Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Norbert]

Response to a recent declaration by climate change deniers:

More than 500 people misunderstand climate change

But there are also about 500 scholars who recently have come forward and signed a declaration at odds with the scientific consensus, claiming “there is no climate emergency”. They represent a tiny fraction of the scholar community dismissing man-made climate change – by comparison, there is about 20,000 participants on the annual meetings of the American Geophysical Union.

A press conferences has been scheduled on Friday October 18th in Brussels, Rome and Oslo in order to promote the declaration. The intention behind the declaration is to influence the EU and the UN.

Most of the academics who signed the petition have no or little experience within climate research (check Google Scholar). Some of the signatures also have connections with political think tanks.

 

[mspohr]

Greenhouse gas emissions from diesel vehicles cancelled out cuts from renewable energy

Greenhouse gas emissions from diesel cars, utes and vans have risen sharply since 2011, effectively cancelling out the cut in pollution from new renewable energy replacing some coal plants.

A surge in ownership of larger diesel vehicles is a central reason emissions from transport leapt by more than 10% over the decade, according to the monthly emissions audit published by progressive thinktank the Australia Institute.

 

[Chopr147]

This is California’s big secret: it’s not climate change that’s burning up the forests, killing people, and destroying hundreds of homes; it’s decades of environmental mismanagement that has created a tinderbox of unharvested timber, dead trees, and thick underbrush.

If federal and state environmental policies continue to make it difficult and costly to harvest timber and manage the fuel load, then the wildfires will continue and they will be bigger and deadlier. This will, in due course, cause some politicians to blame the fires on climate change.

But yea, blame Global Warming

 

[JRP3]

Just need more raking of the forests, obv.

 

[mspohr]

This is California’s big secret: it’s not climate change that’s burning up the forests, killing people, and destroying hundreds of homes; it’s decades of environmental mismanagement that has created a tinderbox of unharvested timber, dead trees, and thick underbrush.

If federal and state environmental policies continue to make it difficult and costly to harvest timber and manage the fuel load, then the wildfires will continue and they will be bigger and deadlier. This will, in due course, cause some politicians to blame the fires on climate change.

But yea, blame Global Warming

Many simple people look for simple answers to complex problems.
However, The Climate Disaster has many causes and will require many different actions.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

How can a political movement that has as its current darling a mentally disturbed 16 year old girl expect to attract rational people to its POV?

It's part of a conditioning process. You need to read this to understand the larger picture.

“We think too small, like the frog at the bottom of the well. He thinks the sky is only as big as the top of the well. If he surfaced, he would have an entirely different view.” — Mao Zedong

 

[JRP3]

It's part of a conditioning process. You need to read this to understand the larger picture.

No one reading that will gain any understanding, outside of the fear mongering of the right.

 

[Norbert]

This is California’s big secret: it’s not climate change that’s burning up the forests, killing people, and destroying hundreds of homes; it’s decades of environmental mismanagement that has created a tinderbox of unharvested timber, dead trees, and thick underbrush.

If federal and state environmental policies continue to make it difficult and costly to harvest timber and manage the fuel load, then the wildfires will continue and they will be bigger and deadlier. This will, in due course, cause some politicians to blame the fires on climate change.

But yea, blame Global Warming

Harvest timber? You are not from California, are you?

The problem is not specific to California:

Wildfires and Climate Change | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

Climate Change and Extreme Summer Weather Events – The Future is still in Our Hands

 

[Norbert]

It's part of a conditioning process. You need to read this to understand the larger picture.

My first impression is that this is a lame excuse for ignoring basic scientific facts (such as those about CO2). However I might be missing the point.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

My first impression is that this is a lame excuse for ignoring basic scientific facts (such as those about CO2). However I might be missing the point.

Basically Scientism is what this whole thread is about...


Scientism—a Hallmark of the Dialectic, a Weapon of the Left (starts on page 18)

“It is fated that the world must develop as I say; therefore those who wish to be on the winning side, and do not care to wage fruitless war against the inevitable, will join my party.” Those who oppose him are condemned as unphilosophic, unscientific, and out of date, while those who agree with him feel assured of victory, since the universe is on their side. At the same time the winning side, for reasons which remain somewhat obscure, is presented as the side of virtue. The man who first fully developed this point of view was Hegel.” —BERTRAND RUSSELL


His speech is about dogmatism, which can exist both in science and religion. At the very end of his speech, he restates the importance of science as well as the perils of dogmatism and why scientists should keep an open mind.

 

[JRP3]

Most scientists keep an open mind, it's part of the job description. Provide proof that the physics of the CO2 molecule is different than what we know and people will listen.

 

[SageBrush]

 

[S'toon]

Basically Scientism is what this whole thread is about...


Scientism—a Hallmark of the Dialectic, a Weapon of the Left (starts on page 18)

“It is fated that the world must develop as I say; therefore those who wish to be on the winning side, and do not care to wage fruitless war against the inevitable, will join my party.” Those who oppose him are condemned as unphilosophic, unscientific, and out of date, while those who agree with him feel assured of victory, since the universe is on their side. At the same time the winning side, for reasons which remain somewhat obscure, is presented as the side of virtue. The man who first fully developed this point of view was Hegel.” —BERTRAND RUSSELL


His speech is about dogmatism, which can exist both in science and religion. At the very end of his speech, he restates the importance of science as well as the perils of dogmatism and why scientists should keep an open mind.

