Forbidden climate debate (out of Main)

[Fact Checking]

I have no desire to argue about climate change. Merely was pointing out how arrogant people who say the issue is decided are.

I have a very simple request: please cite a study from a single peer-reviewed organization of scientists that rejects anthropomorphic global warming based on the latest data.

My claim: you won't be able to, because the scientific evidence is overwhelming:

You won't find a single one.

Anthropomorphic global warming is a scientifically accepted fact because an overwhelming body of evidence is backing it: the planetary scale geoengineering experiment of thickening our only planet's heat mirror by 50% had the effect that was predicted over a hundred years ago already, it's warming the planet.

To quote a 1912 newspaper article:

You also won't be able to link to a single peer reviewed scientific study that claims that the Earth is flat or that humanity didn't land on the Moon either - because the scientific evidence for these is overwhelming.

The car has become associated with liberal politics.

Again, that's a false claim - while EVs are naturally associated with environmentalism, it's only the U.S. breed of conservative politics that rejects global warming - European conservatives, including borderline Nazis, are overwhelmingly accepting it.

Even in the U.S. public opinion is turning, devastating hurricane by devastating hurricane:

Finally, pandering to the science denying beliefs of a certain, shrinking group of U.S. conservatives won't really help with Tesla adaption, as it will alienate the sane majority of prospective Tesla buyers - and most of those conservatives will find another excuse to not have to support Tesla anyway.

Hint: rejection of Tesla has very little to do with global warming or liberalism, but everything to do with the "Old Energy" status quo (owners of coal and oil interests) controlling current mainstream U.S. Republican political messaging lock, stock and barrel.

EVs are going to reduce global crude oil consumption by a factor of 5x-10x, and the solar and wind energy industry (combined with shale gas extraction) is killing the U.S. coal industry. No amount of Tesla PR or careful tiptoeing around global warming delusions is going to fix that fundamental "problem" of Tesla disrupting a 100+ trillion dollars industry.

Tesla and Tesla supporters trying to pander to an increasingly isolated belief system of anti-science would be entirely counterproductive from an organic demand development point of view

 

[Sean Wagner]

To quote a 1912 newspaper article:

It would be really nice to know this quote's provenance. I occasionally find it useful to point out that the science behind our understanding of the atmosphere's properties on a planetary level substantially predates our capacity to dangerously alter it.

 

[ClimateOptimst]

I have a very simple request: please cite a study from a single peer-reviewed organization of scientists that rejects anthropomorphic global warming.

My claim: you won't be able to, because the scientific evidence is overwhelming:

You won't find a single one.

Anthropomorphic global warming is a scientifically accepted fact because an overwhelming body of evidence is backing it: the planetary scale geoengineering experiment of thickening our only planet's heat mirror by 50% had the effect that was predicted over a hundred years ago already, it's warming the planet.

To quote a 1912 newspaper article:

You also won't be able to link to a single peer reviewed scientific study that claims that the Earth is flat or that humanity didn't land on the Moon either - because the scientific evidence for these is overwhelming.



Again, that's a false claim - while EVs are naturally associated with environmentalism, it's only the U.S. breed of conservative politics that rejects global warming - European conservatives, including borderline Nazis, are overwhelmingly accepting it.

Even in the U.S. public opinion is turning, devastating hurricane by devastating hurricane:

View attachment 423441

Finally, pandering to the science denying beliefs of a certain, shrinking group of U.S. conservatives won't really help with Tesla adaption, as it will alienate the sane majority of prospective Tesla buyers - and most of those conservatives will find another excuse to not have to support Tesla anyway.

Hint: rejection of Tesla has very little to do with global warming or liberalism, but everything to do with the "Old Energy" status quo (owners of coal and oil interests) controlling current mainstream U.S. Republican political messaging lock, stock and barrel.

EVs are going to reduce global crude oil consumption by a factor of 5x-10x, and the solar and wind energy industry (combined with shale gas extraction) is killing the U.S. coal industry. No amount of Tesla PR or careful tiptoeing around global warming delusions is going to fix that fundamental "problem" of Tesla disrupting a 100+ trillion dollars industry.

If you look at the surveys you'll also see that people with higher education and higher income levels (those who can afford a Tesla) are accepting anthropomorphic global warming with an even higher percentage, even in the U.S.

So Tesla and Tesla supporters trying to pander to an increasingly isolated belief system of anti-science would be entirely counterproductive from an organic demand development point of view.

oh heck, if FactChecking's going all in and the mods are going to delete these posts anyway, then here's another good peer-reviewed paper debunking the myth associated the strength & length of the scientific consensus on this topic. The global climate models and scientific consensus have been correct and largely consistent now for 40+ years. Moreover, what's known about how the global climate system works and the accompanying empirical datasets are orders of magnitude greater than they were in the 70's when we first figured this out. We should all be scared regarding what the climate is predicted to be doing by mid to late century unless we start getting our *suger* together in a hurry.

