Global warming data a hoax?

[Grooveriding]

I understand the point. There are definitely people who know something is false, but propagate it because they get off on getting others to believe it, just because the lie appeals to them more than the truth does. I do also think though that there are a lot of people who have been so heavily propagandized that they believe any information coming from a sector that gets labeled as 'to the left' is suspect. Then they just need some shill or nutbag with a blog to tell them, yes, it is in fact suspect and a left conspiracy.

Climate change denial is really the best example of this. The Republican party literally denies reality. Their climate change denial is as farcical as if someone claimed you could jump off a bridge or hop in a fire and come out unscathed. It's not a subjective position to take that the climate is changing rapidly because of human activity and the results of these changes are not positive, it's an objective one.

So, what better way to get people to believe a fake reality than to turn it into a political position ? With how partisan politics are in the US, you can apparently literally convince people that an observable and quantifiable truth is now fiction. It's not a political position to accept reality, at least not to me. For myself I have too much self respect to go through life believing fantasy and nonsense because of my feels. Whether I like the truth of something or not, I'm going to accept it.

What is also disconcerting about its denial is that the people in the various fields related to climate change, qualified to understand and explain it, have to waste their time attending to the bullshit denials. Time they could be using to actually attend to the problem and further their understanding of it and find more potential solutions.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I was mostly talking about the link in his Signature
GOP ACA Replacement Plan very funny imo.

But as far as Wikipedia that was eight years ago and I can't control everything that is printed or posted. As far as conservapedia, its an online joke. You have to see everything through Christian fundamentalist eyes?

Here is what trending there.

• Satan
• Black hole
• Mysteryoes God Have a Sense of Humor?
• Counterexamples to an Old Earth
• Intelligent design

I've never read it.

 

[Vic]

This whole fucking its-a-great-conspiracy is getting old. CO2 retains more heat than O2 or N2. Therefore, given that the energy from the sun is more or less constant, more CO2 in the atmosphere means a warmer atmosphere. It really isn't rocket science. The more complicated issue lies in carbon sequestration, not the mechanism itself.
In the meantime, efforts to curb CO2 generally rely on increasing efficiency (or more accurately, penalizing inefficiency) in the energy industry, as CO2 is their product at its lowest energy state. And as consumption increases with efficiency, the only thing that the global warming deniers are doing - with all their conspiracy theories - is trying to make us poorer. Efficiency means greater wealth.
Anyone who would like to challenge my logic is more than welcome to.

 

[sandorski]

 

[fskimospy]

Probability that people from this thread will come back and admit they were duped yet again? My guess is about 0%.

 

[Paratus]

That's a really good take down of the Mail story. Very thorough.

 

[Jaskalas]

Post fake news online.
Social media spreads it like a disease.
Retraction from the minds of people becomes impossible.

It'd probably be a good idea for a watch dog groups to create a browser addon that indicates which websites post fraudulent stories.
Give them a score, a warning / color code... and warn the users that they need verification besides an obviously corrupt source.

 

[agent00f]

I understand the point. There are definitely people who know something is false, but propagate it because they get off on getting others to believe it, just because the lie appeals to them more than the truth does. I do also think though that there are a lot of people who have been so heavily propagandized that they believe any information coming from a sector that gets labeled as 'to the left' is suspect. Then they just need some shill or nutbag with a blog to tell them, yes, it is in fact suspect and a left conspiracy.

Climate change denial is really the best example of this. The Republican party literally denies reality. Their climate change denial is as farcical as if someone claimed you could jump off a bridge or hop in a fire and come out unscathed. It's not a subjective position to take that the climate is changing rapidly because of human activity and the results of these changes are not positive, it's an objective one.

So, what better way to get people to believe a fake reality than to turn it into a political position ? With how partisan politics are in the US, you can apparently literally convince people that an observable and quantifiable truth is now fiction. It's not a political position to accept reality, at least not to me. For myself I have too much self respect to go through life believing fantasy and nonsense because of my feels. Whether I like the truth of something or not, I'm going to accept it.

What is also disconcerting about its denial is that the people in the various fields related to climate change, qualified to understand and explain it, have to waste their time attending to the bullshit denials. Time they could be using to actually attend to the problem and further their understanding of it and find more potential solutions.

The key point contained here is not everyone has the same stack rank of priorities. For traditionalists, aka conservatives, objective reality is rather low on the list alongside other enlightenment virtues, far below loyalty.

So you're right that any claim attached to ideological adhesion will generally be obliged no matter its value to those other virtues.

 

[Jaskalas]

The key point contained here is not everyone has the same stack rank of priorities. For traditionalists, aka conservatives, objective reality is rather low on the list alongside other enlightenment virtues, far below loyalty.

So you're right that any claim attached to ideological adhesion will generally be obliged no matter its value to those other virtues.