Rupert Sheldrake (1942-) is a former scientist (very former, as in not doing science any more) who, since the 1980s, has preferred to promote his own pet theory of everything called "morphic resonance". Sheldrake believes that "memory is inherent in nature" and that "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind", and that this "morphic resonance" also explains "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms". Unsurprisingly, nobody in science takes Sheldrake seriously. However, he has written several books targeted at the general public.

One can group Sheldrake's claims about phenomena caused by "morphic resonance" into two broad categories:

• The first category includes real phenomena such as biological heredity, animal and plant development and behaviour — Sheldrake thinks the scientific theories that real scientists have developed to explain these are incorrect because they can't explain everything in detail, or at least because he doesn't understand them.
• The second group are phenomena which (almost) certainly don't exist outside of Sheldrake's imagination — namely various parapsychological claims involving memory, telepathy, perception and cognition — particularly psychic dogs.

Most of Sheldrake's ideas are clearly pseudoscientific nonsense. Morphic resonance is extremely vague and ill-defined, and can only really be described as whatever Sheldrake says it is. Crucially, it is not falsifiable, and therefore not testable (although some have tried).

Sheldrake's 2012 book, The Science Delusion, is an anti-scientific rant in which he applies postmodernist hyperscepticism to conventional science, accusing mainstream scientists of adhering to "scientific dogmata", such as the constancy of the speed of light. Ironically, Sheldrake fails to apply any sort of scepticism to his own ideas, which he promotes uncritically, despite there being no evidence for them.

<snip>

TEDx controversy
In January 2013, Sheldrake and the pseudohistorian Graham Hancock gave lectures at the TEDxWhitechapel in East London. In his lecture, Sheldrake criticized modern science, listing what he called "ten dogmas of modern materialist science" that he feels are assumptions without evidence. He also advocated a conspiracy theory that the scientific community have ignored and suppressed evidence for psychic phenomena and other woo topics because they are materialists. A video of the Sheldrake lecture was published on the TEDx YouTube channel which later received criticism from various scientists for promoting pseudoscience. In response, the TED staff issued an official statement explaining that TED's scientific advisers have questioned whether Sheldrake's list of ten dogmas "is a fair description of scientific assumptions" and said "there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake’s more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance". The advisors recommended that Sheldrake's TED talk "should not be distributed without being framed with caution".[8]

The video of the talk was moved from the TEDx YouTube channel to the TED blog, accompanied by framing language and a cautionary introduction. Woo-meisters such as Craig Weiler quickly accused TED of "censorship" and repeated the conspiracy theory that the scientific community is suppressing Sheldrake's ideas. In his blog post on March, 2013 entitled "The Psi Wars Come To TED" he accused the TED staff of being atheists and deliberately censoring Sheldrake,[9] prompting the TED staff to issue a statement that, "The reason people are upset is because they think there has been censorship. But it's simply not true. Both talks are up on our website."[10]

<snip>
Full article at:
Rupert Sheldrake - RationalWiki

 

[Norbert]

Basically Scientism is what this whole thread is about...

Science is not scientism.
You may believe this planet, with its resources, is a gift to humankind, of spiritual origin.
However, as the only species on this planet, we have also received the ability to understand how this planet works physically.
In your world, that would be another gift of spiritual origin.
And with that gift comes the responsibility to take care of this planet, as we are reaching its limits.
So in your world, climate change denial is not just stupid, but also evil.

 

[Chopr147]

However, as the only species on this planet, we have also received the ability to understand how this planet works physically.

Then why do "scientism" people insist we have 96 genders? It's the same people. Nutty Democrats getting wealthy off Global Warming yelled "It's science" for years until the gender problem reared it's ugly head.

 

[winfield100]

However, as the only species on this planet, we have also received the ability to understand how this planet works physically.

Then why do "scientism" people insist we have 96 genders? It's the same people. Nutty Democrats getting wealthy off Global Warming yelled "It's science" for years until the gender problem reared it's ugly head.

please explain in simple terms. is this a mashup of Onion articles? it's seems english, yet is nonsensical

 

[mspohr]

However, as the only species on this planet, we have also received the ability to understand how this planet works physically.

Then why do "scientism" people insist we have 96 genders? It's the same people. Nutty Democrats getting wealthy off Global Warming yelled "It's science" for years until the gender problem reared it's ugly head.

The only people getting rich off the Climate Disaster are the fossil fuels people.
(The rest of your post is gibberish.)

 

[Chopr147]

If you say so Bet you won't answer the gender question

 

[mspohr]

If you say so Bet you won't answer the gender question

Why are you obsessed with gender? Do you have issues?

 

[Unpilot]

People that study gender are trained in a different discipline than people who study climate science.

Why mix the two?