Peterson, T.C., Connolley, W.M. and Fleck, J., 2008. The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), pp.1325-1338.

 

[Fact Checking]

It would be really nice to know this quote's provenance. I occasionally find it useful to point out that the science behind our understanding of the atmosphere's properties on a planetary level substantially predates our capacity to dangerously alter it.

The quote I cited originates from a Popular Mechanics article from 1912:

Here's a collection of historic news coverage about the heat mirror properties of carbon dioxide pollution:

News Coverage of Coal's Link to Global Warming, in 1912​

(The article contains links to the primary sources.)

Basically in 1895 Swedish Chemist Svante Arrhenius measured the infrared absorbing properties of carbon dioxide and published his results in 1896 - it took about 1-2 decades for this to become common scientific knowledge (no Internet yet) - and while CO₂ detectors didn't exist yet with enough precision, calculating world coal consumption based on coal production data and estimating its effects on the atmosphere were an obvious logical conclusion many arrived at.

Around 1950 direct measurements of atmospheric CO₂ started.

 

[dhrivnak]

oh heck, if FactChecking's going all in and the mods are going to delete these posts anyway, then here's another good peer-reviewed paper debunking the myth associated the strength & length of the scientific consensus on this topic. The global climate models and scientific consensus have been correct and largely consistent now for 40+ years. Moreover, what's known about how the global climate system works and the accompanying empirical datasets are orders of magnitude greater than they were in the 70's when we first figured this out. We should all be scared regarding what the climate is predicted to be doing by mid to late century unless we start getting our *suger* together in a hurry.

Peterson, T.C., Connolley, W.M. and Fleck, J., 2008. The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), pp.1325-1338.
View attachment 423442

Wow a 40 year old source and even then the overwhelming number of papers indicate warming.

 

[neroden]

haha, you are touching a sensitive topic. Gravity has not been explained by the scientists yet. Calculations are based on empirical observations.

That's.... how science works.

 

[neroden]

I have no desire to argue about climate change. Merely was pointing out how arrogant people who say the issue is decided are.

As arrogant as people who say the Earth goes around the sun, or people who say that water is wet. Yes. "Arrogant". That's the word.

 

[neroden]

It would be really nice to know this quote's provenance. I occasionally find it useful to point out that the science behind our understanding of the atmosphere's properties on a planetary level substantially predates our capacity to dangerously alter it.

I believe Svante Arrhennius is one of the first to have explained the phenomenon; the 1912 newspaper is probably referring to what he wrote, though I haven't verified that.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

We really need to start pushing people off the Investors Forum and into the appropriate other Forums. There's some perfectly robust conversation taking place in the wrong spot, all while annoying most readers of the "main thread". Maybe lets stop calling it "main" to begin with?

Anywho.....I've been trying with little luck to grasp Friston's free energy principle. I still have no clue, but what's clear is directly pushing against someone's internal model of the universe mostly makes the situation worse. It's clear as day the Earth is warming and that human activity is mostly responsible. That doesn't mean deniers don't have evolutionary value or that "our task" is to change their minds.

Leave these poor bastards alone, ranting against them only sets their version of reality more in stone. Free energy or "active inference" implies that every living thing simply wants to minimize variance between their internal model of the universe to what their senses are telling them about the universe. You telling them they're wrong does nearly nothing to help the denier magically change their entire internal model of the universe, that's far more work than the brain is willing to do.

Essentially....if they don't already get it, for whatever potentially rational reason, then they're not changing until the world they perceive moves a good bit first. In other words, shut up and go put solar panels on your roof.

 

[XHabjab]

We really need to start pushing people off the Investors Forum and into the appropriate other Forums. There's some perfectly robust conversation taking place in the wrong spot, all while annoying most readers of the "main thread". Maybe lets stop calling it "main" to begin with?

Okay

... That doesn't mean deniers don't have evolutionary value or that "our task" is to change their minds.

Hmmm... Being labelled a Denier and possibly not having "Evolutionary value" might be a source of pride for them.

...Leave these poor bastards alone, ranting against them only sets their version of reality more in stone.

Probably poor wording. I'd bet that most of them are born with both parents married. IMHO the point otherwise stands.

 

[Mader Levap]

Leave these poor bastards alone, ranting against them only sets their version of reality more in stone.

Disagree. Sure, discussing issues on internet with such ideological hardliners won't convince them. Fortunately, you don't have to. You have to convince people reading that discussion.

 

[EVNow]

As arrogant as people who say the Earth goes around the sun, or people who say that water is wet. Yes. "Arrogant". That's the word.

Arrogant is the new word for "have common sense".