.
The Arctic sea ice is melting at an accelerating rate.
The glaciers globally are melting at an accelerating rate.
The Antarctic atmosphere is warming at an accelerating rate.
The Antarctic ocean is warming at an accelerating rate.
The Antarctic land ice is melting at an accelerating rate.
The Antarctic sea ice is staying stable.
i.,e. the only ice not melting is the Antarctic sea ice. This is despite the increasing land ice melting into the antarctic ocean. This is caused by the ocean circulation pattern and overturning patterns, and fresh water mely from land refreezing on the ocean. The Antarctic sea ice not reducing is caused by Global Warming.

bb0tin | January 8, 2016
@MitchP85D
You have been told many times but here it is yet again.
The arctic sea ice melt reduces the albedo and causes more heating and therefore land ice melt, which we do care about. It also changes the ocean currents which are also a worry. The sea ice also protects the land from erosion and provides habitat and hunting for man and animals. We care about all of these.
The antarctic sea ice melt is allowing ice shelves and glaciers to melt. We do care about this.
The land ice melt is adding to sea level rise, and potentially tens of metres of sea level rise. We do care about this.

bb0tin | March 29, 2016
@MitchP85D
I have informed you about the arctic and antarctic sea ice, in detail, several times on this forum.

bb0tin | May 24, 2016
@MitchP85D
You quoted "Why is Antarctica's sea ice spreading as the Arctic's shrinks?"
I have already described to you the reasons several times previously on this forum.

JayInJapan | 30 augustus 2016

Here's some more data from WIRED: https://www.wired.com/2016/08/quickly-climate-change-accelerating-167-maps

The maps show increasing temperatures around the globe. Scary stuff!

UnshodBob | 2 september 2016

@MitchP85D - when I look at that graph, I see the Arctic ice area decreasing over the 40 year time frame of the graph. The Arctic sea ice area is shown in the center graph. The red line is the average over the entire period, the large wiggly line is the yearly fluctuation, which appears to be pretty much the same at first glance, and the small wiggly line is the 13-month average, which, to me, conveys the true picture of what's happening.

Between 1979 and 1995, the 13-mo avg is completely above the red line. Between 2004 and 2016, the 13-mo avg is completely below the red line. This shows a reduction in Arctic sea ice area from about 12.5 million km^2 to about 11 million km^2, or about 12% less area in less than 40 years. So, in about 300 years, at that rate, there will be only water at the North Pole. That's assuming the rate stays constant, even though a link here shows it is accelerating. How many centuries do you think the Arctic ice has been up there?

In the top graph, which shows global sea ice area, there are three or four multi-year periods since 2001 where the 13-mo avg is below the red line and none before then. There are also three or four multi-year periods before 1995 where the 13-mo avg is above the red line.

The good news is it looks like the Antarctic ice area is remaining constant or even growing slightly.

It would be great if we had a century or two of data like these to see a more complete picture of the trends. I find it difficult to view the images of glacial loss over time as shown in films like "An Inconvenient Truth" and believe we humans have absolutely no responsibility.

SCCRENDO | 2 september 2016

@Unshodbob
The Arctic sea ice loss is more far more than any Antarctic sea ice gain
https://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/10/summer-2011-arctic-sea-ice-nea...

Also what you see is Antarctic sea ice. But land ice gets ignored by deniers
https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

UnshodBob | 3 september 2016

@SCCRENDO - reworded, it reads: I find it difficult to believe we humans have absolutely no responsibility for the loss of glacier ice mass when I view the images in a movie like "An Inconvient Truth." Hope that clarifies my stance. I worded it badly, I guess. Hey, I'm driving a Tesla! (And a Mustang GT, but now I split my miles between them.)

SCCRENDO | 3 september 2016

@unshod. Your initial response was misleading. Sorry. I gave also gone back and looked at numbers such as 1 degree C, slight pH changes and a few cm ocean rise but these are indeed highly meaningful and impactful. There are a whole lot of short videos on the bbc sight which put this in perspective. I will post when I get a chance. That Antartica is not losing sea is not a positive when you look at the big picture.

SCCRENDO | 3 september 2016

Site

UnshodBob | 3 september 2016

@SCCRENDO - understandable. I pointed out the 12% loss of Arctic sea ice in less than 40 years because with a casual glance at the graph it seems like up and down about the same over the entire period for all three charts. When you look closer, the 13-month average is absolutely trending down.

I should have also written instead: "The only (good?) news is it looks like the Antarctic ice area is remaining constant or even growing slightly." That "good" news is negated by the huge loss of ice elsewhere.

Mitch asked: "Now tell me - from this data are you really concerned that humans are going to melt the global sea ice?!!!" I answered that I am concerned, (or at least that was my intent.) Sorry for the bad sentence structure.

SCCRENDO | 3 september 2016

For Mitch
COP21: What does the Paris climate agreement mean for me?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35092127
China and US climate pledge sets course for future of Paris deal
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37261246

Tesla-David | 3 september 2016

There is a lot going on relative to Arctic and Antarctic ice. This article today provides a bit of clarity regarding Antarctic sea ice, and how it may be affecting the ocean currents.
"James Hansen, the former NASA scientist, pointed to stratification as a potential wild card in the climate disruption process. He thinks that it could accelerate the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers, and perhaps change current patterns in the Atlantic. Research published Aug. 23 in Nature found evidence that stratification is occurring in Prydz Bay in East Antarctica."
http://www.ecowatch.com/melting-antarctic-ice-sheet-1995371315.html

brando | 3 oktober 2016

The earth has survived for over 4 billion years.
It is life that is the more fragile.

Energy isn't the problem. The Sun hits the earth with enough energy in one hour to power all of mankind for almost a year.

See my previous post for the problems we humans are creating for ourselves.
If you don't see a problem, you won't fix it. That is why forests and fish are far fewer now days.

lilbean | 3 oktober 2016

I got this email this morning. The website has links to the research and science.

What is the California Climate Credit?
A Message from the California Public Utilities Commission
This month* your utility bill will include a credit identified as the "California Climate Credit." Your household and millions of others throughout the state will receive this credit on your utility bills.

This payment comes from a California program that is fighting climate change. Your Climate Credit is designed to help you join in these efforts. You can use the bill savings from your Climate Credit however you choose, but you can save even more money by investing the savings in energy-saving home upgrades, including more efficient lights and appliances. You can find more information and receive rebates for these and many other energy-efficient choices for your home at www.EnergyUpgradeCA.org/credit.

The Climate Credit is one of many programs resulting from landmark legislation called the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Together, these programs are cutting pollution, creating jobs, and investing in cleaner energy and transportation. For more information about climate change science and programs to reduce carbon pollution, visit www.climatechange.ca.gov.