Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Uncle Ted]

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?


We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from climate change to vaccinations—faces furious opposition.
Some even have doubts about the moon landing.
[...]
Americans fall into two basic camps, Kahan says. Those with a more “egalitarian” and “communitarian” mind-set are generally suspicious of industry and apt to think it’s up to something dangerous that calls for government regulation; they’re likely to see the risks of climate change. In contrast, people with a “hierarchical” and “individualistic” mind-set respect leaders of industry and don’t like government interfering in their affairs; they’re apt to reject warnings about climate change, because they know what accepting them could lead to—some kind of tax or regulation to limit emissions.


In the U.S., climate change somehow has become a litmus test that identifies you as belonging to one or the other of these two antagonistic tribes. When we argue about it, Kahan says, we’re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We’re thinking, People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this. For a hierarchical individualist, Kahan says, it’s not irrational to reject established climate science: Accepting it wouldn’t change the world, but it might get him thrown out of his tribe.
[...]

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text?sf7642744=1

Topper and '71 don't want to be thrown out of their tribe.

[Uncle Ted]

Not sure who said it, but all of the debate is essentially moot because no one is willing to make any changes. Even the fully indoctrinated aren't attempting to modify their behavior.

The world economy and our individual consumption is so heavily dependent on the use of fossil fuels and CO2 production that barring the catastrophic Waterworld melting of the icecaps no one is really making any effort.

The can will continue to get kicked down the road because all the negative externalities of our current behavior are going to be paid way down the line.

It is not the fossil fuels that is the problem. It is all those cows. We need to kill them before they kill us!

[Topper]

Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

Wrong post

[Topper]

I don't mean to pile on what JL has already said, but when you said "How arrogant are the Obama types to think they can change what the Earth's evolution has in store for us?", I understood that to mean that you don't think humans can change what the Earth's evolution has in store for us. I also don't understand why it's arrogant to think humans can make such a change. It's rather obvious that we can.

I also don't understand the point you're making about "the" major impact on climate change. It's a given that with or without humans, the climate has changed and will change. No one has argued otherwise. The question is whether humans have had, and will have, a significant effect. An overwhelming majority of people smarter than I believe that it has and will. The question is what can/should we do about it.

To personalize it, I recognize that I'm going to die eventually, and there's nothing I can do to stop that. But I can lengthen, and improve the quality, of my life by eating right and exercising. Old age is "the" major cause of death, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't address the other, man-made factors.

In a somewhat related way, I have seen this play out in breast cancer classification. For decades physicians have debated the classification of a common precancerous condition, which has significant patient and economic impact. It can be confusing for pathologists, surgeons, and oncologists. Numerous classification systems have been proposed. One expert breast pathologist has been very vocal about her own classification. She has taken it upon herself to promote it at most conferences where she is a presenter. The majority of pathology experts disagree with her, but her proposal has gotten enough exposure that it needed to be addressed. She was included in the latest breast pathology consensus conference where she vigorously defended her proposal. Most other pathologists disagreed, so the original classification scheme remained intact. The official consensus statement did mention her opinion, though noted it was not adopted.

There are still significant problems with the current classification. But like the article said, it is the best system 'left standing' after everyone, biases and all, have hashed it out and tried their best to come up with a consensus based on the most current evidence. I have my biases, which in large part were inherited by my pathology mentor. So I disagree with the pathologist I described above. For now, the majority of breast pathologists also disagree with her, and science moves on. The next consensus conference may play out differently, but until then we work with what we have.

The path you are treading invites the policy makers to argue "we just gotta try" in their decisions.

Yet whenever they tread this path we get decisions like Keystone and antifracking. The policies invited by fear of change usually leads to stagnation of economic choices.

When in reality we have more pressing matters than climate change which seventy or more years down the road. Something neither you nor I will see.

[Northwestcoug]

The path you are treading invites the policy makers to argue "we just gotta try" in their decisions.

Yet whenever they tread this path we get decisions like Keystone and antifracking. The policies invited by fear of change usually leads to stagnation of economic choices.

When in reality we have more pressing matters than climate change which seventy or more years down the road. Something neither you nor I will see.

Wait, what?
How in the hell does that relate to my post?

[byu71]

Apologize for not continuing the conversation in a timely manner. Thanks to global warming, I mean climate change, here in Utah I get to go play golf in February. Unfortunately, talking to my nephew this morning who is in North Carolina, thanks to global warming, I mean climate change, he can't go golfing because it is snowing.

I want to state I am all in favor of JL's condescending attitude to me. References to age and my lack of intelligence are entertaining. Not so much for me, but I understand the fun he has with it and how it is fun for others. So I hope he continues doing so.

What I am not in favor of is posting something and then having him explain to the rest of you what I mean. It is especially hurtful when someone who I have grown to love and admire like PAC, jumps on board and instead of asking what I mean takes JL's explanation of what I mean. It took me 12 holes to get over it and I didn't play well those 12 holes. JL's style is like if anyone remembers, ex-utes. He would tell you what you were saying and they argue that false narrative.