Objectivity bias is not unique to the group(s) you hate.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

"In 2015, Northern California experienced a drastic drought reducing the lake level to 39% capacity in January 2016. Some climate scientists state this may be the future of California reservoirs water storage due to lower annual precipitation. Some scientists disagree with that assessment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Oroville
Read it now, knowing Wiki it won't be up for long.

 

[Jaskalas]

"In 2015, Northern California experienced a drastic drought reducing the lake level to 39% capacity in January 2016. Some climate scientists state this may be the future of California reservoirs water storage due to lower annual precipitation. Some scientists disagree with that assessment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Oroville
Read it now, knowing Wiki it won't be up for long.

You speak of their errors, but to what end? All signs point to continued global warming.

 

[fskimospy]

"In 2015, Northern California experienced a drastic drought reducing the lake level to 39% capacity in January 2016. Some climate scientists state this may be the future of California reservoirs water storage due to lower annual precipitation. Some scientists disagree with that assessment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Oroville
Read it now, knowing Wiki it won't be up for long.

What do you think is incorrect about this statement?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What do you think is incorrect about this statement?

You can't see something bleakly ironic in the climate alarmists claims and then less than a year later the largest water storage reservoir in California is overflowing and evacuations are ongoing? I do.

 

[fskimospy]

You can't see something bleakly ironic in the climate alarmists claims and then less than a year later the largest water storage reservoir in California is overflowing and evacuations are ongoing? I do.

Their claim was not that California would be in perpetual drought going forward, it was that droughts would be more common and more severe. What you're doing here is the same thing as those people who think they have a sick burn on climate science by noting when there's a big blizzard.

 

[bshole]

You can't see something bleakly ironic in the climate alarmists claims and then less than a year later the largest water storage reservoir in California is overflowing and evacuations are ongoing? I do.

IMHO, the effects of global warming on local climate is the sketchiest part of the theory. Obviously the oceans will rise with global warming and acidification will happen due to increased CO2.

I have never looked at the mechanism they use to predict local climate changes. It would be interesting if Paratus would explain it....

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Scientific evidence indicates a pervasive history of California droughts prior to the industrial revolution with some lasting up to 200 years. You now get a 5-year drought and everyone screams global warming!

 

[sandorski]

Scientific evidence indicates a pervasive history of California droughts prior to the industrial revolution with some lasting up to 200 years. You now get a 5-year drought and everyone screams global warming!

Ahh ya, before 5 years ago the term Global Warming didn't exist.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Ahh ya, before 5 years ago the term Global Warming didn't exist.

Here's an article regarding this subject in case you're interested.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/...ve-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/

 

[desy]

http://www.standard.net/State/2017/01/21/Western-drought-watchers-keep-wary-eye-on-Lake-Mead-level
16 yrs of drought for lake mead down more than 100 feet.

 

[dphantom]

This whole fucking its-a-great-conspiracy is getting old. CO2 retains more heat than O2 or N2. Therefore, given that the energy from the sun is more or less constant, more CO2 in the atmosphere means a warmer atmosphere. It really isn't rocket science. The more complicated issue lies in carbon sequestration, not the mechanism itself.
In the meantime, efforts to curb CO2 generally rely on increasing efficiency (or more accurately, penalizing inefficiency) in the energy industry, as CO2 is their product at its lowest energy state. And as consumption increases with efficiency, the only thing that the global warming deniers are doing - with all their conspiracy theories - is trying to make us poorer. Efficiency means greater wealth.
Anyone who would like to challenge my logic is more than welcome to.

Did you know there is a GHG even more powerful than any of the 3 you listed and even more powerful than CH4? That is the one we should watch out for.

 

[sandorski]

Did you know there is a GHG even more powerful than any of the 3 you listed and even more powerful than CH4? That is the one we should watch out for.

I'm guessing Water vapour....it is, but it is far less problematic due to how easily and quickly it cycles back to water.

 

[agent00f]

Objectivity bias is not unique to the group(s) you hate.

You can also say being wrong is not "unique" to any party, but some do seem to be wrong with alarming regularity for good reason. I'm sure this will also be so very tough to understand.

 

[agent00f]

Here's an article regarding this subject in case you're interested.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/...ve-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/

I'm sure people who research this for a living are on the same level of ignorance as you.

 

[MrPickins]

"In 2015, Northern California experienced a drastic drought reducing the lake level to 39% capacity in January 2016. Some climate scientists state this may be the future of California reservoirs water storage due to lower annual precipitation. Some scientists disagree with that assessment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Oroville
Read it now, knowing Wiki it won't be up for long.

That makes about as much sense as Sen. Inhofe's snowball stunt...

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...fe-throws-snowball-to-disprove-climate-change

 

[dphantom]

I'm sure people who research this for a living are on the same level of ignorance as you.

The past droughts in California described in that article are fully accepted in the scientific community. The recently ended drought is minor in contrast though of obvious impact to people there today. CA can expect and will get a truly devastating 100 year drought with nothing we can do to avert it as a normal course of natural climatic variation sometime in the future.