After golf several of us had a conversation. I asked them about global warming, I mean climate change. These are extrememly intelligent, more intelligent than I to use PAC's phraseology, self made highly successful friends. They basically agreed with me. This global warming, I mean climate change thing is blown way out of proportion. Did we agree that man has an impact on the climate, without out a doubt. One of them asked who thought I was stupid enough to not think man didn't. Again tears came to my eyes as I thought of PAC, JL I don't give a shit what you think.

What is the advantage to blowing this thing out of proportion. You can then ask for over the top solutions which liberals tend to do when it comes to anything. Can you imagine claiming global warming, I mean climate change is more of a threat to man than Terrorists. We did agree a super volcano in Wymoing would be devastating to the climate. However, we came to the conclusion such an event wouldn't be caused by man. I imagine the arrogant, we're smart you're not Obama types might say such an event was caused by man.

Does man have an impact on the climate. Yes, does man have the main impact on the climate? I don't think so but could not talk condescendingly to someone who disagree's. I am not arrogant enough to think I am smarter than everyone else and they need me to keep them from making bad decisions.

[creekster]

http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-witness-carbon-dioxide-trapping-heat-air-180305626.html

"sort of like confirming gravity with a falling rock."

[byu71]

http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-wit...180305626.html

"sort of like confirming gravity with a falling rock."

What ever happened to man blowing a hole in the ozone layer? Is that still a great concern?

[Uncle Ted]

http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-wit...180305626.html

"sort of like confirming gravity with a falling rock."

Scientists say carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas is the chief cause of global warming.

What?!? It's all those damn cows that is the chief cause of global warming! This article is sh*t.

[byu71]

What?!? It's all those damn cows that is the chief cause of global warming! This article is sh*t.

Is it possible camel farts are what caused the Sahara Desert?

[old_gregg]

lol. if you don't want people to call you dumb, don't say dumb things.

[byu71]

lol. if you don't want people to call you dumb, don't say dumb things.

LOL, I was hoping you would respond so I could reiterate I really don't give a shit what people who make things up think.

[Joe Public]

Does anyone else remember seeing a PSA back in the 1980s where a little girl was leaving the house to go play, and she grabbed her oxygen mask and walked outside to a desert wasteland? I can't seem to find a clip of that.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-wit...180305626.html

"sort of like confirming gravity with a falling rock."

I'm glad he cleared up that CO2 produces a greenhouse effect. That's what this debate has been about the whole time.

I'm not sure how this journalist can write the line that the "sun's radiation is not responsible for warming the air."

[Jeff Lebowski]

Apologize for not continuing the conversation in a timely manner. Thanks to global warming, I mean climate change, here in Utah I get to go play golf in February. Unfortunately, talking to my nephew this morning who is in North Carolina, thanks to global warming, I mean climate change, he can't go golfing because it is snowing.

I want to state I am all in favor of JL's condescending attitude to me. References to age and my lack of intelligence are entertaining. Not so much for me, but I understand the fun he has with it and how it is fun for others. So I hope he continues doing so.

What I am not in favor of is posting something and then having him explain to the rest of you what I mean. It is especially hurtful when someone who I have grown to love and admire like PAC, jumps on board and instead of asking what I mean takes JL's explanation of what I mean. It took me 12 holes to get over it and I didn't play well those 12 holes. JL's style is like if anyone remembers, ex-utes. He would tell you what you were saying and they argue that false narrative.

After golf several of us had a conversation. I asked them about global warming, I mean climate change. These are extrememly intelligent, more intelligent than I to use PAC's phraseology, self made highly successful friends. They basically agreed with me. This global warming, I mean climate change thing is blown way out of proportion. Did we agree that man has an impact on the climate, without out a doubt. One of them asked who thought I was stupid enough to not think man didn't. Again tears came to my eyes as I thought of PAC, JL I don't give a shit what you think.

What is the advantage to blowing this thing out of proportion. You can then ask for over the top solutions which liberals tend to do when it comes to anything. Can you imagine claiming global warming, I mean climate change is more of a threat to man than Terrorists. We did agree a super volcano in Wymoing would be devastating to the climate. However, we came to the conclusion such an event wouldn't be caused by man. I imagine the arrogant, we're smart you're not Obama types might say such an event was caused by man.

Does man have an impact on the climate. Yes, does man have the main impact on the climate? I don't think so but could not talk condescendingly to someone who disagree's. I am not arrogant enough to think I am smarter than everyone else and they need me to keep them from making bad decisions.

Did you tell your golf buddies about this post?

Animals including human beings have been adapting to chages forever. The last 2,000 years is a blip on the evolutionary process of the earth. Perhaps the scientific oriented folks on here can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the Sahara Desert was always a Desert. I guess human beings somehow caused that change.

How arrogant are the Obama types to think they can change what the Earth's evolution has in store for us? Go back to any civilization a thousand or more years ago and tell them there is climate change. Their response might be, you mean sometimes it snows and sometimes it doesn't and sometimes it doesn't do it at the same time each year?

I doubt it.

byu71, I am happy that your friends confirm your biases. That must be a great comfort for you.